|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Liberals and conservatives think differently
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd be interested to hear your articulation of the principles
The underlying principle is that it's wrong to take something off someone else without their consent. Doesn't matter what the something is or who the someone is.
That's why I regard taxation as evil. As I've said earlier in this thread, it's a necessary evil - but an evil nonetheless.
It follows that it should be incumbent upon any government to only take the bare minimum of taxation that's necessary to fund essential services that have to be provided at the national level (healthcare being the most obvious). And then only because it's cheaper for each individual to fund those services that way than by making their own arrangements.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That famous quoite from Proudhon again!
Who?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd be interested to hear your articulation of the principles
The underlying principle is that it's wrong to take something off someone else without their consent.
OK, but I think you're hearing the opposing principle as "it's permissible for the government to take stuff off someone without their consent", whereas I think most of us are arguing, at the most, "it's permissible for the government to take stuff off someone without their consent IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES".
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, but I think you're hearing the opposing principle as "it's permissible for the government to take stuff off someone without their consent", whereas I think most of us are arguing, at the most, "it's permissible for the government to take stuff off someone without their consent IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES".
That's the thing, though. When we're talking about principles, then "IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES" doesn't really come into it. Either something is always wrong in principle or it's not.
Deciding circumstances in which it's acceptable to do something that is wrong in principle is a matter of politics and pragmatism, but not of principle. The thing remains wrong in principle even if politics and pragmatism make it the best thing to do.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd be interested to hear your articulation of the principles
The underlying principle is that it's wrong to take something off someone else without their consent. Doesn't matter what the something is or who the someone is.
So the police should not recover stolen property from the thief?
If you answer 'yes', then the government can also tax the rich who've made their profits through exploitation and oppression.
[ 23. April 2012, 16:03: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Again, in principle there's no difference between taking all of someone's posessions and only taking a percentage of them. That's a difference of magnitude, not type.
This is complete bollocks. There is a difference in type between taking away the food or even the air someone needs to survive, and a book on their bookshelf that they will never read again. Take away everything someone owns or has and they die. No ifs, no buts. That is a qualitative difference from taking away something they don't need.
Or do you genuinely think there is no difference between stealing a loaf of bread from a millionaire and killing someone?
quote:
But I have no doubt that the sort of people who talk about shit like property being theft and call for everything to be held in common would quite happily take away everything I posess if they had the chance. They don't want anyone to own anything.
And this is also complete bollocks. I believe there are [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs]hierarchies of needs[/url]. And that money (or the equivalent) is essential to get past the basic bodily needs stage, and even past the safety stage. As is owning a certain amount (up to and including first home ownership) and having an emergency reserve fund.
Above that, money and posessions are mostly a way of keeping score. And I consider it quite simply obscene that people are encouraged to keep score using tokens that mean the difference between life and death to others.
(For the record I don't call for everything to be held in common. I call for people to realise that this world is a common resource. There is a difference.)
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The underlying principle is that it's wrong to take something off someone else without their consent. Doesn't matter what the something is or who the someone is.
That's why I regard taxation as evil. As I've said earlier in this thread, it's a necessary evil - but an evil nonetheless.
It follows that it should be incumbent upon any government to only take the bare minimum of taxation that's necessary to fund essential services that have to be provided at the national level (healthcare being the most obvious). And then only because it's cheaper for each individual to fund those services that way than by making their own arrangements.
I can't agree with the "taxation=theft" notion and here's why:
- Society is composed of individuals coming together for mutual benefit and support.
- In a democracy, government carries out the functions the citizens deem necessary or desirable for society as a whole to provide or enable.
- Citizens are responsible for providing the resources necessary for government to carry out those functions.
- Citizens decide amongst themselves where those resources will come from, and individually and/or collectively transfer them to the government to carry out said functions.
I don't see any "taking". I also don't see anything but personal preference to support the "bare minimum" principle of government. If you can convince a significant number of citizens of it, swell, but even then, a government still has to consider any initiative on its own merits and the citizens' needs and wishes, not on the basis of "we already have 287 laws, we can't have any more".
