The Cure for High Food and Gas Prices

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

Stop worshipping at the Altar of Libertarianism. Democracy demands the people get what they want, despite what anyone holds as sacred or what your interpretation of inaliable rights are.

'Democracy' is an abstract concept that does not demand anything. What unfettered democracy does is allow a majority of the people to demand what they want even if that desire is inimical to society as a whole, or immoral at its core. The purpose of a Constitution was to check the whims of the majority; to prevent people like you from enforcing their lunacy on the rest of us.

You can't definitively tell anyone what their rights are--because the only reason you think they are inaliable rights is because someone else said so. Laws evolve.

Murder is immoral, stealing is immoral, slavery is immoral -- do you agree or disagree with any or all of the above?

You would have the government loose the reigns only to see the world burn under it's own wickedness and brutality--but you don't care because you probably live somewhere secluded and own enough guns to keep them off of your property.

I live in suburban Long Island and I neither own nor have ever fired a gun. Don't presume to know me. I don't think the world will burn under it's own wickedness and brutality in the absence of nationalization of the oil industry, but if you want to keep waxing hyperbolic by all means continue.

Economic freedom is as much as pipedream as my Communist central economic planning.

The former has been proven to increase prosperity, if unevenly, for the entirety of a society. The latter has been proven to cause chaos and death. Capitalism actually works; Communist central economic planning has been PROVEN to not work and to be completely unworkable.

Corporations are hyenas. They will do whatever it takes to maximize profit, at the expense of the people. They have no morals, they have no rules, and they will do whatever is required to turn profit. When one company owns the farms, the cows and the feed--how does one break into the market? Oh, right, you don't. That's free market.

Right, because in the absence of benevolent government the corporations would scheme and plot until all the property is theirs. One corporation is somehow going to own every single farm, cow, and ounce of feed -- right. And I'm the crazy one?

[spronk]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

Democracy demands the people get what they want, despite what anyone holds as sacred or what your interpretation of inaliable rights are. You can't definitively tell anyone what their rights are--because the only reason you think they are inaliable rights is because someone else said so. Laws evolve.

Economic freedom is as much as pipedream as my Communist central economic planning. Corporations are hyenas. They will do whatever it takes to maximize profit, at the expense of the people. They have no morals, they have no rules, and they will do whatever is required to turn profit. When one company owns the farms, the cows and the feed--how does one break into the market? Oh, right, you don't. That's free market.

Which is why we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. Democracy is mob rule. We are supposed to have elected officials who can defy the "will of the people" if their morals call for it - sometimes good - like desegregation, sometimes bad - like Vietnam or Iraq.

Corporations are always painted as evil entities that have no souls, but thats not entirely true. They want to be portrayed in a positive light, they want people to think of them as nice and caring and giving. Target donates 10% of its profits to schools, there are thousands of examples of corporations paying employees to volunteer. Sure they get tax breaks and all that jazz but image is important to them. Yes there are the Enrons or some hedge funds or the China-pet-food importers that are evil, but just like people you get the bad with the good.

In 1900 England was the richest country in the world, with the highest living standard, most educated population, lowest infant mortality rate, etc. By all standards it was the #1 country in the world. By 1950 the United States had replaced it in every statistic. This has happened many times in history - Portugal, Spain, France, Rome, Egypt, Mongols, Moghuls, etc.

What we are seeing are the tremors of the same "displacement" of the United States by others. It'll take 20-50 years more so no reason for most people to panic. We'll probably see more and more hysteria from US citizens as more and more things get displaced, I suspect the olympics are going to be interesting, especially if China heavily dominates over us.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

There is no right to education, or to be kept warm, or to eat. That is all nonsense.

You quote Hayek, who I'm sure you know self-identified as a follower of classical liberalism. The difference today, if you will, is the recognition of public goods and what constitutes as such.

Libertarians don't recognize public goods and consider everything through property rights. So you don't have a right to clean air, but the person who owns some property may sue whoever is causing pollution to his land. Other than being inefficient, it also poses the problem that people who don't own property can't sue for things like air pollution or noise. It brings along the danger of going back to a society that makes a difference between people who own property and those who don't.

Classical liberalism shares much of libertarianism, but does recognize public goods. While education itself may not be a public good, a "well educated workforce" certainly is: even if I don't contribute a cent to education, I can still profit greatly from having educated people nearby.

Both classical liberalism and libertarianism recognize the need for the state to provide security. This is rather abstract though and neither side specifies a way for this to be achieved. Traditionally it meant more police and more military. Today, this view has evolved though: we know that good social programs are effective at reducing crime and can train people to get them into the workforce, so it may be far more cost effective to do it this way. Paying for police, courts and prisons isn't cheap and doesn't have any beneficial side-effects: you simply keep people out of society and the market.


