Democracy and Freedom

[bigrebnc1775]

Those who claim to want the government out of the economy are ignoring, in my opinion, all of the bedrock ways in which the government creates a capitalist economy. Property rights aren't natural -- nature does not supply title deeds. Limited liability is a government artifice. For that matter, MONEY is a government artifice. The structure of law that says those who own the capital property used to produce goods own the goods, as opposed to those who do the labor, is another part of the system. So those who say that the government should get out of the economy are usually saying that it should only get out partway. Without government intervention, a capitalist economy wouldn't even be possible.

Historically, further government involvement has been undertaken either to seek some public good, or to rectify some public wrong -- or to serve the interests of those who bribe the government. (That last touches on the thread topic, of course.) Granted without reservation that the government should cease serving the interests of those who bribe it -- a problem whose cure consists of DEMOCRACY (either direct or, if we can make it work, representative) -- but government action to seek a public good or rectify a public wrong, that I have no problem with, as long as we're wealthy enough as a nation to afford it.

Those who claim to want the government out of the economy are ignoring, in my opinion, all of the bedrock ways in which the government creates a capitalist economy. Property rights aren't natural -- nature does not supply title deeds.

Yes nature does. If you are strong enough to defend your property you keep it that's natures way. the government is there to ensure you don't have to use natures property rights laws.

 

[Dragon]

Yes nature does. If you are strong enough to defend your property you keep it that's natures way. the government is there to ensure you don't have to use natures property rights laws.

If you are strong enough to take someone else's property, you can do that, too, absent a structure of laws. As I said, nature does not supply title deeds. Property means that you have a right to what is yours even if someone else is stronger.

 

[dblack]

Those who claim to want the government out of the economy are ignoring, in my opinion, all of the bedrock ways in which the government creates a capitalist economy. Property rights aren't natural -- nature does not supply title deeds. Limited liability is a government artifice. For that matter, MONEY is a government artifice. The structure of law that says those who own the capital property used to produce goods own the goods, as opposed to those who do the labor, is another part of the system. So those who say that the government should get out of the economy are usually saying that it should only get out partway. Without government intervention, a capitalist economy wouldn't even be possible.

Historically, further government involvement has been undertaken either to seek some public good, or to rectify some public wrong -- or to serve the interests of those who bribe the government. (That last touches on the thread topic, of course.) Granted without reservation that the government should cease serving the interests of those who bribe it -- a problem whose cure consists of DEMOCRACY (either direct or, if we can make it work, representative) -- but government action to seek a public good or rectify a public wrong, that I have no problem with, as long as we're wealthy enough as a nation to afford it.

Not to beat a dead horse, but (because I don't think it's quite dead yet) every single one of these arguments could be applied to religion. The thing is, we recognize a difference between support and intervention. So it's perfectly coherent to seek government that supports a free market without intervening it it. And I think we should.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes nature does. If you are strong enough to defend your property you keep it that's natures way. the government is there to ensure you don't have to use natures property rights laws.

If you are strong enough to take someone else's property, you can do that, too, absent a structure of laws. As I said, nature does not supply title deeds. Property means that you have a right to what is yours even if someone else is stronger.

Natures law and natures given right is the strongest keep what they take.

 

[Dragon]

Natures law and natures given right is the strongest keep what they take.

But that's not what "property" means. Property means what is mine is something you must respect, AND vice-versa. Without rules of property, I might have to respect your ownership rights, OR you might have to respect mine (depending on which of us is stronger), but not both.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Natures law and natures given right is the strongest keep what they take.

But that's not what "property" means. Property means what is mine is something you must respect, AND vice-versa. Without rules of property, I might have to respect your ownership rights, OR you might have to respect mine (depending on which of us is stronger), but not both.

If I claim something and I control it, it's mine until someone stronger can take it away, or I no longer want it.
prop·er·ty/ˈpräpərtē/
Noun:
A thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
A building or buildings and the land belonging to it or them.

 

[Chris]

Yes nature does. If you are strong enough to defend your property you keep it that's natures way. the government is there to ensure you don't have to use natures property rights laws.