A democratic overnment is not a supermarket and citizens are not shoppers. It's not a matter of "value for money" or paying only for services you use. It's a matter of what kind of society citizens want to live in. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The underlying principle is that it's wrong to take something off someone else without their consent. Doesn't matter what the something is or who the someone is.
That's why I regard taxation as evil. As I've said earlier in this thread, it's a necessary evil - but an evil nonetheless.
It follows that it should be incumbent upon any government to only take the bare minimum of taxation that's necessary to fund essential services that have to be provided at the national level (healthcare being the most obvious). And then only because it's cheaper for each individual to fund those services that way than by making their own arrangements.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the government has to fund healthcare. Yes, it's cheaper and more efficient. And I believe that every civilised society will want its government to. But why do you say the government must fund healthcare. Rather than letting the private sector sort it out? After all, if you believe in the principle you claim, if it is at all possible for it to be done by not the government then it should be - to do other is theft.
I've given my reason why healthcare should be funded, of course.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
We (the US) were formed as a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
A good quote describing the difference:
“A democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on dinner. A simple republic is three wolves and two sheep electing a committee to plan dinner. A contitutional republic is a system of limited government in which no one has authority to plan dinner for others and in which the sheep are armed.”
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We (the US) were formed as a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
A good quote describing the difference:
“A democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on dinner. A simple republic is three wolves and two sheep electing a committee to plan dinner. A contitutional republic is a system of limited government in which no one has authority to plan dinner for others and in which the sheep are armed.”
It may be a good quote, but it has nothing to do with the respective forms of government.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
it has nothing to do with the respective forms of government.
Why do you feel this way?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd be interested to hear your articulation of the principles
The underlying principle is that it's wrong to take something off someone else without their consent. Doesn't matter what the something is or who the someone is.
Well, then, I disagree with your principle.
As does every parent who's ever taken an object off a small child when the child is about to choke, poison or electrocute themselves with it. To give the first obvious counterexample that leapt to my mind.
[ 24. April 2012, 04:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, but I think you're hearing the opposing principle as "it's permissible for the government to take stuff off someone without their consent", whereas I think most of us are arguing, at the most, "it's permissible for the government to take stuff off someone without their consent IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES".
That's the thing, though. When we're talking about principles, then "IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES" doesn't really come into it. Either something is always wrong in principle or it's not.
Um, you're the one who says your principle should be suspended in the case of the NHS.
I'm mostly objecting to the fact that all your arguments seem directed against some mythical left-winger who thinks the Government can do what it wants with your money, as opposed to what people are actually saying.
I suppose my principle is ultimately that wealth is created by society as a whole, and therefore the distribution of wealth is, ultimately, a social agreement, albeit a very complex one. Redistribution of wealth, whether by market forces or by taxation, is therefore analogous to renegotiating a contract.
Now, a renegotiated contract may be fair or unfair but the act of renegotiation is not in itself a bad thing.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We (the US) were formed as a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
A good quote describing the difference:
“A democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on dinner. A simple republic is three wolves and two sheep electing a committee to plan dinner. A contitutional republic is a system of limited government in which no one has authority to plan dinner for others and in which the sheep are armed.”
It may be a good quote, but it has nothing to do with the respective forms of government.
--Tom Clune
I disagree. What this quote is saying is that a simple majority of opinion should not be able to impose its will upon the rest simply because of the majority opinion.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We (the US) were formed as a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
A good quote describing the difference:
“A democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on dinner. A simple republic is three wolves and two sheep electing a committee to plan dinner. A contitutional republic is a system of limited government in which no one has authority to plan dinner for others and in which the sheep are armed.”
It may be a good quote, but it has nothing to do with the respective forms of government.
--Tom Clune
I disagree. What this quote is saying is that a simple majority of opinion should not be able to impose its will upon the rest simply because of the majority opinion.
That is what it's saying. That doesn't mean that it does a terribly good job of equating that principle with systems of government, though.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
ISTM that the problem with much of this discussion is that American political philosophy seems to have been reduced to a discussion about property and little else, and that those who call themselves conservatives are classic liberals. By contrast, American liberals are more like social democrats.
