Originally posted by normbenignI think those premises are a bit vague. There is nothing stopping a democracy from having rule of law.
How about sticking to the premises laid out in the video. Democracy is a government of the people. A Republic is a government of laws.
Clearly, (d)emocracy is used in the US government as an input, but that doesn't make the form of government a democracy. The US Constitution intentionally dilutes the democracy, so that it is very indirect at the Federal level, or at least it was.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't think normbenign wants those laws to be subjected to or the product of the democratic process. He want's them to be based, in perpetuity, on the thoughts and world views of a group of 18thC men.
I think those premises are a bit vague. There is nothing stopping a democracy from having rule of law.
Originally posted by FMFFirst problem is that you're mixing premises and definitions.
I didn't use the word "corporation" on purpose in my previous post. I talked about "corporate entities". I am not just talking about Monsanto and Nike and the like. And the whole point was that, where others see (and extol the virtues of) "capitalism", I see "corporatism" - which is a profoundly undemocratic and anti-individualistic way of organizing things - pa ...[text shortened]... nt'😉, you ask yourself, who on earth am I supposed to vote for?
The topic is what type of government, not what type of economic system. The two unfortunately sometimes meld, usually in the more totalitarian forms of government, marxist based such as Communism, Fascism, Oligarchal, and all totalitarian systems.
Ideally, economics should be separated from government as much as is possible.
You assert that "corporatism" is undemocratic and anti-individualistic. That may happen, but that result is not inevitable.
A corporation is simply a voluntary method of accumulating capital to apply to a business model. Capital is money invested in making production more efficient, and therefore more profitable. Investors share in the ownership of the corporation, so their investment is called "equity".
The other most popular method of acquiring capital, is to borrow it. This is done by issuing bonds, which pay a specified rate of interest at maturity, regardless of the success of the corporation, but which may become worthless if the corporation totally fails.
There are risks to investors inherent in either method, but bonds are generally viewed as less risky and therefore less rewarding than equity investments.
This is taught in most Business 101 courses. Yet these basic premises are often totally ignored when examining business and government models in debate. Why? Because any conclusion may seem logical if the basic premises are frangible.
Capitalism doesn't equal corporatism, not does it require the use of corporations. Corporations exist to separate the liabilities of the productive entity, from the personal assets of the individual investors. Say a tire company is sued for tires that blow out. Bad enough that the investors lose millions of dollars, to pay the settlement, but their loss is limited to their investment (stock and potential dividends) but their home and other personal assets can't be touched.
Capital can and does increase productive effort in many very small companies, some corporations, and partnerships, and others simply sole proprietorships.
There is nothing inherently anti-individualistic in any of this. Individuals are free to form corporations, to sell equity, or bonds, or to seek sponsorships. As to being undemocratic, every person gets to vote on any corporate business entity by either buying their product or service or ignoring it.
Where capitalism, or corporatism tends to becoming undemocratic, or anti-individualistic is when it melds with and seeks government assistance. When lobbyists, unions and others get government to favor business or labor this is a marriage of government and business. When this happens, it is not capitalism, but government sliding into socialism, fascism, communism, oligarchy or despotism.
Yes a corporation is an interest group, but so is a labor union. Both exist voluntarily, and within the law. Corporations and labor unions and other interest groups exist to increase the power of their membership. Cooperative, and insurance companies similarly exist to represent the interests of their memberships. So long as membership is voluntary, and coersion and fraud are absent, what is wrong with any of these institutions.
Corporations ignore individuals at their own peril. Corporations must sell goods and services used by individuals, and individuals can and do punish corporations that don't run profitably.
Again, you are comparing apples to cinder blocks. There is no direct conflict with capitalism and corporatism, or between corporatism and a republic. There is also no conflict with corporatism and democracy, except that in a purely "democratic" government, a majority of 51% can vote to close the corporation and take away the equity of the investors on any whim that seems right or is protrayed as right.