Hayek was far less of a libertarian that many of the people who quote him today...

Libertarianism's resemblance to liberalism is superficial; in the end, libertarians reject essential liberal institutions. Correctly understood, libertarianism resembles a view that liberalism historically defined itself against, the doctrine of private political power that underlies feudalism. Like feudalism, libertarianism conceives of justified political power as based in a network of private contracts. It rejects the idea, essential to liberalism, that political power is a public power, to be impartially exercised for the common good.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

'Democracy' is an abstract concept that does not demand anything. What unfettered democracy does is allow a majority of the people to demand what they want even if that desire is inimical to society as a whole, or immoral at its core. The purpose of a Constitution was to check the whims of the majority; to prevent people like you from enforcing their lunacy on the rest of us.

I thought the purpose of the Constitution, as per you, was to stop the Federal Government from removing our rights? What if State Governments vote for it? Then what? Re-define what you want some more?

Murder is immoral, stealing is immoral, slavery is immoral -- do you agree or disagree with any or all of the above?

I do not agree with all of the above.

I live in suburban Long Island and I neither own nor have ever fired a gun. Don't presume to know me. I don't think the world will burn under it's own wickedness and brutality in the absence of nationalization of the oil industry, but if you want to keep waxing hyperbolic by all means continue.

Now now, don't go selectively quoting me. The context of my comment is that you want entirely free-market, no government interference Capitalism--that is what elicited my response. You know better.

The former has been proven to increase prosperity, if unevenly, for the entirety of a society. The latter has been proven to cause chaos and death. Capitalism actually works; Communist central economic planning has been PROVEN to not work and to be completely unworkable.

Capitalism works? I thought no where in the world has Capitalism, especially here? So Capitalism worked once or twice in history where, exactly? If Capitalism is so awesome, why isn't it here?

Right, because in the absence of benevolent government the corporations would scheme and plot until all the property is theirs. One corporation is somehow going to own every single farm, cow, and ounce of feed -- right. And I'm the crazy one?

Are you arguing that the inevitable end of laissez-faire free-market capitalism isn't monopoly? Really? Would you like to re-think your position?

Read up on Monsanto. They are well on their way to attempting to control every last aspect of agricultural practice in America.

You can preserve someone's rights and still have nationalized oil. They aren't mutually inclusive, and to say otherwise is a large task.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Libertarians = Feudalists

That clicks over, thanks for the ammo. I knew there was a reason I didn't particularly like them, but now it makes sense. A return to feudalism is something to abhor.

[fanaskin]

this is exactly what i'm talking about on one hand you despise corporations central authority and goverment and what do you propose? give them more responsibility influence and power.

all government is bad, capatalism is the least harmful it allows for decentralisation of power by letting people other than central goverment provide and thus loosens control. sometimes it's fustrating but thats the point, to fustrate any attempt to gain too much power.

also i dunno why you don't think capatalism doesn't exist when most of the world works on market based economies. it's kind of absurd really.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

I thought the purpose of the Constitution, as per you, was to stop the Federal Government from removing our rights? What if State Governments vote for it? Then what? Re-define what you want some more?

The purpose of the Constitution was to provide for a federal government of limited and defined powers. A government which would neither itself violate rights as they were conceived at the time, nor permit a majority of citizens -- through it -- to do the same. In the early years of the Republic, if a state government voted, for instance, to abridge freedom of speech, that was its business; the beauty of federalism was that a person was within his rights to leave that state and go elsewhere. I am not, by the way, any sort of slave to the Constitution. I differ very much from Ron Paul in that respect. The failings of that particular document proliferate in society today.

I do not agree with all of the above.

Feel free to elaborate.

Now now, don't go selectively quoting me. The context of my comment is that you want entirely free-market, no government interference Capitalism--that is what elicited my response. You know better.

I quoted the entirety of your post, guy. Don't go accusing me of selective quoting. From where, by the way, did you discern my desire for entirely free-market, no government interference Capitalism? I ask because in your hurry to assume facts not in evidence you misstate my position. In actuality what I desire is for as little government as is feasible. I happen not to know where exactly the stopping point lies, but I am by no means committed to anarchy no matter the consequences. Glad to clear that up for you.

Capitalism works? I thought no where in the world has Capitalism, especially here? So Capitalism worked once or twice in history where, exactly? If Capitalism is so awesome, why isn't it here?

To answer your first question: Yes, capitalism works. While it has never been fully implemented anywhere, we see the extent to which it works all around us. This is so obvious it hardly begs further exposition, but I'll do so just for you: Look at East Germany as compared to West Germany; look at North Korea as compared to South Korea; look at pre-Deng China as compared to post-Deng China. All three examples involve two societies which are fundamentally exact (as exact as can be hoped for in the social sciences) in culture, language, and resources. The differences were in political and economic systems. In each case, the former stagnated and suffered while the latter flourished. Yes, capitalism works, and no, central economic planning does not. To deny this is an absolute absurdity.