Conservatives, as I understand the term, following Aristotle, have held that man by nature is a political animal and society is a natural organic state rather than the social construct of isolated individuals originally existing in a state of nature. Christian conservatives have also held that because of original sin the social order is threatened by humans making unrestrained decisions: a state of nature (had it ever existed) would have been a state of war. The prime duty of government, therefore, is to defend the society against the threat of fallen individualism. Government, in other words, is an intrinsic natural good, through which individuals find meaning and purpose and vice is restrained. Though regarding the economic order conservatives are sceptical of socialism because of its belief in the perfectability of human nature, it would also be sceptical of the virtues of capitalism and free markets run by the unredeemed descendants of Adam. The recent economic crises across the capitalist world would be seen by conservatives as a demonstration of the need for governments to regulate economic behaviour.
Liberals, by contrast, envisage a state of nature pre-existing before society and government, in which mostly virtuous individuals enjoyed natural rights. Government, therefore, is an artificial construct designed to preserve the natural freedoms of the state of nature with as light a touch as possible. The right to individual property is seen as a natural right, so that it is the duty of government to protect and even promote that right. Such ideas, of course, are enshrined in the American Constitution, which is designed to limit the power of government through the separation of powers and the bill of rights. Ironically, it is American Conservatives, excoriating liberalism, who defend these values in the name of conservatism. It is liberalism that is the ideological foundation of capitalism, not conservatism, which is more about managing affairs amongst fallen men in a fallen world than a particular economic system.
It may be that at the root of the conceptual difficulty is the unwillingness of Americans to discuss socialism, its variants, and its relationship to liberal democracy. Socialism, like conservatism, accepts Aristotle’s proposition that society is a natural organism, but unlike conservatism shares a more sanguine view of human nature. It disagrees with both liberalism and conservatism with its emphasis on economic equality, regarding the distribution of property. European social democracy, not uninfluenced by the New Deal tradition, has sought to synthesise liberal and socialist ideas. Is it not that social democratic strand in the US Democratic Party that is erroneously described as “liberal” by American Conservatives i.e. liberals, that needs to be identified and recognised before the debate can be clarified?
Going back to the original question as to whether there is a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals, or between left and right, I think there is a deep philosophical/temperamental rift between those who take a pessimistic and those who take an optimistic view of human nature.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you answer 'yes', then the government can also tax the rich who've made their profits through exploitation and oppression.
In your opinion. But they certainly haven't made their profits by going to people's houses and stealing their stuff. If the rest of us have decided that we absolutely must have the latest trainers, TVs, cars, etc. that's our problem, not the problem of those who get rich selling such things.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I can't agree with the "taxation=theft" notion and here's why:
- Society is composed of individuals coming together for mutual benefit and support.
- In a democracy, government carries out the functions the citizens deem necessary or desirable for society as a whole to provide or enable.
- Citizens are responsible for providing the resources necessary for government to carry out those functions.
- Citizens decide amongst themselves where those resources will come from, and individually and/or collectively transfer them to the government to carry out said functions.
I don't see any "taking".
It's inherent in the last of your four points. The citizens don't decide amongst themselves - if enough of a majority decides that the minority will have to pay for everything, that's what happens whether the minority agrees of not. It's the old "three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" thing.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the government has to fund healthcare. Yes, it's cheaper and more efficient.
Yes, that's why. It's a pragmatic decision based on getting the best service for the lowest cost to the individual.
But if it makes you feel better, I'd absolutely agree that if it were possible for the private sector to provide healthcare to at least the same standard at a lower cost to each individual then that would be the preferable option.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Um, you're the one who says your principle should be suspended in the case of the NHS.
Yes, for pragmatic reasons. But something being a necessary evil doesn't lessen the fact that it is evil.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the government has to fund healthcare. Yes, it's cheaper and more efficient.
Yes, that's why. It's a pragmatic decision based on getting the best service for the lowest cost to the individual.
But if it makes you feel better, I'd absolutely agree that if it were possible for the private sector to provide healthcare to at least the same standard at a lower cost to each individual then that would be the preferable option.