A great example of this in the US is the tobacco industry. It is subsidized by the taxpayer, the growing of tobacco. It was sponsored by the government, by supplying soldiers with free cigarettes whether they smoked or not. And now, it is taxed more punitively than any other legal product. The latest scam is to increase tobacco taxes to fund the C.H.I.P.S. program, which is a back door to nationalized health care. It is a trick by which government gets to take the legal profits of corporate entities, which costs are passed on to users in higher prices. The majority (nonsmokers) don't object because the costs burdens are someone else's. This is the danger of democracy. Any isolated company can be picked off, at will, if a program of misinformation is effective at demonizing it.
What goes ignored and unstated is that at some point, the corporation, the investors, and the users quit or go underground. Then the revenues to which the government has become addicted dry up, and another victim must be manufactured to fund the ever growing bureaucracy.
This leads to the cycle described in the video of revolution leading to anarchy, leading to despotism and oligarchy. The only two choices ultimately are despotism and republican.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"An unregulated free market is a contradiction in terms."
I think government rules and regulations are essential for the proper functioning of capitalism. Only if the parties involved are forced to play the game fairly can a free market arise. An unregulated free market is a contradiction in terms.
This goes back to the video, and the spectrum of forms of government. Anarchy simply doesn't work, and may be used to produce an oligarchy.
At the other end of the spectrum, democracy, or an excess of government rules also becomes an oligarchy.
The trick is to limit government to the bare minimum which is necessary to protect individual rights, and to prevent collectives from taking power.
Originally posted by randolphArguably, a fine form of government, far better than pure democracy.
benevolent dictatorship
The problem lies in the succession. When the benevolent dictator dies, or is assasinated, who then gets the power, and will he be as benevolent?
This is an example of what the video shows is the far left of the spectrum, and usually represents and oligarchy not an individual dictator.
Originally posted by FMFThere is nothing wrong with using democracy in the context of a Republican form of government. The foundational laws must prevail over the temporary whims of the people, otherwise nobodies rights are safe, nor is their property.
I don't think normbenign wants those laws to be subjected to or the product of the democratic process. He want's them to be based, in perpetuity, on the thoughts and world views of a group of 18thC men.
However if democracy is the fundamental precept, nothing is beyond the reach of the 51%. The popular analogy is that of a Wolf, a Lion, and a sheep voting democratically on what's for dinner.
Taking of private property for public works projects under "eminent domain" has been part of US law for a long time, but prior to the recent SCOTUS decision, only for government projects. I don't even agree with that, but for the government to take private property, to resell it to other business interests which will pay higher taxes is absolutely inconsistent with liberty, and represents moving to "corporatism", or more simply fascism.
The spectrum laid out in the video is very accurate, and the projected results of moving too far along the spectrum are repeatedly proved by history.
There are but two choices: 1. Limited republican government 2. Oligarchy, which inevitably stems from the growth of government due to democracy, fascism, socialism, or anarchy.
Originally posted by FMFThere is nothing wrong with growing or changing the body of law within the bounds of the design of the Constitution. The US Constitution has built into it the amendment process.
I don't think normbenign wants those laws to be subjected to or the product of the democratic process. He want's them to be based, in perpetuity, on the thoughts and world views of a group of 18thC men.
It does not have in it that the Constitution ought to be altered by nine judges, or by democratic election process, or even by Congress, except by the super majority process of amendment. The complexity and difficulty of altering it was intentional, so that it wouldn't be done at temporary whims of the electorate, or by a slim majority voting for their personal benefits.
The thoughts of that group of 18th century men produced from 13 rather ordinary colonies, a nation which spawned the industrial revolution and a standard of living the envy of the rest of the world, and a remarkable percentage of the scientific and cultural progress of the last two centuries as well.
If it needs to be changed, it is not by reverting to the failed policies and plans of history that have always in the past lead to the same abuses, inevitably the rule by a small minority of elites.
