Comrade Chavez At Climate Summit

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' date='20 December 2009 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1261348756' post='2023672']
I find it interesting that none of the worlds largest and most productive economies are on that list.
[/quote]
All of those countries (with the possible exception of Singapore) are very prosperous with high living standards.

The top ten are:
1 Hong Kong
2 Singapore
3 Australia
4 Ireland
5 New Zealand
6 United States
7 Canada
8 Denmark
9 Switzerland
10 United Kingdom

[url="http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx"]Full list here.[/url]

[Nihil Obstat]

I think Singapore is a pretty nice place to live too. Unless you're crazy attached to civil liberties. Standard of living wise it's pretty high up though.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Winchester' date='21 December 2009 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1261368698' post='2023887']
Capitalism is not about justice, it's about making money. It's not about the dignity of the human person and it places capital as the sole end of commerce to the exclusion of all other concerns. A capitalist does not make a good product because he wants to make a good product, but because it makes him money. The system is morally inadequate. I'm merely pointing out that capitalism is unworthy of the total support of the Catholic.[/quote]

I've grown to despise the word "capitalism." It's ambiguous and therefore only hinders communication. People who claim to support "capitalism" tend to use the word to mean a free market, meaning an economy based on private property and voluntary exchange. This is what I support, and I support it not because I love profits or whatever but because it's voluntary rather than aggressive. Profit making is only incidental to this; it develops naturally in a voluntary society because people have a natural drive to better their lot in society. And this drive is perfectly benign so long as it doesn't override other priorities. Even when it does, that's a moral and spiritual problem for the individual. So long as that individual is behaving in a non-aggressive manner, his actions are legal in free market economy no matter how personally greedy he is. As with drunkenness, we can use persuasion to try to convince him to change his priorities, but we can not initiate [i]force[/i] against him to drive him to change his ways. And that's a very, very important distinction to a free market supporter, since the whole point of a free economy is that it is non-aggressive.

However, the term "capitalism" was originally popularized by 19th century socialists to refer to the economy as it existed at the time, which they opposed because they opposed private ownership of the means of production. Therefore, to them, any economy in which such structures as private ownership of factories, employment or rental contracts, and capital investment exist is "capitalism." Modern opponents of "capitalism," whether they are socialists or not, seem to use "capitalism" in similar way. For a supporter of voluntary free market, this is a problematic definition. Many economies include private ownership, profit making, and so forth without being anything like a [i]fully voluntary[/i] free market. For example, the current Western economy includes all these things, so you call it "capitalism." Yet the current economy is distorted by all sorts of aggressive interferences. For just one of a hundred examples, the production of money is monopolized by the state, which uses force to prevent the usage of money outside its purview. In a voluntary free market, money would be a market creation, such as gold or silver. "Capitalism," under the definition you are using, blurs the distinction between a free market and the kind of economy we have today, which is more akin to 17th century mercantilism. And I consider this distinction absolutely crucial, since it is the difference between a truly voluntary society and an society of aggression. I define aggression as any act that infringes on someone else's natural rights over his mind, body, or legitimately-obtained property, either through the initiation of force or through fraud.

You say you oppose capitalism because it's "about making money" instead of justice. Well, everyone has a natural desire for material self-betterment, and this will not change, regardless of the legal or economic structures of the society they inhabit. It's human nature. But [i]only[/i] a voluntary free market, whether you call it capitalism or something else, is just because only a free market prohibits the use of aggression in any fashion, from any quarter.

[quote]The state coming to mediate might help, but it's also not some surety of justice, even if motivated by justice.[/quote]

In fact, when the state intervenes, it usually does so as an enemy of justice, as when it engages in wealth redistribution, meddles in contracts, pilfers property through "eminent domain," or issues dictates telling people how to run their businesses.

