Real World Event Discussions

Iraq Situation is Bullshit

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 22:11
VIEWED: 28270
PAGE 14 of 17

SIGNYM

Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:37 PM

WHOA THERE!

I'm trying to narrow down your rather broad-brush explanations into something a bit more testable.

In essence, what you are saying is that capitalism is defined by it's PROPERTY relations. So, have we decided that social mobility and democracy are not required for capitalism to exist? Seems like it to me.

Excluding those issues and focusing on property relations, I have a couple more questions regarding economic decision-making abilities under various economic structures:

Humans also act as consumers. Are consumption decisions (what to buy, where to live etc) inhibited BY LAW OR FORCE under socialism?

Humans also act as investors. Are investment decisions inhibited BY LAW OR FORCE under socialsim?

Humans also act a "laborers". Are employment decisions unhibited BY LAW OR FORCE under socialism?

The reason why I specify "by law or force" is because I KNOW you will say that unless the owner is allowed to do as he wants, consumers, investors, and laborers will face a narrowed range of choices. I don't want to get into that end of the discussion, I'm just trying to get a complete theoretical parsing of what capitalism is or isn't.

GRANNYSTEEL

Wednesday, October 1, 2003 5:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
I understand about capitalization ratios and all that,

Okay, you understand, and it’s hunky dory with you that the rules were manipulated to put as many S&Ls as possible out of business and engineer a contraction of the money supply.
Hard on a lot of home building and related businesses.
And “cartels” arouse your scorn, however what do you call a conglomerate created by leveraged buyouts?
And if you think buyouts increase efficiency look at the glass industry. Higher prices now because there is no competition.

Kleptocratic administrations calling themselves Republican changed the rules in a ways that made it easier for the Masters of the Universe to get richer but harder for the small and medium size business to get loans (in the Old George’s Admin) and risky to go to the capitol markets and that this was bad for most businesses.

It was not until the 3rd year of the Clinton Administration that loans were reasonably available to business again.

In ignorance I will say that I do not know of anything that the present Bush administration has done to exacerbate the situation, however. The previous changes and Greenspan raising interest rates for the 2000 election, which lead the present recession has lead to a hemorrhage of jobs which would be the main topic of national discourse were it not for the distraction of the “War” in Iraq. 3000 odd people were killed in the world trade center. So we went where the terrorists trained and reigned and we cleaned house. But we half-assed it, and now with Iraq on out plate Afganistan is sliding back
into chaos.

However think abut it. When the best job an average American can find is in the military and we are sent off to war as a diversion from the economic mess at home, we have some work to do here.

No! Don't interfere, the Captain wants to handle this himself.

DRAKON

Wednesday, October 1, 2003 8:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
WHOA THERE!

I'm trying to narrow down your rather broad-brush explanations into something a bit more testable.

In essence, what you are saying is that capitalism is defined by it's PROPERTY relations. So, have we decided that social mobility and democracy are not required for capitalism to exist? Seems like it to me.

Social mobility is a product of a capitalistic system. It is not a pre-condition, but a natural effect resulting from free markets. Some folks will work hard and get rich, some won't.

You also have to understand that class distinction are less important if they exist at all, under capitalism. Can you do the job? Well whether you can or cannot is irrelavant to whether you are a king or a commoner.

Democracy, again is a political system and while somewhat related is not necessary for capitalism. Just as democracy, or authoritarianism is not necessary for socialism either. However, what one sees is that capitalistic societies tend toward democracies, as greater economic wealth gives rise to the desire for more political freedom and control. Whereas socialism tends toward authoritarianism because of the information problem inherent in socialist systems, as noted by Hayek.

Or to put it another way, the manner in which laws are enacted is less important than what those laws are. Social mobility and democracy are nor necessary precursors to capitalism. But are natural if unintended effects of that system. The essential ingredient in a capitalistic system is respect for the individual's right to his own property.

Quote:
Humans also act as consumers. Are consumption decisions (what to buy, where to live etc) inhibited BY LAW OR FORCE under socialism?