If you are strong enough to take someone else's property, you can do that, too, absent a structure of laws. As I said, nature does not supply title deeds. Property means that you have a right to what is yours even if someone else is stronger.

Natures law and natures given right is the strongest keep what they take.

The Republican mission statement in a nutshell.

 

[Dragon]

If I claim something and I control it, it's mine until someone stronger can take it away, or I no longer want it.

Again, that's not what "property" means in common usage. The definitions you presented are useless here, because the same confusion about "property" applies also to "belonging" and "possessions" which are used in those definitions.

What do we mean when we say that something is my property, for example that the computer I am typing this on belongs to me? We mean that only I may legally and properly make use of it, except with my permission. That has nothing to do with any law-of-the-jungle contest of strength and everything to do with a common understanding of property RIGHTS enforced by either law or legal-strength custom.

Property exists only when the community enforces it, and only in the ways that the community enforces it. It does not require formal law per se, but it does require recognition and enforcement by the community.

 

[bripat9643]

What's generating my monthly SSA benefits and millions of others just like them?]

Your benefits are paid out of current taxes. Your hero Obama admitted that if the debt ceiling wasn't increased, then the government couldn't pay Social Security benefits. That is an admission there is no money socked to away to pay those benefits with. there is no real money in the "Trust Fund." There is only a stack of worthless IOUs the government issued to itself.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If I claim something and I control it, it's mine until someone stronger can take it away, or I no longer want it.

Again, that's not what "property" means in common usage. The definitions you presented are useless here, because the same confusion about "property" applies also to "belonging" and "possessions" which are used in those definitions.

What do we mean when we say that something is my property, for example that the computer I am typing this on belongs to me? We mean that only I may legally and properly make use of it, except with my permission. That has nothing to do with any law-of-the-jungle contest of strength and everything to do with a common understanding of property RIGHTS enforced by either law or legal-strength custom.

Property exists only when the community enforces it, and only in the ways that the community enforces it. It does not require formal law per se, but it does require recognition and enforcement by the community.

You come and try to take what's mine and see how quick natures law take you out.

 

[bripat9643]

The only kind of tax that doesn't redistribute wealth is a capitation tax. All other tax money from the people who earned it and give it to people who didn't earn it.

This statement assumes that maximum concentration of wealth possible w/r/t taxes is natural and proper. It is certainly and absolutely not economically healthy, and I would assert that there is no such thing as "natural and proper" distribution of wealth apart from economic health.

It doesn't assume a thing about the concentration of wealth. Income redistribution is a moral issue, not an economic issue. Redistribution means taking wealth from the people who earned for the purpose of enriching people who haven't earned it. To avoid that, all social programs that dispense swag to favored constituencies would all have to be terminated. That would include all manner of internal "improvements," that exist mostly for the sake of dispensing jobs. Whatever the "normal distribution" of income might be, it's irrelevant to the issue of redistribution.

Since every person in this country has an equal stake in its success, each person should be obligated to contribute an equal share to fund it. That's the moral basis of a capitation tax. There is no moral basis for a progressive income tax, or an income tax of any stripe, for that matter. Government has no business deciding what the distribution of income should be because government doesn't own my income or anyone else's.

What you are attempting here is to deliberately obscure the distinction between wealth that is obtained morally, that is wealth obtained through voluntary transactions, and wealth that is obtain immorally, that is wealth that is obtained through force, such as through taxation or theft. How wealth is obtained doesn't even enter into your redistribution calculus. That omission is deliberate since you don't want to discuss the morality of taxation.

Also, your statement ignores other factors such as property rights enforcement, contract law enforcement, and corporate chartering, which affect the distribution of wealth at an underlying level. (Granted none of those would exist in the type of society you say you prefer -- but then, neither would taxes, and actually neither would capitalism.)

