2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignInteresting list of countries. So I deduce from it that you do endorse a degree of collectivism then, after all. Yes? As for your as yet untried Marxism-like (i.e. boggle-eyed, if you'll pardon the expression) "Libertarianism" experiment: are you arguing that if you imposed it by force upon, say, Hong Kong, Singapore, USA, Australia, S. Korea, and Taiwan, that those countries would be even more "successful" than they currently are?
On the free market side we have Hong Kong, Singapore, USA, Australia, S. Korea, Taiwan.
Have you ever been to Australia or lived there?
What is your current definition of the "USSR"? Does it gainsay the history books you're reading if I were to tentatively suggest that it was dismantled 17 or so years ago?
Originally posted by normbenignAssertions, assertions, assertions. Free-floating and ahistorical, one and all.
...the socialist democracies of Europe [...] owe whatever prosperity they enjoy to what is left of capitalism and free markets, not to social liberalism.
Capitalism is happiest in a non-democratic society. Two types of non-democratic system are not conducive however: firstly the bureaucratic sort, when the nation is dominated by a state religion or ideology, as in the the former U.S.S.R.; secondly the personalized dictatorships where all financial dealings must run through the hands of the dictator, his family and friends.
Capitalism thrives in the evolved authoritarian dictatorship. There the streets are calm, dissent is discouraged, disobedience repressed. Little time is wasted over politics, debates, elections and tiresome, inefficient legislatures. The firm hand that all of this suggests, however must be benelovent. Individuals must have the freedom to make money and spend it as they wish, beleiving that so long as they don't challenge the system, they will be permitted to live out their lives in peace, keep their wealth and pass it on to their children.
The glory days of the Industrial Revolution came in England before there was anything remotely resembling a fairly elected assembly and the consistent enforcement of basic rights for 90% of the citizenry. With the rise of mass democracy and a recognition of 'rights' that were not merely a manifestation of material wealth, the capitalist system began to stall, then decline, and has never recovered. In France, capitalism's greatest moments came under two benign dictators, Louis Philippe and Louis-Napoleon. In Germany it prospered under Kaiser Wilhelm. Does Europe really owe whatever prosperity it now enjoys to what happened during these long gone times?
In the USA the capitalist system was first established under slavery. Its moment of glory came in the last quarter of the 19th century and first quarter of the 20th, when the workforce was flooded by immigrants who either were not yet citizens or were still politically passive. Slavery still functioned in its legal form of segregation. Capitalism complained a great deal from 1932 to 1968, a period during which public participation was most evenly spread, government paid attention to the needs of the whole populace, and significant rising prosperity, family security, and social stability was enjoyed by just about all layers of U.S. society - concrete achievements that crumbled away again in the 70s and 80s when Capitalism regained its sense of optimism, and citizen participation dwindled and deregulation and ideology went haywire.
Capitalism was reasonably content under Hitler; happy under Mussolini, very happy under Franco; and delirious under General Pinochet.
Originally posted by FMFTrying to do to the word 'capitalism' what he tried unsuccessfully to do to the word 'corporatism'.
Assertions, assertions, assertions. Free-floating and ahistorical, one and all.
Capitalism is happiest in a non-democratic society. Two types of non-democratic system are not conducive however: firstly the bureaucratic sort, when the nation is dominated by a state religion or ideology, as in the the former U.S.S.R.; secondly the personalized dictatorships whe ...[text shortened]... itler; happy under Mussolini, very happy under Franco; and delirious under General Pinochet.
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignNB: It is true that greed, seeking our personal best interests is the natural state of man.
"And with this coming collapse and impending Depression I believe that it's now been adequately demonstrated that human beings are at their root evil, immoral, and corrupt"
It is true that greed, seeking our personal best interests is the natural state of man. Whether that is changed by the application of force is questionable. Or whether fraudulent bargaining is done freely, that contracts are enforced and that people pay for their errors.
Since you start from a false premise, it is no surprise your ultimate conclusions are so out of touch with reality.
Man is a social, emphatic, group animal. His "natural state" is to exist cooperatively with the group. If greed was the predominant feature of the human psyche, Man would never have evolved to be the dominant animal on this planet. Sacrifice for other individuals and acting to assist others is far more common than the self centered "dog eat dog" attitude you treat as Man's natural condition.
In the words of perhaps the greatest Libertarian of them all:
To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.
But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
Tom Paine Rights of Man, Part II, Chapter 1
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder"Dog eat dog", capitalism and greed are all separate. No one is a synonym for the other.
NB: It is true that greed, seeking our personal best interests is the natural state of man.
Since you start from a false premise, it is no surprise your ultimate conclusions are so out of touch with reality.
Man is a social, emphatic, group animal. His "natural state" is to exist cooperatively with the group. If greed was t ...[text shortened]... common than the self centered "dog eat dog" attitude you treat as Man's natural condition.
What separates man from dumb beasts is his ability to reason, and why he has evolved to be the predominant animal is his ability to reason plus a desire to improve his lot. This need not be self sacrificial, far more common than either dog eat dog or self sacrifice is each individual acting to improve his own life. Often this involves mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges i.e. capitalism in action. Or mutually beneficial voluntary exploitation.
Greed is an excessive desire, and excessive anything is never good, I agree it is not a natural state. But excessive by who's definition, that can only be decided by that person themself. It can be a great motivator and it is not something to be regulated against.
Edit: Oops, minor inconsistency. Last sentence correction:
Greed is an excessive desire, and excessive anything is not always good, I agree it is not a natural state. But excessive by who's definition, that can only be decided by that person themself. It can be a great motivator and it is not something to be regulated against.
Originally posted by WajomaAyn Rand was a skilled exponent of the art of retortion, otherwise known as begging the question. Used with sufficient shrillness and vehemence, it's a wonderful bullying technique. Of course it's as worthwhile debating this with confirmed Randites as with acolytes of any latter-day cult. All debates on Rand should be automatically transferred to the Spirituality forum.
Was only giving some of your own medicine back, you say "cracked hag" I say she's the best, we go back and forth.
Oh it's great fun, isn't it, remember you started it.
Is it not Rand's basic ethical premise that for each individual's own life is the supreme value by virtue of making all other values possible?
Originally posted by FMFNo, I don't endorse a "bit" of collectivism although I recognize that some exists almost everywhere. There are excess amounts of force applied almost everywhere.
Interesting list of countries. So I deduce from it that you [b]do endorse a degree of collectivism then, after all. Yes? As for your as yet untried Marxism-like (i.e. boggle-eyed, if you'll pardon the expression) "Libertarianism" experiment: are you arguing that if you imposed it by force upon, say, Hong Kong, Singapore, USA, Australia, S. Korea, and ...[text shortened]... u're reading if I were to tentatively suggest that it was dismantled 17 or so years ago?[/b]
Yes, if some of that force were reduced and removed and more liberty granted, things would be even better.
You asked for "historical" examples, and I gave you some showing the difference in actual results from less and more Statist governments. The comparison of liberty vs. state control.
This is not the strongest reason for limited government, as it is only pragmatism. The strongest reason is the moral one, that individuals are responsible for themselves.