Humans also act as investors. Are investment decisions inhibited BY LAW OR FORCE under socialsim?

Humans also act a "laborers". Are employment decisions inhibited BY LAW OR FORCE under socialism?

The reason why I specify "by law or force" is because I KNOW you will say that unless the owner is allowed to do as he wants, consumers, investors, and laborers will face a narrowed range of choices. I don't want to get into that end of the discussion, I'm just trying to get a complete theoretical parsing of what capitalism is or isn't.

Again, the difference is whether you make your own choices, as to where to invest, work, make or buy. Or whether someone else does. If you make your own decisions, then you have capitalism. If it is someone else, then we are talking about socialism (or communism or whatever one wants to call it.)

Laws are always enforced by force, coercion. Don't speed or you will be arrested, and your freedoms will be restricted further. Don't kill, don't steal, etc. (again, how those laws are enacted, or decided, is of less relavance than what those particular laws are.)

Heck, I can't get away from the concept of negative and positive rights. Because it is relavant here. Althought this is on the political side of things, it is related to the economic.

You have the right free speech. In practical terms what that means is that I am required to NOT force you to shut up. It puts a negative obligation on me, as it rules out a particular activity on my part. I can do all sorts of things, such as ignore you, argue with you, call you silly names, make faces, anything EXCEPT force you to shut up.

Because it excludes one set of actions from the whole range, we call this a "negative right" By looking at the obligation it places on others, and in particular, that such an obligation is a negative, (not do something, but leave the rest of potential actions alone) it is a negative right.

A 'right to housing' is a positive right. Because you are not requiring a negative action, but a positive one. You are requiring others to build you a house, regardless of what they want to do with those same resources, time etc. Instead of removing one action from the list, you are requiring a specific action and throwing away the list.

The cool thing about negative r

DRAKON

Wednesday, October 1, 2003 9:01 AM

Quote:

Okay, you understand, and it’s hunky dory with you that the rules were manipulated to put as many S&Ls as possible out of business and engineer a contraction of the money supply.

Sigh, that is not what I said, nor meant. The purpose of the new looser regulations at the time was to make S&Ls more competitive with regards to banks and other financial institutions.

Because of those regulations, S&Ls took more risk, and sometimes foolishly. That some of those risks did not pay out, well, that is what happened. If foresight were as good as hindsight, then there would be no risk taking in the first place.

Quote:
In ignorance I will say that I do not know of anything that the present Bush administration has done to exacerbate the situation, however. The previous changes and Greenspan raising interest rates for the 2000 election, which lead the present recession has lead to a hemorrhage of jobs which would be the main topic of national discourse were it not for the distraction of the “War” in Iraq. 3000 odd people were killed in the world trade center. So we went where the terrorists trained and reigned and we cleaned house. But we half-assed it, and now with Iraq on out plate Afganistan is sliding back
into chaos.

Funny. IMF is reporting a 38 percent increase in the Afghani GDP, and they have just annouced a new constitution. Also, since the overthrow of the Taliban, they have a had a refugee exodus back TO Afghanistan, from all over the world. Most, if not all, of the people who fled the Taliban have returned home. To a place that is "sliding back into chaos?" That does not make sense.

One of two possible things is going on here. Either your information and perception is in error, or the vast majority of Afghanis is in error. I am going to bet on the Afghanis being right on this one.

Quote:
However think abut it. When the best job an average American can find is in the military and we are sent off to war as a diversion from the economic mess at home, we have some work to do here.

This is something I have difficulty understanding, although I see it frequently. What you are saying is that this war is somehow "unreal" or done just as a distraction. That it is fake. Yet you note that there were 3,000 people killed on 9-11.

I don't know how to deal with this kind of perspective, because it is so at odds with my own. We are dealing with a radically, and mutually exclusive perception of the common universe we live in.

What I see is there are people out there that want to kill us, and feel it is their God given duty to do so, even if they die in the process. Not for anything you or I might have done, but for the simple reason that we exist as we are.