True, enforcing property rights affects the "distribution" of wealth only because failure to enforce them means any thug can come along and take whatever you have earned. In the year 410 AD Rome failed to enforced the property rights of its citizens when Alaric laid siege to the city and sacked it. Alaric "redistributed" the property of the Romans to himself and his fellow Visigoths. That's what you mean when you claim enforcing property rights affects the distribution of wealth.

Of course, you think low taxes "encourage outsourcing" when precisely the opposite is the case.

No, I think that low or high taxes have no measurable effect on outsourcing. I do think that tax incentives to outsource encourage outsourcing, but the biggest single incentive is the low price of foreign labor.

What tax incentives "encourage" outsourcing?

Your definition of "redistribute wealth upward" means to stop redistributing it downward.

No, because I don't accept your arbitrary assertion about what a "normal" wealth distribution is or should be.

Yes because, as I explained previously, the "normal" distribution of wealth is irrelevant to the question of redistribution. The issue here is how wealth is acquired, not how much of it is acquired.

About "earning": this word implies labor.

It implies no such thing. That's the Marxian conception of the term, not the moral definition. To "earn" something is to receive it through a voluntary exchange. On the other hand, by definition, wealth obtained through force or threats of force is theft.

The whole point of capitalism, however, is to reward not those who earn, but those who own, at the expense of those who earn. This is a vice of the system. Capitalism functions at all well only when that vice is curtailed, so that a healthy portion of the wealth produced goes to those who earn it, rather than to those who own it.

The point of capitalism is to ban the use of force from human relations. That's not a "vice" of the system. That's the primary virtue of the system. Capitalism does not function well when various interest groups use the government monopoly on force to plunder and loot other members of society.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those who claim to want the government out of the economy are ignoring, in my opinion, all of the bedrock ways in which the government creates a capitalist economy. Property rights aren't natural -- nature does not supply title deeds. Limited liability is a government artifice. For that matter, MONEY is a government artifice. The structure of law that says those who own the capital property used to produce goods own the goods, as opposed to those who do the labor, is another part of the system. So those who say that the government should get out of the economy are usually saying that it should only get out partway. Without government intervention, a capitalist economy wouldn't even be possible.

Public and private sectors are inextricably interwoven, it’s a symbiotic relationship where one can not survive without the other. To say otherwise is ignorant and naïve.

Natures law and natures given right is the strongest keep what they take.

The Republican mission statement in a nutshell.

It was the ‘mission statement’ of another political philosophy as well…

 

[georgephillip]

What's generating my monthly SSA benefits and millions of others just like them?]

Your benefits are paid out of current taxes. Your hero Obama admitted that if the debt ceiling wasn't increased, then the government couldn't pay Social Security benefits. That is an admission there is no money socked to away to pay those benefits with. there is no real money in the "Trust Fund." There is only a stack of worthless IOUs the government issued to itself.

Why would you believe anything Obama says?
Are you stupid?

"The determination (by Obama) to cut Social Security is especially strange given the finances of the program. Under the law, Social Security is financed by the designated Social Security tax.

"It does not contribute to the deficit, since the law prohibits payments from being made if there is not money in the Social Security trust fund. That means that if the trust fund were drained, rather than contributing to the deficit, full benefits would not be paid.

"And the date where this could be an issue is still relatively distant. The Congressional Budget Office just released new projections showing that the Social Security trust fund is fully solvent through the year 2038.

"Even after that date, the program would have enough money to pay 81 percent of scheduled benefits for the rest of the century. The folks who say that there will be nothing there for our children or grandchildren are just making it up or repeating the nonsense promulgated by some political hack."

Like you.

Why Is President Obama So Anxious to Cut Social Security? | Truthout

 

[Contumacious]

Those who claim to want the government out of the economy are ignoring, in my opinion, all of the bedrock ways in which the government creates a capitalist economy. t.

HUH?

WTF?

So that's what they practicing in Cuba, Venezuela and points beyond "Capitalism".

But I know you speak Orwellian , so the opposite is true.

.

 

[Unkotare]

Most of you on this Board are still here in America no? So it must be working out somewhat well for you. If it was so awful and wrong,you would probably be somewhere else no? Lots of countries out there to choose from. Staying in a country you despise makes no sense. So get out and see the World. Who knows,you might just find somewhere better to live. Give it a shot.