So. Your idea is that it is right to break your principles because it is financially cheaper to do so. Pragmatism really does quite openly trump your so-called principles.
To quote someone on this thread "When we're talking about principles, then "IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES" doesn't really come into it. Either something is always wrong in principle or it's not."
And for a few pounds per person per day you are apparently quite happy to surrender your principles. And then claim that it is "necessary" that you do so merely because it is cheaper.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the government has to fund healthcare. Yes, it's cheaper and more efficient.
Yes, that's why. It's a pragmatic decision based on getting the best service for the lowest cost to the individual.
But if it makes you feel better, I'd absolutely agree that if it were possible for the private sector to provide healthcare to at least the same standard at a lower cost to each individual then that would be the preferable option.
So. Your idea is that it is right to break your principles because it is financially cheaper to do so. Pragmatism really does quite openly trump your so-called principles.
To quote someone on this thread "When we're talking about principles, then "IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES" doesn't really come into it. Either something is always wrong in principle or it's not."
And for a few pounds per person per day you are apparently quite happy to surrender your principles. And then claim that it is "necessary" that you do so merely because it is cheaper.
I'm with Justinian here, Marvin. If your answer is that "in certain circumstances" means "when it's cheaper" than that is a perfectly sensible rationale, but don't kid yourself (or anyone else for that matter) that this means you have a pure principle against taking and that you only accept the taking under protest. You accept the taking when it makes sense.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The citizens don't decide amongst themselves - if enough of a majority decides that the minority will have to pay for everything, that's what happens whether the minority agrees of not. It's the old "three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" thing.
Pretty much as Marvin says, but I'm not sure life in the West, of which a form of democracy is a part, is about three wolves and two sheep deciding on dinner'. Rather it's the wolves, ie those with real power, deciding which sheep to eat first.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm with Justinian here, Marvin. If your answer is that "in certain circumstances" means "when it's cheaper" than that is a perfectly sensible rationale, but don't kid yourself (or anyone else for that matter) that this means you have a pure principle against taking and that you only accept the taking under protest. You accept the taking when it makes sense.
Well, the key difference with things like healthcare, transport infrastructure and garbage collection is that we all have to pay for them one way or another. They're things that none of us, however rich or poor, can do without.
The decision is therefore not "do we pay for these things or choose to do without them?", but rather "given that we have to pay for them anyway, what is the most economical way for us to do so?"
I appreciate that that might sound like meaningless hairsplitting to you, but there it is.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm with Justinian here, Marvin. If your answer is that "in certain circumstances" means "when it's cheaper" than that is a perfectly sensible rationale, but don't kid yourself (or anyone else for that matter) that this means you have a pure principle against taking and that you only accept the taking under protest. You accept the taking when it makes sense.
Well, the key difference with things like healthcare, transport infrastructure and garbage collection is that we all have to pay for them one way or another. They're things that none of us, however rich or poor, can do without.
The decision is therefore not "do we pay for these things or choose to do without them?", but rather "given that we have to pay for them anyway, what is the most economical way for us to do so?"
I appreciate that that might sound like meaningless hairsplitting to you, but there it is.
It does seem like meaningless hairsplitting, yes, because all you're talking about is WHY to have taxes. Which means there are acceptable reasons for having them. Which is precisely what several of us were saying.
In fact your reason for having taxes looks remarkably like my own. Abd it's completely inconsistent with saying "don't have taxes, full stop".
There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding government to account, as much as possible, on how it spends taxpayer money and expecting the money to be spent on sensible things. But that's entirely different from declaring "we shouldn't have taxes at all" and effectively dealing yourself out of the next round, where decisions are made about how the money is spent.
[ 24. April 2012, 11:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you answer 'yes', then the government can also tax the rich who've made their profits through exploitation and oppression.
In your opinion. But they certainly haven't made their profits by going to people's houses and stealing their stuff. If the rest of us have decided that we absolutely must have the latest trainers, TVs, cars, etc. that's our problem, not the problem of those who get rich selling such things.
Not into houses, into whole countries - colonialism and empire, asset-stripping, without which England would be poor and the 3rd world would have been rich.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The citizens don't decide amongst themselves - if enough of a majority decides that the minority will have to pay for everything, that's what happens whether the minority agrees of not. It's the old "three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" thing.