Now, if you want to die, please, don't let me stop you. Just don't take me with you. Some of us are going to fight, in order to live. You may claim it is a distraction, and you can see all sorts of sinister conspiracies behind it, but sometimes reality is just what it appears to be. Fanatics want to kill us, and will use any means they can get their hands on to do so. We either stop them, or die at their hands.

Yes, national security is an issue, and has displaced the economy as the number one thing on people's minds and probably the key point on which the elections will be won or lost. Because if you are dead, the economy really doesn't matter, as there ain't one.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 1, 2003 7:17 PM

Slow down Drakon! I'm not talking about negative or positive rights or freedom of speech. I just want "yes" or "no" answers if possible, unless of course you suffer from hypergraphia!

So, without including extraneous factors, and restricting yourself to yes/ no so we can reach some common ground without having to go over everything AGAIN, would it be fair to say that capitalism is defined by property laws which

1) recognize and protect property rights
2) allow people in their economic spheres- as consumers, workers, investors, and employers- free economic decisions within a free market
3) do not have one-to-one relationships with co-existing political or social insitutions?

DRAKON

Thursday, October 2, 2003 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Slow down Drakon! I'm not talking about negative or positive rights or freedom of speech. I just want "yes" or "no" answers if possible, unless of course you suffer from hypergraphia!

So, without including extraneous factors, and restricting yourself to yes/ no so we can reach some common ground without having to go over everything AGAIN, would it be fair to say that capitalism is defined by property laws which

1) recognize and protect property rights
2) allow people in their economic spheres- as consumers, workers, investors, and employers- free economic decisions within a free market
3) do not have one-to-one relationships with co-existing political or social insitutions?

Sigh, what can I say. I don't suffer from hypergraphia, I enjoy it

I am trying to be complete, and that does come out as wordy. I will try to be brief.

Your answers:
1) Yes. This is essential. I want to note that property rights is a negative right, as your property right puts an obligation on me to not interfere with your decision. (With the obvious caveats about your decision not to get me killed)

2) Yes. It is essentially the freedom from force or fraud. And again with the obvious caveat.

3) Yes. BUT! there is a causative mechanism at work here.

If men were angels then there would be no need for governments. There would be no need for cops, or prisons, or laws. But men ain't. Sometimes they are stupid, ill-informed. Sometimes they are selfish in the self destructive Nietzchean sense, and some folks are just evil sadistic bastards who like hurting folks.

If everybody played by the rules, then there would be no need for enforcement of those rules. Or working out disputes as to what those rules are, or should be. But different folks will have different information, and different ideas as to how to best do things.

Because of these disagreements, some method of arbitration has to be worked out. And force has to be used to compel the "wrong side" to comply.

Now a centralized ecomony already has a decision making body, and because it controls the economy, and the economy has such an influence over the rest of human experience, such a body already has the capability to force compliance of those who disagree with it.

And because of the information and freeloader problems mentioned earlier, the central authority has to use force to correct for the inherent flaws in that economic system, in order to attempt to keep it running, and keep the central committee in power.

Whereas under capitalism, the government is limited to preserving the (negative) rights of the people, and is limited in its ability to interfere, unless there is a real danger to members of its population. And as the economy grows more and more, people start thinking they are smart enough to do the same job as any other law maker, or executive. And start lobbying for their own place at the political table.

So, what we see is that socialist economies trend toward authoritarian dictatorships. While capitalist economies trend toward democracies. While the particular governmental structure is secondary, we do see a causitive relationship between democracies and capitalism, as well as dictatorships and centralized economic authority.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 2, 2003 7:43 PM

I should have written-

1) Recognize and protect INDIVIDUAL property rights. A society that recognizes and protects communal property rights is obviously not capitalist!

OK, in the interest of refining these definitions, I'm going to go exploring around the edges a little bit to see where these ideas break down. Care to join me?

Does (1) mean that capitalism is "just" a group of laws or a natural and inevitable result of human economic endeavor?