Originally posted by generalissimoFidel Castro was one, arising out of a planned anarchy. He replaced a not so benevolent dictator.
which unfortunately has the nasty habit of turning evil after a while....
Of course, Castro's benevolence never was to the Cubans whose property and businesses were taken. And it turns out that although Cubans get free health care, when Fidel needed treatment he sought a doctor outside of his own system.
Benevolence doesn't cause people to get into rickety boats and attempt to cross 90 miles of treacherous ocean to leave that benevolence.
Originally posted by FMFThe warning was there, kmaxs 'inject clarity' post could only mean one thing, clouds of wifty wafty.
I didn't use the word "corporation" on purpose in my previous post. I talked about "corporate entities". I am not just talking about Monsanto and Nike and the like. And the whole point was that, where others see (and extol the virtues of) "capitalism", I see "corporatism" - which is a profoundly undemocratic and anti-individualistic way of organizing things - pa ...[text shortened]... nt'😉, you ask yourself, who on earth am I supposed to vote for?
The definition of 'corporatism' (tm: FMF) so open it could define any grouping of two or more people for any reason, marriage corporatism? family corporatism? local bowling club corporatism? I eat a McD's burger once a week corporatism?
The hallucination that corporations have formed a corporation that is packaging 'corporatism' (tm: FMF) as "definitively democratic". No surprises that corporations (which hopefully fit under (tm: FMF) corporatism) do not function democratically, Ok, let's do this democratically most corporations do not function democratically. How would that be?
"Let's have a vote on a pay rise."
Yea, yea, yea.
"Right let's vote ourselves 'free' health care."
Yea, yea, yea.
Then there is the contradictory "relationship of individual members" with the next sentence, "...deal with corporations, not with individuals."
You are correct FMF I am no fan of mob rules, or two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, or counting heads but not what's in them. It looks like the best of a bad bunch though in terms of guvanence, but it needs to be strictly limited so that my life, liberty and what's in my pocket is not subject to the whims of the mob. Look's like about all that's left for el presidente' and his burearats to do is decide what colour to paint his office, no doubt they will blow the budget on that.
So, I'll ask again, slightly rephrased:
Is all corporatism (tm: FMF) bad? or just some?
Can you offer a definition of capitalism where corporatism (tm: FMF) is banned, or is lack of diversity the problem and therefore your definition will include a regulated minimum amount of diverse corporatism (tm: FMF)
Originally posted by normbenignThe trick is to limit government to the bare minimum which is necessary to protect individual rights
"An unregulated free market is a contradiction in terms."
This goes back to the video, and the spectrum of forms of government. Anarchy simply doesn't work, and may be used to produce an oligarchy.
At the other end of the spectrum, democracy, or an excess of government rules also becomes an oligarchy.
The trick is to limit government to the bare ...[text shortened]... hich is necessary to protect individual rights, and to prevent collectives from taking power.
I agree. But how do you determine the "bare minimum needed to protect individual rights"? I'd say everyone has a right to health care and education, for example.
At the other end of the spectrum, democracy, or an excess of government rules also becomes an oligarchy.
I don't think democracy and "excess of rules" are related. Dictatorships often tend to have huge amounts of bureaucracy. If anything, they are inversely related; in a democracy there is an electoral reason for government to cut back on bureaucracy (I can tell you it's a relevant topic in political debate here) - in a dictatorship (or oligarchy, whatever) the ruling few have an interest in binding people to the system.
It is almost impossible to have a sensible discussion with libertarian economists about capitalism. None of you wants to root the discussion in the real world. I am not a marxist. So to me discussing political systems and economic power structures with boggle eyed marxists feels pretty much the same as trying to discuss them with boggle eyed libertarians.
Capitalism can be a useful social tool or a weapon of unrestrained human exploitation. Which of these it turns out to be, depends on the way in which it is regulated. Capitalism itself contains no intrinsic ethical values. Those who advocate it and implement it decide - by their actions - whether it is a force for good or evil.