Pretty much as Marvin says, but I'm not sure life in the West, of which a form of democracy is a part, is about three wolves and two sheep deciding on dinner'. Rather it's the wolves, ie those with real power, deciding which sheep to eat first.
I'd agree. But at least the wolves can't be quite so blatantly obvious that they will eat who they want.
Representative democracy is about five sheep and two wolves sitting at a table deciding what's for lunch while the wolves are drooling and staring at the sheep at the table while there is a whole herd outside. The difference is that in non-democratic systems the sheep don't get a seat at the table. It's just three wolves deciding what's for lunch.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, the key difference with things like healthcare, transport infrastructure and garbage collection is that we all have to pay for them one way or another. They're things that none of us, however rich or poor, can do without.
I don't think that's true. Look at Calcutta. It's perfectly simple to run a society where the rich pay for the garbage collection, transport infrastructure and healthcare that they want, and the poor live in slums without.
They can make do with walking to find work or beg, and make do being sick or dying if absolutely necessary.
But Calcutta isn't running out of people and appears to have a growing economy.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm with Justinian here, Marvin. If your answer is that "in certain circumstances" means "when it's cheaper" than that is a perfectly sensible rationale, but don't kid yourself (or anyone else for that matter) that this means you have a pure principle against taking and that you only accept the taking under protest. You accept the taking when it makes sense.
Well, the key difference with things like healthcare, transport infrastructure and garbage collection is that we all have to pay for them one way or another. They're things that none of us, however rich or poor, can do without.
No. No we don't. It's simply that the consequence of not paying for them is bad. But if you believe in the principle then leaving people to rot because they broke their leg and then due to not being able to afford medical care it got infected isn't a problem. Or as Mdijon mentions, Calcutta and begging and dying in the gutter. And you have explicitely rejected my claim life matters more than property rights for unnecessary property (or even that the ability to keep your hunting lodge fully stocked is less important than a poor person keeping food on the table).
quote:
I appreciate that that might sound like meaningless hairsplitting to you, but there it is.
It's not so much meaningless as contradicting what you've stated earlier.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not into houses, into whole countries - colonialism and empire, asset-stripping, without which England would be poor and the 3rd world would have been rich.
Been listening to the lies of the kleptocrats of the 3rd world again, as peddled by the likes of Christian Aid in an attempt to ensure they keep their job? The rise of South Korea, China and India demonstrates that the economic system of the world is open to competent governments enabling economic development for the benefit of all their citizens.
The wider issue of 'exploitation' is far more complex: my 'exploitative sweatshop' is another person's route out of grinding poverty. If I make it so expensive to run the factory that it can't sell its products in the market, then I will condemn that person to poverty - in the case of China, back to a rural hinterland of deprivation and isolation. The workers of China had a choice - and they have demonstrated that they wanted to work in the 'sweatshops' by coming back to them year after year. It's not ideal - but for them it is a radical improvement on what they had. Do we really have a right to block their escape route from poverty - by imposing import restrictions? Is that really the LOVING thing to do?
(For the record, I would like to believe that the development agencies do do a good job of what they are really there for: providing financial support and technical expertise for specific projects amongst poorer people. But when they start to demonstrate that they have incoherent views about the wider development environment, they deserve to be told to 'shut up'.)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The rise of South Korea, China and India demonstrates that the economic system of the world is open to competent governments enabling economic development for the benefit of all their citizens.
No it doesn't. No more than the success of some para-athletes demonstrates that the disabled are just as able to compete with the rest of us.
There is inequality of resource, inequality of opportunity, and historical legacy to deal with, and like a broken leg it doesn't stop mattering just because you can identify a few counter-examples.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The workers of China had a choice - and they have demonstrated that they wanted to work in the 'sweatshops' by coming back to them year after year.
Since when has China been a bastion of individual liberty?