(1) Are there, or should there be, any limits on the use that an individual can make of "their" property? For example, I used my meat smoker and your house gets fumigated.

If people should be allowed to make free choices in a free market (2) does this mean that you favor legalizing street drugs, prostitution, and/ or slavery? Obviously there is supply and demand for all of the above!

If I'm a landowner in the 7th century with free choice in my economic spheres (2) i.e- control over my products, home, and acquisitions- but there are no roads, no currency, and no markets, is this capitalism?

One of the requirements of capitalism seems to be the establishment of a "free market". But what does it take to establish a "free market"- or in fact ANY sort of market- anyway? (2)

(3) If capitalism promotes democracy while socialism promotes dictatorships/ police states, and capitalism should work without force or fraud, then would you expect to see the most capitalist countries with the fewest police? Or, given that ALL societies need some law enforcement, at what level of enforcement (police per capita, percent population in prison) would you consider a society to be a "polic state"?

(3) Indeed, if capitalism is such a boon to the world, then shouldn't the largest capitalist nation have the smallest military and lowest number of military interventions?

DRAKON

Friday, October 3, 2003 9:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I should have written-

1) Recognize and protect INDIVIDUAL property rights. A society that recognizes and protects communal property rights is obviously not capitalist!

First off, I understood your original question in the former sense, rather than the latter. In other words I thought you were talking individual property right anyway.

Second, you need to define what you mean by "communal property rights" Are we talking about property owned in common amongst a group of individuals, or are we talking about "the Tradegy of the Commons?" kind of thing?

Quote:
OK, in the interest of refining these definitions, I'm going to go exploring around the edges a little bit to see where these ideas break down. Care to join me?

I am still here ain't I?

Quote:
Does (1) mean that capitalism is "just" a group of laws or a natural and inevitable result of human economic endeavor?

Yes.

But seriously folks, it is both. Rights are really nothing more than ideas, concepts we create and use. But they are ideas that control or our modify behavior. If I believe in the "right to life" I ain't going on a 3 state killing spree no matter how tempting it may be.

Behavior affects the environment we live, and has consequences. We turn on the switch, because we want the lights on, not to flush the toilet. We all want to live and be happy, so we direct our actions toward those goals. Our behavior is a means toward the goal of maintaining our lives and increasing our happiness.

We engage in a broad class of economic activities for that very reason. To eat, to have a place to sleep, to attract girls, or purchase things that we think will make us happy. Some actions will achieve that goal, and some actions, like turning an electrical switch to flush the toilet, will fail.

And if the action fails, the idea behind the action gets modified. If the concept of "divine rights of kings" does not work, or even no longer works, then we try a different set of concepts. And keep trying till we find the best system to keep us alive and improve our own happiness.

Quote:
(1) Are there, or should there be, any limits on the use that an individual can make of "their" property? For example, I used my meat smoker and your house gets fumigated.

Then you are infringing on my ability to make myself happy, and violating my rights to my property. Also, as you do not want me to do the same to you, it would not be a good idea for you to start such an activity.

Some natural limitations on an individual's freedom become necessary when that individual is put with others. Again, look over what I was saying about negative rights earlier. And social contracts in that same post.

Quote:
If people should be allowed to make free choices in a free market (2) does this mean that you favor legalizing street drugs, prostitution, and/ or slavery? Obviously there is supply and demand for all of the above!

Grin,

As to slavery, I am not in favor of it. You own you. I cannot own you, even if you offer to sell yourself. My mind control chips are all at the shop right now, so I have no way of controlling you to begin with, without your permission.

As for drugs and prostitution, I don't think the government is right in stopping it, unless it becomes a health hazard to others. If you are taking drugs and driving, or otherwise putting others at risk, we got a problem. But its your body, and you want to ruin it, or screw yourself up, that is your business. I may advise you that such are bad ideas, and you really don't want to go there. But I would not use force to prevent you.