The so-called "science" of capitalist economics seems built upon a non-scientific and non-mathematical assumption that economic forces are the expression of natural truth. To interfere with them is to create an unnatural situation, so the thinking goes. But evidence has ever been produced to prove this 'natural right' to primacy over other values, methods and activities? The answer usually offered by the libertarians/utopian "capitalists" is that economic activity determines the success or failure of a society. But economic activity is less a cause than an effect - of geographical and climatic necessity, family and wider structures, the balance beween freedom and order, the ability of society to unleash the imagination, and the weaknesses or strengths of neighbours. Libertarian economics is all wrapped up in pseudo-intellectual justifications. What it boils down to, though, is that the world is somehow its own, self-sustaining absolute economic truth; we must remain passive before its 'perfect imperatives'; humans should not be free to organize the world as they see fit. This is of course an ahistorical denial of the Western experience. It is nonsense which simply comforts the power slipping increasingly into the corporatist structures, marginalizes the citizen/individual, and undermines democracy and meaningful choices and freedoms.
We have little choice other than to accept that democracy cannot function without it being underpinned by the fact that the individual is essentially a citizen. When the individual, emasculated by the suffocating effect of corporatist stitch ups and self-perpetuating anti-democratic 'arrangements', votes from time to time while refusing (due to the perceived futility of it) to participate, the result is a superficial, even dishonest, system and a population constantly dissatisfied with itself. If the individual is not first a citizen, then the obligations and privileges which go with the status are effectively lost and the person ceases, for all intents and purposes, to be an individual. Granted, they can still go off and gather nuts and berries, bemoan paying taxes (without legal restrictions on their Freedom To Bemoan) or shoot wild deer for fun & food, but these superficial indicators of "individualism" are hardly relevant here.
Capitalism has a crude obsession with specialization. Should the market be organized so that in any given place people should only be engaged in doing what they can do cheapest and what is required by richer people from elsewhere? Capitalist and free-trade theorists (boggle eyed, one and all, it seems) say "yes!". But societies limited to only one or two specialties are no longer societies: they are abstract production units, and are rendered completely vulnerable. With every shift in in the patterns of market driven production, whole societies can be thrown into despair. No wonder large predatory corporatist entities from the aforementioned "elsewhere" arrive on the scene - bypassing (or buying off) all local 'democracy' and unwillinging to invest meaningfully or holistically in the societies they exploit - to secure what it is they need and to render their own societies invulnerable.
Libertarian capitalism and unfettered free trade-ism are virulent political ideologies disguised as as disinterested, economic inevitability. These days the leading "free traders" tend to be corporatists, led my the executives of transnational corporations - coddled technocrats and bureaucrats who would probably sink like stones if they suddenly found themselves in an authentic capitalist setting - despite their incessant lectures to the hundreds of millions of unemployed and people in poverty (in self-dismantling "societies" that have obediently adopted Western capitalist nostrums) about the salvatory and unstoppable nature of "capitalism". Like pretty much all other boggle eyed ideologies, libertarian "capitalism" and "free-trade" contain unspoken contempt for the individual citizen. Regardless of the complexities of the real world, they replace choice with alleged cod-"scientific" inevitability rooted in despair, clever use of smoke and mirrors, and the careful ongoing cultivation of the impotence of both individuals and their democracies.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"Health" and "education" can never be considered rights. A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. So you might call education and health priviledges or some such.
[b]The trick is to limit government to the bare minimum which is necessary to protect individual rights
I agree. But how do you determine the "bare minimum needed to protect individual rights"? I'd say everyone has a right to health care and education, for example.
At the other end of the spectrum, democracy, or an excess of government rule ...[text shortened]... (or oligarchy, whatever) the ruling few have an interest in binding people to the system.
Originally posted by WajomaDo you really have to start arguing over semantics again? If it hurts your feelings to call them rights, then sure, "priviliges" is fine.
"Health" and "education" can never be considered rights. A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. So you might call education and health priviledges or some such.