If you assume that everyone even in an American city freely chose to move there, Rainbow Pie, by Joe Bageant would raise your consciousness. If you're a conservative, you'd love it in many respects, because this late author was as well-- as he says, a "redneck." That means he, his family, and everyone he grew up with in rural Appalachia had a deep and well-founded suspicion of "city slickers": because they didn't just leave country folks alone, however fanatically self-reliant they tried to be, but had designs on them and their land. In short, many rural people moved to the cities because they were uprooted. Their rural values went with them to the point where they continue to vote against their own economic interest, in many cases, because of how they were taught one should live.
Neither conservatives nor liberals want to think about their situation much, because it cuts across the respective dogmas.
If this happened in America, one can hardly prelude its happening in a country where tyranny has prevailed for at least fifty years.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The workers of China had a choice - and they have demonstrated that they wanted to work in the 'sweatshops' by coming back to them year after year.
Since when has China been a bastion of individual liberty?
If you assume that everyone even in an American city freely chose to move there, Rainbow Pie, by Joe Bageant would raise your consciousness. If you're a conservative, you'd love it in many respects, because this late author was as well-- as he says, a "redneck." That means he, his family, and everyone he grew up with in rural Appalachia had a deep and well-founded suspicion of "city slickers": because they didn't just leave country folks alone, however fanatically self-reliant they tried to be, but had designs on them and their land. In short, many rural people moved to the cities because they were uprooted. Their rural values went with them to the point where they continue to vote against their own economic interest, in many cases, because of how they were taught one should live.
Neither conservatives nor liberals want to think about their situation much, because it cuts across the respective dogmas.
If this happened in America, one can hardly prelude its happening in a country where tyranny has prevailed for at least fifty years.
Mainland Chinese society is organised in a radically different fashion from the US: a person inherits their place of residence from their parents, and can only receive certain government benefits, especially education, at that location, but in practice they have security of tenure on their farms (with a few exceptions). The effect, combined with the one child policy, has been to see vast numbers of parents leaving their children in the care of relatives whilst working in the city most of the year: at New Year many millions do go home - but generally then do return to the cities to work. It's that process which to me shows that it is some sort of choice for them to go back to the cities.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's that process which to me shows that it is some sort of choice for them to go back to the cities.
A choice made to earn a wage and escape the poverty trap of rural China.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's that process which to me shows that it is some sort of choice for them to go back to the cities.
A choice made to earn a wage and escape the poverty trap of rural China.
Like mid-19th century Britain, even down to the lack of democracy, human rights and a safe workplace.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Don't bother, it's Ender doing his "China is proof that capitalism works!" shtick again. His arguments have been refuted over and over again, after which he usually leaves the thread. He'll probably do the same thing on another unrelated thread a couple of weeks from now.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Don't bother, it's Ender doing his "China is proof that capitalism works!" shtick again. His arguments have been refuted over and over again, after which he usually leaves the thread. He'll probably do the same thing on another unrelated thread a couple of weeks from now.
So how do you react to this claim that poverty has been falling massively since 1981, and half of this is in China? These are World Bank figures...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Don't bother, it's Ender doing his "China is proof that capitalism works!" shtick again. His arguments have been refuted over and over again, after which he usually leaves the thread. He'll probably do the same thing on another unrelated thread a couple of weeks from now.
So how do you react to this claim that poverty has been falling massively since 1981, and half of this is in China? These are World Bank figures...
Doesn't some of this depend on relative currency values? China's currency was worth sod all in 1980, when the country was importing rice from Vietnam IIRC and now it is reckoned to be over valued. The situation has certainly turned round in the last 30 odd years and a part of that must be that for 15 years Hong Kong has given an impetus to the Chinese economy. In economic terms China has changed out of all recognition: only the name remains.
Quite why we trade so happily with a country that keeps the lid down on its people to such an extent is a mystery. It isn't like they supply oil.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's that process which to me shows that it is some sort of choice for them to go back to the cities.
A choice made to earn a wage and escape the poverty trap of rural China.
There's a massive turnover at companies from those who don't.
It causes pains for us as we have to start again with newcomers who don't know what they're doing.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Don't bother, it's Ender doing his "China is proof that capitalism works!" shtick again. His arguments have been refuted over and over again, after which he usually leaves the thread. He'll probably do the same thing on another unrelated thread a couple of weeks from now.