Are you arguing that the inevitable end of laissez-faire free-market capitalism isn't monopoly? Really? Would you like to re-think your position?

Prove it.

Monsanto, Microsoft, etc. If you removed government subsidies for farming, you'd see the same result for farms.

And you SERIOUSLY think Microsoft qualifies as a monopoly?

You can preserve someone's rights and still have nationalized oil. They aren't mutually inclusive, and to say otherwise is a large task.

Not if you accept, as most human beings do, that those rights include property rights.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by fanaskin

this is exactly what i'm talking about on one hand you despise corporations central authority and goverment and what do you propose? give them more responsibility influence and power.

all government is bad, capatalism is the least harmful it allows for decentralisation of power by letting people other than central goverment provide and thus loosens control. sometimes it's fustrating but thats the point, to fustrate any attempt to gain too much power.

also i dunno why you don't think capatalism doesn't exist when most of the world works on market based economies. it's kind of absurd really.

Are you talking to me? You seem to have Ancalagon's argument mixed with mine.

I despise this current regime, but I trust that there are people out there who can and will safeguard us as a government should.

I don't think Capitalism doesn't exist, I was merely quoting Anacalagon on that one.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Hayek was far less of a libertarian that many of the people who quote him today...

I'm aware. I don't only quote people who agree with me entirely. That would leave me with few enough people to quote.

You quote Hayek, who I'm sure you know self-identified as a follower of classical liberalism. The difference today, if you will, is the recognition of public goods and what constitutes as such.

A difference of degree, not of kind. Public goods were extant when Hayek roamed the earth (you know, in the 1970s).

Libertarians don't recognize public goods and consider everything through property rights. So you don't have a right to clean air, but the person who owns some property may sue whoever is causing pollution to his land. Other than being inefficient, it also poses the problem that people who don't own property can't sue for things like air pollution or noise. It brings along the danger of going back to a society that makes a difference between people who own property and those who don't.

You commit the fallacy of thinking libertarians are some monolithic group; they are not. They come in many stripes and colors. Relatively few libertarians completely repudiate the notion of public goods; they are the avowed anarcho-capitalists, of whom Murray Rothbard was probably the greatest champion. Most libertarians, be they minarchists (who subscribe to a sort of night watchman state: cops, courts, military -- nothing else), or constitutionalists (who want that document adhered to) 'believe' in public goods. You're arguing against a straw man.

Classical liberalism shares much of libertarianism, but does recognize public goods. While education itself may not be a public good, a "well educated workforce" certainly is: even if I don't contribute a cent to education, I can still profit greatly from having educated people nearby.

Classical liberals throughout history have not been anarchists for the most part; if that is what you mean to say than I agree. But it would be a callous misreading of classical liberalism to think that public education, for instance, is a sine qua non of the classical liberal society. While I am sure some self-described classical liberals supported public education, I am also sure that others did not. Again, be careful of the fallacy of the monolith.

Both classical liberalism and libertarianism recognize the need for the state to provide security. This is rather abstract though and neither side specifies a way for this to be achieved. Traditionally it meant more police and more military. Today, this view has evolved though: we know that good social programs are effective at reducing crime and can train people to get them into the workforce, so it may be far more cost effective to do it this way. Paying for police, courts and prisons isn't cheap and doesn't have any beneficial side-effects: you simply keep people out of society and the market.

I'm not sure what your point is. I have not advocated for anarchy in this thread nor am I a dyed-in-the-wool anarchist.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

Feel free to elaborate.

Murder can be justified when protecting yourself or your family. Theft can be justified when the choices have been reduced to life or death. It is the government's responsibility to prevent either act from occuring if the individual cannot.

To answer your first question: Yes, capitalism works. While it has never been fully implemented anywhere

I remember being lambasted for saying something similar--"Communism in it's purest form has never been practiced, and thus what we've seen is a misrepresentation."

I got a lot of eye-rolls for that. Please enjoy some from me.

And you SERIOUSLY think Microsoft qualifies as a monopoly?

United States Microsoft antitrust case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- seriously? What would you call a company that controls more than 90% of the market share on a given product?

Not if you accept, as most human beings do, that those rights include property rights.

Thankfully, I view individual property rights as superior to corporate property rights. Feudalist.

Prove it.

Monopoly and Capitalism - Won't capitalism lead to harmful monopolies that make excessive profits?

Perhaps you should do more thorough reading and not just the buzzworthy authors.