But that is me. There are those who see drug use as a hazard to others, not without reason. And some who see prostitution as very little different from slavery, as well as a health hazard, and destructive to the family unit. But these are really side issues when it comes to capitalism.

Quote:
If I'm a landowner in

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

DRAKON

Friday, October 3, 2003 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I should have written-

1) Recognize and protect INDIVIDUAL property rights. A society that recognizes and protects communal property rights is obviously not capitalist!

Quote:
OK, in the interest of refining these definitions, I'm going to go exploring around the edges a little bit to see where these ideas break down. Care to join me?

I am still here ain't I?

Quote:
Does (1) mean that capitalism is "just" a group of laws or a natural and inevitable result of human economic endeavor?

Yes.

Quote:
(1) Are there, or should there be, any limits on the use that an individual can make of "their" property? For example, I used my meat smoker and your house gets fumigated.

Quote:
If people should be allowed to make free choices in a free market (2) does this mean that you favor legalizing street drugs, prostitution, and/ or slavery? Obviously there is supply and demand for all of the above!

Quote:
If I'm a landowner in

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 4, 2003 1:23 AM

Second, you need to define what you mean by "communal property rights" Are we talking about property owned in common amongst a group of individuals, or are we talking about "the Tradegy of the Commons?" kind of thing?

I meant- a society that only recognizes common ownership and views individual ownership as illegal.

I am still here ain't I?

Thank goodness!

Quote:
Does (1) mean that capitalism is "just" a group of laws or a natural and inevitable result of human economic endeavor?

Yes.

But seriously folks, it is both.

We engage in a broad class of economic activities ...some actions, like turning an electrical switch to flush the toilet, will fail.

And if the action fails, the idea behind the action gets modified. If the concept of "divine rights of kings" does not work, or even no longer works, then we try a different set of concepts. And keep trying till we find the best system to keep us alive and improve our own happiness.

You seem to view the range of possible actions as static, in other words, capitalism was always there but society needed to stumble around for a bit before revising it's ideas to match the activity, whereas I take a different tack. See further.

Quote:
(1) Are there, or should there be, any limits on the use that an individual can make of "their" property? For example, I used my meat smoker and your house gets fumigated.

Quote:
If people should be allowed to make free choices in a free market (2) does this mean that you favor legalizing street drugs, prostitution, and/ or slavery? Obviously there is supply and demand for all of the above!

Grin,

As to slavery, I am not in favor of it....
As for drugs and prostitution, I don't think the government is right in stopping it, unless it becomes a health hazard to others. If you are taking drugs and driving, or otherwise putting others at risk, we got a problem. But its your body, and you want to ruin it, or screw yourself up, that is your business. I may advise you that such are bad ideas, and you really don't want to go there. But I would not use force to prevent you.

What about in the case where drugs cause addiction even with first-time use? Who picks up the bill for an addict's medical treatment or- presuming they have violated OTHER laws in chasing their habit- incarceration?

Quote:
If I'm a landowner in the 7th century with free choice in my economic spheres (2) i.e- control over my products, home, and acquisitions- but there are no roads, no currency, and no markets, is this capitalism?

One of the requirements of capitalism seems to be the establishment of a "free market". But what does it take to establish a "free market"- or in fact ANY sort of market- anyway? (2)

What are free markets free from? Force and fraud.

Who do you appeal to if force or fraud is comitted?

Now currency is not an issue. But the lack of roads and markets renders the question moot. If you are not interacting with other people, it really does not matter what you call your economic activity. If no one is forcing you, (but you), you can call it capitalism if you like. But who are you going to tell?

This is where we disagree. The "law of supply and demand" and the force of competition only work (according to theory) in a free market, which pre-supposes that you have a market to begin with. The indigenous tribe member has a lot of free choices- where to build the hut, how to shape the spear, when to go hunting- but you wouldn't call it capitalism by any stretch of imagination.

Not only that, but the establishment of a common currency is a requirement for capitalism. How do you pay your workers? In bowling balls? What are they supposed to