So how do you react to this claim that poverty has been falling massively since 1981, and half of this is in China? These are World Bank figures...
Doesn't some of this depend on relative currency values?
The numbers in the charts at that link are all given in terms of 2005 prices at purchasing power parity, so currency values are irrelevant.
quote:
The situation has certainly turned round in the last 30 odd years and a part of that must be that for 15 years Hong Kong has given an impetus to the Chinese economy.
According to Wikipedia Hong Kong accounts for only about 3% of China's economy.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Don't bother, it's Ender doing his "China is proof that capitalism works!" shtick again. His arguments have been refuted over and over again, after which he usually leaves the thread. He'll probably do the same thing on another unrelated thread a couple of weeks from now.
So how do you react to this claim that poverty has been falling massively since 1981, and half of this is in China? These are World Bank figures...
Yes it is possible poverty is falling there because we are dumping squillions of dollars every year into their economy by buying all the cheap shit they make.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Don't bother, it's Ender doing his "China is proof that capitalism works!" shtick again. His arguments have been refuted over and over again, after which he usually leaves the thread. He'll probably do the same thing on another unrelated thread a couple of weeks from now.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
So how do you react to this claim that poverty has been falling massively since 1981, and half of this is in China? These are World Bank figures...
It seems fairly clear to me that China is doing pretty well economically and that millions of people are being lifted out of poverty in the process. This is all good.
This is achieved in association with introducing limited free-market reforms within a non-democratic system.
Human rights abuses continue to be rife, and so it is difficult to regard China as a model system.
Nevertheless I think it reasonable to conclude that a free market approach is associated with economic growth, and that the government can take some credit for the reforms and governance that made that possible. (Along with the condemnation for continued human rights abuses not limited to persecution of Christians).
What I think you can't safely conclude is that all that is needed for any country to succeed is a modicum of good governance and a free market. You need the necessary capital for infrastructure to make it possible, the right population densities in the right places, access to markets, a critical mass of skills in the population etc.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ender's Shadow: So how do you react to this claim that poverty has been falling massively since 1981, and half of this is in China? These are World Bank figures...
I already did. I gave a detailed reaction, giving balanced arguments of why this decrease in poverty levels can't be attributed to capitalism. I didn't do it once, I did it twice. But both times, you walked away from the thread afterwards.
I won't bother to write my reaction to these World Bank figures again. My reactions to your earlier invocations of these numbers can be found in the archives on the Ship. You can look them up there.
And the next time you'll start your "China is proof that capitalism is the bestest thing ever!" thing again, you'll have a Hell call waiting for you, for continually doing the same thing on unrelated threads and then walking away from the reactions.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes it is possible poverty is falling there because we are dumping squillions of dollars every year into their economy by buying all the cheap shit they make.
Given that that 'shit' includes much of the electronics goods that we ALL use, I hope you wash your hands after you use your computer or cellphone.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What I think you can't safely conclude is that all that is needed for any country to succeed is a modicum of good governance and a free market. You need the necessary capital for infrastructure to make it possible, the right population densities in the right places, access to markets, a critical mass of skills in the population etc.
However it does prove that good governance is necessary if not sufficient. Yet despite that, our aid lobbyists continue to pour the blame on the oppressive policies of the West, past and present, and claim that 'if only we did X, everything would suddenly be rosy'. India is the absolute disproof of that suggestion; the anaemic growth of the first 40 years of independence was replaced with healthy growth when free market policies were introduced. Yet despite this flagellant lefties line up to blame us. You know who you are...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
And now he's onto India, shifting the ground from the criticisms of China that he hasn't answered.
The Indian economy (and that of many other countries, like Korea, Taiwan, Brazil and Malaysia) has benefitted a lot more from the allegedly free global economy, which the West put into place in the 1980's, than from any better governance there.
While entrepreneurs and shareholders do well out of it, thanks to the free movement of goods, money and jobs around the world, nobody else will, though it takes some people longer to notice.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
However it does prove that good governance is necessary if not sufficient.