[quote]The best solution is a well-educated and devoted aristocracy--people who understand justice, provide an example of it and, yes, coerce the classes beneath through their authority. Disdain and praise are forms of coercion.[/quote]

Your definition of coercion is very different from my own. To me, it's the initiation of force--or the threat thereof--to drive someone to do act in a way you want them to. It is entirely different from non-aggressive persuasion ("disdain and praise"). Disdain and praise are fine. The initiation of force is aggressive and [i]not[/i] fine.

Do you think you can create and maintain the institution of a "well-educated and devoted aristocracy" without the use of aggression (the initiation of force or fraud)? If so, fine. I'll tolerate anything you like so long as it's voluntary. But I have a zero-tolerance policy for any agenda that continences the use of aggression.

[quote]I also maintain that free trade agreements are essentially non-existent. There is always coercion, there is always a difference in power.[/quote]

Here's yet another interesting term: power. What is "power"? To me, power is when one person has the ability to act aggressively towards someone else. Economic leverage is not power. That idea is another meme originated by the 19th century socialists, by the way. I'm not accusing you a being a socialist, but that is indeed where these notions came from. But we must keep a strict focus on whether or not one party is actually initiating force or fraud against the other party. If not, it's a voluntary agreement by definition and therefore should be legal, regardless of whether or not you or I might personally disapprove of it.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Hassan' date='21 December 2009 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1261369592' post='2023896']
Somalia's colonial master was the British. So I'd wager to be that in its history is has been at least slightly influenced by English Common Law, the Enlightenment et cetera.[/quote]

Yes, perhaps, but I meant before imperialism, during which it was on the receiving end of aggressive conquest. That's hardly equivalent to how these things developed in Western countries. My broader point is that a country like Somalia can't be compared to Western countries. All countries are different in their history, their economy, their culture, their surrounding environment, etc and few are so different as the US and Somalia in that regard. That's why the rhetorical ploy of bringing up Somalia to refute libertarian ideas is so fallacious.

[quote]Not to mention that Marxism, the ideological basis of that communist ideology, is an ideology which can be very much located as a direct product of certain aspects of enlightenment thought.[/quote]

In some ways it borrowed ideas from the Enlightenment. In other ways, they are totally different. For one thing, most Enlightenment philosophy was rooted in the idea of natural rights, whereas Marxism is utilitarian.

[quote]Do you think that nobody in anarchist societies will pollute the habitat of weaker members of society?[/quote]

Polluting someone else's private property is aggressive and should therefore be subject to retaliation. That's how individuals in an anarchist society or any society should deal with pollution.

[quote]That various individual actors will not conspire to inhibit their economic practices in ways beneficial to them?[/quote]

In what way? Through the use of aggression? If so, it's illegitimate. We already have that to the nth degree in the form of states and connected interest groups, so I don't know what you're worried about.

[quote]The state does not create the evil and immoral practices of human beings.[/quote]

It's the product of those evil and immoral practices.

[quote]It's just an instrument that is available to use to further evil motives. If not the state then some other mechanism will be used.[/quote]

If that statement is accurate, it may be a reason for cynical apathy, but it's not a reason for supporting the state.

[quote]According to what indicators and why?[/quote]

If you want to look into this, here's a pair of videos that demonstrates this in more detail and more persuasively than I can. The man narrating them, Stefan Molyneux, is a hardline atheist, so I can not and do not endorse everything he says. Nonetheless, he lays out a strong argument about Somalia.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=0629B97DDFA9C7DB"]Somalia: Part 1[/url] and [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBuPECU0_P0&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=0629B97DDFA9C7DB"]Somalia: Part 2[/url]

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='22 December 2009 - 03:12 AM' timestamp='1261469521' post='2024317']
If you want to look into this, here's a pair of videos that demonstrates this in more detail and more persuasively than I can. The man narrating them, Stefan Molyneux, is a hardline atheist, so I can not and do not endorse everything he says. Nonetheless, he lays out a strong argument about Somalia.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=0629B97DDFA9C7DB"]Somalia: Part 1[/url] and [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBuPECU0_P0&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=0629B97DDFA9C7DB"]Somalia: Part 2[/url]
[/quote]


King's Rook's Pawn, looks as though statelessness (though not the kind of anarchy we speak of) has, in actuality, benefited the Somalis. They're infinitely better off now than they were under the State, and much better off than their State-ruled neighbors.