Love it or leave it, eh? No thanks. I plan to stubbornly stick around and fight for what I believe is right.

In all honesty, there may be a point where I'd consider leaving. .

Let's hope we reach that point soon.

 

[Wiseacre]

Most of you on this Board are still here in America no? So it must be working out somewhat well for you. If it was so awful and wrong,you would probably be somewhere else no? Lots of countries out there to choose from. Staying in a country you despise makes no sense. So get out and see the World. Who knows,you might just find somewhere better to live. Give it a shot.

Love it or leave it, eh? No thanks. I plan to stubbornly stick around and fight for what I believe is right.

In all honesty, there may be a point where I'd consider leaving. .

Let's hope we reach that point soon.

Lotta rich folks have already left. Took their money with 'em too.

 

[dblack]

Lotta rich folks have already left. Took their money with 'em too.

My gf travels a lot, and she swears the ex-pat is growing in leaps and bounds, specifically those that have left permanently for political or economic reasons.

 

[grunt11b]

It seems that one of the principle issues we've been struggling with as a country lately (if you call the last hundred years or so 'lately') is the proper role of Democracy in a free society. If anyone else is interested I'd like to discuss that - with an eye toward what our goals should be in the US.

I won't pretend to have anything profound to say on the topic, but i'll present my biases up front: I don't see democracy as a very big deal. I don't think it provides any kind of guarantee of the good life, and is about as likely to positively or negatively impact our lives as any other form of government. In my view, the main selling point for democracy is stability, but that's in no way inconsequential. It allows us, in theory at least, to 'throw the bums out' without resorting to violent conflict. Which is why I remain a strong supporter of democracy when it comes to deciding who will govern.

Beyond that, my enthusiasm wanes. I don't see anything particularly virtuous about majority rule and I don't think I'd want to see more direct democracy in our government. This is becoming more of an issue because we're overcoming some of the hurdles that have made it technically impossible in the past. It's getting to the point where we could open virtually every public decision to majority vote. But would it be a good idea?

(FWIW, my distrust of majority rule doesn't come from the position of protecting privilege. I'm not one of the one percenters. I have little wealth to speak of and no real ambition in that regard. I do, however, almost always find myself in the minority when ti comes to my values and goals in life. I have no desire to impose my values on others, but neither do I want theirs imposed on me.)

We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

 

[grunt11b]

Who are the elite in our country? It is mostly the billionaire class. They have special rights unto themselves, their own tax code, and the ability to pick up the phone and speak to practically anyone. They cannot be voted out or made to answer for exploitation. Direct democracy may not be a good idea as dumbed down and bound by propaganda as we have become but it is a noble thing to work towards. To not work towards greater democracy is to give up the fight against concentration of power, call it fascism or oligarchy or whatever but it is the reward for letting a few unelected people have absolute economic power over our lives.

They cannot hold power over your life unless Politicians help them, How do the wealthy have any power over you? If you are purchasing a product from them then it would be your own fault for dealing with them. If you are electing politicians into office that are corrupt then you will be giving them power over you yourself. Other than that, they hold nothing over your head. Class warfare is fun for you guys isn't it? Tears the country apart and you need this so bad. If the country is divided than they are not unanimously against your cause to bring the system down and rebuild it in a communist utopia.

 

[dblack]

Public and private sectors are inextricably interwoven, it’s a symbiotic relationship where one can not survive without the other.

I'd have to agree that that's the way it is presently, and it seems to be getting worse. But I think it's plenty 'extricable'. Ambitious leaders are pushing to combine economic and political matters even further, in the same way that some societies join religion and government. And they have mostly the same excuses.

But we should also avoid it for the same reasons. Combining the coercive power of government with religion kills freedom. Combining government with economic power does the same thing. Perhaps the most successful element of the American experiment was the concept of separation of powers. We can, and should, take that further and ensure economic freedom just like we did with religious freedom.