[fanaskin]

exactly, trust in central federal government, why? your just giving it more power. why don't you let decentralized states/counties manage themselves. and instead of nationalizing and dictating at a federal level,why not use incentives and subsidies to encourage americans to help themselves solve american problems. instead of taking the harder path and attaining liberty from goverment and attaining more economic/property/civil freedom you'd rather hand the reigns over to somebody else and give them more control. ALL government is bad it doesn't matter who is in charge. just cause you hat ethe current regime means next to nothing, it doesn't matter whose in charge, every single job/task/power/influence added to the beuracracy of federal goverment is a nail in the coffin to individual freedom.

[Mist]

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

Not if you accept, as most human beings do, that those rights include property rights.

And what exactly gives a handful of people the right to own all the oil in the world and charge whatever the fuck they want for it? Did they invest in fucking dinosaur futures 60 million years ago?

No, they didn't. These forces have come to control oil production through an elaborate system of inherited wealth, political manipulation and military force that reaches back to long before the modern era. To apply free-market principles to oil is ridiculous, a free market depends on the ability for new competitors to enter into the market and compete. That's basically impossible now.

Yes, new energy sources are on the way but right now the world's economic machine runs of oil and the world getting through this transitionary period, which could last two generations for even the most cutting edge economies, is a matter of national security and global stability. The day will come when it'll be the oil companies whining to world governments that no one wants their overpriced, dirty crude, but getting to that point is a priority that the people of the world need to have a say over.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by fanaskin

exactly, trust in central federal government, why? your just giving it more power. why don't you let decentralized states/counties manage themselves. and instead of nationalizing and dictating at a federal level,why not use incentives and subsidies to encourage americans to help themselves solve american problems. instead of taking the harder path and attaining liberty from goverment and attaining more economic/property/civil freedom you'd rather hand the reigns over to somebody else and give them more control. ALL government is bad it doesn't matter who is in charge. just cause you hat ethe current regime means next to nothing, it doesn't matter whose in charge, every single job/task/power/influence added to the beuracracy of federal goverment is a nail in the coffin to individual freedom.

Well, then we'll have to agree to disagree, as I see the benefit in a robust, empowered government who has it's people's interests in mind. Until people have evolved to no longer need government (which is Communism, by the way!) we will have to deal with it.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

Murder can be justified when protecting yourself or your family. Theft can be justified when the choices have been reduced to life or death.

To the former: If you're protecting yourself or you're family, that's not murder. I used the word murder, instead of killing, for a reason. I'm not a pacifist.

To the latter: That's fine, I won't argue about the exigencies of emergency situations with you, but do you believe -- generally speaking -- that stealing is wrong. When you walk into the corner shop, is the only thing that prevents you from stealing some gum whether or not you desire it at that particular moment in time?

I remember being lambasted for saying something similar--"Communism in it's purest form has never been practiced, and thus what we've seen is a misrepresentation."

I got a lot of eye-rolls for that. Please enjoy some from me.

First of all, way to accuse me earlier of selectively quoting you when I didn't, and then go ahead and selectively quote me. That's pretty impressive.

Second of all, way to completely dodge my examples. I take solace in knowing anyone reading over this exchange that has half a brain realizes what you did there. How do you reconcile East Germany's performance vis-a-vis West Germany given the former was mostly socialist and the latter was mostly capitalist? Likewise with North Korea and South Korea, and with pre-Deng and post-Deng China. How do you reconcile China being mired in the utmost poverty prior to market reforms, and growing at a hitherto-unprecedented level following market reforms? Be honest with yourself: CAN you reconcile that with your world view?

United States Microsoft antitrust case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- seriously?

Right, because when the government says something, it must be true. Do you know, by the way, who initiates most anti-trust proceedings? It's not benevolent government. No, it's, for instance, Microsoft's competitors, who use the state to increase their market share. I'll let you in on another secret about most libertarians: we don't glorify big business, not by any stretch of the imagination. Businessmen are often some of the worst feeders at the public trough, and if it were up to me I'd much rather get rid of corporate welfare than individual welfare.

Thankfully, I view individual property rights as superior to corporate property rights. Feudalist.

Great.

Monopoly and Capitalism - Won't capitalism lead to harmful monopolies that make excessive profits?

Perhaps you should do more thorough reading and not just the buzzworthy authors.

First of all, what's your point? I agree with most everything that's written in your link. Second of all, your contention that there can be such a thing as 'excessive profits' is beyond stupid. What is an excessive profit? More than YOU think a company should make? Profits correspond to servicing a public desire. They are not something evil. Third of all, you link capitalism.com, and then lambast me for not having done in-depth reading? Are you a joke?

[Brutul Tarew Marr]

Yes communism is the answer. People in Venezuela have it SO much better than we do.