The videos (and their UN-backed facts) punch clean holes right through the unfounded, emotional arguments of those who perceive of Somalians as a bunch of savages running around with AK-47's and eating kittens.

~Sternhauser

Edited December 22, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

Disorganized tyranny is better than organized tyranny because disorganization is less effective.

[jonyelmony]

First of all per Capita Hong Kong and Singapore are close to the two richest nations on earth and per capita is the relevant number when comparing the economic development/prosperity of a nation. China has a huge economy but the majority of people are still poor. Hong Kong and Singapore are truly amzing, especially Singapore which was as poor as any where in Africa in the 60's. The fact that both Hong Kong and Singapore are City states has helped both in there Economic freedom and their development (Rural populations are both poorer and usually have enough political clout to enforce policy which redistributes to them/ lowers barriers to trade).

I am not a big fan of using Isms, every economy in the world today is a mixed economy, with the only difference being the difference in mix. I am curious as to how Australia got to number three on the Economic freedom rank as we are far more a social democracy than America, I think the rank may be based solely on barriers to external trade (forgetting all other taxes and regulations).

An entrirely planned economies will always fail because governments are far more inneficient at gathering and acting on information than markets. Though the incentives of markets are not always going to lined up with the goals that a society, or at least the voting public may have in which case planning and intervention are justified, though the limitiations of governement intervention need to be recognized there will allways be a cost and the question is whether you will be willing to wear the cost.

People don't realize the importance of the legal system to economic activity. For instance Somalias troubles are rotted in the very fact that they did not have a real experience with Common Law, the legal system put in place was created entirely for the British to extract from Somalia and did not give any Somalians propert rights. Further every place that the British have chosen to colonise for the purpose of residance has become extemely prosperous . We take the ability to enforce a contract for granted. Personally i don't see why the free market has to be explicitly linked to the primacy of Capital. I think a simple change to corporation law where a firm is controlled by the providers of Labour rather than the providors of capital would go along way to creating a system of Free Enterprise without the inequality of the current system. the idea of providers of labour rather than the providers of capital controlling a firm is seems to be mind blowing though. Even most labour co-operatives only dream of giving control to workers by having the workers own the capital, my dream is more of Labour owning the Firm (controlling the firm) no matter who owns the Capital.

Edited December 23, 2009 by jonyelmony

[jonyelmony]

Winchester, the free market economy does not preclude people from creating a better product so as to improve society or for bosses to be generous to their workers. A free market economy does allow for people to people to act selfishly and this will often leave any two people in an interaction better off. Why you would expect to find an aristocracy more concerned about justice than our current capitlists or previous Economic Planners I am not sure. As i said in my previous post I think that changing the legal structure of the firm could go along way to switiching the power from those who provde Capital to those who provide labour and thus provide a more equal and just society.

Further I am interested when you say the true value of labour do you mean the value of an hour worked or the value of the person providing the labour. I think the value of the person providing the labour is almost entirly independent of the value who each hour he works. For instance if a man is unemployed, not working, he is not worthless, i should hope that he will be able to keep from starving a roof over his head. I don't for instance feel it is immoral to say be willing to pay someone $10 to mow my lawn but $1000 on someone to spend the same amount of time performing surgery on my shoulders. Further i don't think i should be any more guilty about the people who earn $2 an hour making my Nike shoes than I am about the subsistence farmer who harvest the equivalent of $1 of food a week. The fact that either person is in the situation they are is immoral but at least the Nike worker is objectivly better off.