I'm not sure it does that either. I think one could site India as an example of not terribly great governance but with economic growth. And the irony is that there remains crushing poverty, with children dying of preventable diseases (and overseas aid being the intervention that prevents them dying in even greater numbers) despite the fact that India has a space programme and a nuclear programme.
Not the best example that good governance precludes the need for overseas aid, or that economic growth is sufficient to avoid the need for it.
Furthermore there are examples of overseas aid saving lives in countries with substantial governance problems. For instance in Kenya and Rwanda massive gains have been made in controlling malaria and HIV, much of it achieved by bed net distributions funded by the global fund. Nevertheless both those governments have massive corruption and transparency problems. Should the aid have been withheld with the consequent loss of life?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
While entrepreneurs and shareholders do well out of it, thanks to the free movement of goods, money and jobs around the world, nobody else will, though it takes some people longer to notice.
Whatever else those World Bank figures demonstrate, they do show that hundreds of millions of people have risen from absolute poverty in the past 30 years. That you regard those people as 'nobody' is a little strange...
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
However it does prove that good governance is necessary if not sufficient.
I'm not sure it does that either. I think one could site India as an example of not terribly great governance but with economic growth. And the irony is that there remains crushing poverty, with children dying of preventable diseases (and overseas aid being the intervention that prevents them dying in even greater numbers) despite the fact that India has a space programme and a nuclear programme.
Not the best example that good governance precludes the need for overseas aid, or that economic growth is sufficient to avoid the need for it.
Sorry - obviously not being clear enough: I'm meaning by 'good governance' a political system that is capable of enabling economic growth. Of course it may have lots of undesirable features as well. I probably should have said 'good economic governance'.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Furthermore there are examples of overseas aid saving lives in countries with substantial governance problems. For instance in Kenya and Rwanda massive gains have been made in controlling malaria and HIV, much of it achieved by bed net distributions funded by the global fund. Nevertheless both those governments have massive corruption and transparency problems. Should the aid have been withheld with the consequent loss of life?
There's a serious debate in some circles to this effect, but that's not my argument. There is some evidence that aid does do good, though probably a lot less than it should; what I'm claiming mostly is that the polemics of aid groups that it's purely the West's fault that countries are poor is unjustified. And of course it's vital to recognise that economics is not a zero sum game; the poor have got richer despite the rich getting richer, as the World Bank figures CLEARLY demonstrate for the past 30 years.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Sorry - obviously not being clear enough: I'm meaning by 'good governance' a political system that is capable of enabling economic growth. Of course it may have lots of undesirable features as well. I probably should have said 'good economic governance'.
If "good economic governance" excludes corruption, transparency and democratic decision making then I'm not sure what is left.
The poor of the world have demonstrably benefited from Western aid under conditions of economic growth and reasonable economic governance in their own countries, and under corrupt and decaying regimes. Of course once you get to the state Somalia or Afghanistan is in it gets harder to achieve anything, but MSF is still saving lives in even those situations.
Whatever criteria it is does not seem either necessary or sufficient for economic growth. Look at Thailand under Thaksin, for instance.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
what I'm claiming mostly is that the polemics of aid groups that it's purely the West's fault that countries are poor is unjustified.
I'm not sure I recognize that as a common polemic, but the West certainly contributes to and has contributed to poverty in a lot of the world. For instance, the DRC is currently in a state because of poor governance. Which is the legacy of one Mobutu Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga. Who was put in power by the CIA. Some blame there surely?
But even if there was no blame does it matter? Would that influence your decision to support overseas aid?
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And of course it's vital to recognise that economics is not a zero sum game; the poor have got richer despite the rich getting richer, as the World Bank figures CLEARLY demonstrate for the past 30 years.
For sure economics are not zero sum, but I'm not sure why it is vital to recognise that.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'm meaning by 'good governance' a political system that is capable of enabling economic growth.
Then we've got something of a tautology going. Good governance is necessary (if not sufficient) for economic growth. What we mean by 'good governance' is a political system capable of enabling economic growth.
Ya think?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I had to do a quick check of the thread title, because it seemed as if I'd wandered onto the Capitalism thread by mistake. Since when is good (economic) governance either a liberal or a conservative value?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
