This is something I've been looking at most of my life, as a conservative I'm naturally opposed to such things. As someone who sees the decline in the family, tribe, and community the government takes on unprecedented roles. Anyone who has studied economic history knows that private charities in time of need decline in relative and real strength to combat problems, which is why the government in it's capacity to tax and the like is able to combat more effectively over a longer time frame to deal with deleterious effects.
Yet, we must return to the problem of capital not going towards the market and choking out investment into new businesses. Equally, there are parasite singles and shut ins after the Lost Decade in Japan that through individual wealth and government have been able to live at home for eternity. Granted Japan has an aging economy and their economic status for young people to get jobs is horrible.
So this is where I begin to look at this from the conservative perspective, if I want capitalism to work the individual must be able to work enough to do something. And this is where the assumption that anarchists, Austrians, and the like come towards that people will "naturally" be inclined towards something, whenever centuries of abuse and alcoholism and the like has been the norm rather than the rule. Especially during these downturns.
Frankly, I think rather than preach towards Ayn Rand and the altar of capitalism and how we need to shrink government. The likes of Paul Ryan and those, like myself, who preach about individualism and capitalism need to actually be a part of the system for inclusion. This means the homeless woman whose mentally disturbed, it means the abused kid that's got an alcoholic for a father. A good "witness" to conservativism, is the person who tries to reach some of these people. Not to fix them, but to make them in part more whole.
In Tusses' advocacy of socialism and surplus value, there lacked a sense of community. What Keynes called the Animal Spirits or as some sociologists and philosophers a zeitgeist or spirit of the age, either way a sense of direction and culture that guides people but also people who wish to engage each other to build such things. This is sort of the old Jack Kemp or Bobby Kennedy sense of the world. To have concern for the poor, but to get them to get off their asses also requires us to get off of our collective asses and actually be useful.
Instead of arguing size, one must argue for use. It should not matter how big something is, it is always the way you use it. You can force something, but if you shove it down the wrong place it's just going to hurt people. Like any tool, inexperience leads to ruin. Ideology without commitment means nothing, and I do not believe all the 401c3's and 501c3's in the world can do it. Nor can the best socialist systems do so.
To take Tuss, a Swede, his nation's ability to educate and use positive forms of wealth redistribution has allowed for the nation to produce excellent scientists and the like as well as businesses. However, Sweden is known for it's bankers, which sit as the grand viziers of capitalism. How is it that a "socialist state" could be so capitalistic? Because the Swedes understood the value of policy, place, and proportion proper for their society and culture as it has matured and will mature.
Do I believe that a social democracy, in the vein of Bernie Sanders, is a good idea for America? No, hardly, I still want us to see a private system. Europe uses more government systems, something that Thatcher herself failed to realize without fostering philanthropy unlike here in the States. Yet, we must begin to ask more about the family and how to protect financial from predators from within and without that seek to do real harm. Not as a result of "would it be nice," but rather to prevent some person like Adam Lanza from being a murderer and a victim himself of his own disease. The sanctity of human life and dignity comes at a sacrifice for the division of labor.
It is an intricate waltz that must be measured based on appropriateness, scale, and power. To have a healthy society, you must invest in that society. And I'm not talking fat people, I'm talking people that conservatives and even some libertarians find do need help. You won't see Adam Lanza's picture as a grown adult on any cup at the cashier asking for your change, yet you always see those cute little children with cancer. There are limits to our ability to donate to see certain underserviced areas to not be fully private or even wholly welfare. So I agree with Tuss there about exploitation, yet one must see that a Swedish banker will always exploit, without hopefully over exploiting, to make a dime so that the welfare state is well financed.
What are your thoughts on the welfare system, capitalism, and socialism?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The problem is that most socialists are nuts who believe that expanding welfare is all upside, you could certainly argue there are capitalists like that too who despise any form of assistance.
The line between socialism and totalitarianism is also umm very very thin and that is largely the appeal for many liberals (who are totalitarian but just think they are socialists). As one quote I love goes... "In the heart of every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out."
In short if you can keep the programs efficient and meeting a real need (and not have it be about marxist social engineering schemes) I can get behind a lot of different forms of welfare.
That being said women should pay for their own birth control when it's like $9 a month, people on welfare should be encouraged to get jobs, and people on welfare who are like "I could work if I wanted to" are scum.
This is something I've been looking at most of my life, as a conservative I'm naturally opposed to such things. As someone who sees the decline in the family, tribe, and community the government takes on unprecedented roles. Anyone who has studied economic history knows that private charities in time of need decline in relative and real strength to combat problems, which is why the government in it's capacity to tax and the like is able to combat more effectively over a longer time frame to deal with deleterious effects.
Yet, we must return to the problem of capital not going towards the market and choking out investment into new businesses. Equally, there are parasite singles and shut ins after the Lost Decade in Japan that through individual wealth and government have been able to live at home for eternity. Granted Japan has an aging economy and their economic status for young people to get jobs is horrible.
So this is where I begin to look at this from the conservative perspective, if I want capitalism to work the individual must be able to work enough to do something. And this is where the assumption that anarchists, Austrians, and the like come towards that people will "naturally" be inclined towards something, whenever centuries of abuse and alcoholism and the like has been the norm rather than the rule. Especially during these downturns.
Frankly, I think rather than preach towards Ayn Rand and the altar of capitalism and how we need to shrink government. The likes of Paul Ryan and those, like myself, who preach about individualism and capitalism need to actually be a part of the system for inclusion. This means the homeless woman whose mentally disturbed, it means the abused kid that's got an alcoholic for a father. A good "witness" to conservativism, is the person who tries to reach some of these people. Not to fix them, but to make them in part more whole.
In Tusses' advocacy of socialism and surplus value, there lacked a sense of community. What Keynes called the Animal Spirits or as some sociologists and philosophers a zeitgeist or spirit of the age, either way a sense of direction and culture that guides people but also people who wish to engage each other to build such things. This is sort of the old Jack Kemp or Bobby Kennedy sense of the world. To have concern for the poor, but to get them to get off their asses also requires us to get off of our collective asses and actually be useful.
Instead of arguing size, one must argue for use. It should not matter how big something is, it is always the way you use it. You can force something, but if you shove it down the wrong place it's just going to hurt people. Like any tool, inexperience leads to ruin. Ideology without commitment means nothing, and I do not believe all the 401c3's and 501c3's in the world can do it. Nor can the best socialist systems do so.
To take Tuss, a Swede, his nation's ability to educate and use positive forms of wealth redistribution has allowed for the nation to produce excellent scientists and the like as well as businesses. However, Sweden is known for it's bankers, which sit as the grand viziers of capitalism. How is it that a "socialist state" could be so capitalistic? Because the Swedes understood the value of policy, place, and proportion proper for their society and culture as it has matured and will mature.
Do I believe that a social democracy, in the vein of Bernie Sanders, is a good idea for America? No, hardly, I still want us to see a private system. Europe uses more government systems, something that Thatcher herself failed to realize without fostering philanthropy unlike here in the States. Yet, we must begin to ask more about the family and how to protect financial from predators from within and without that seek to do real harm. Not as a result of "would it be nice," but rather to prevent some person like Adam Lanza from being a murderer and a victim himself of his own disease. The sanctity of human life and dignity comes at a sacrifice for the division of labor.
It is an intricate waltz that must be measured based on appropriateness, scale, and power. To have a healthy society, you must invest in that society. And I'm not talking fat people, I'm talking people that conservatives and even some libertarians find do need help. You won't see Adam Lanza's picture as a grown adult on any cup at the cashier asking for your change, yet you always see those cute little children with cancer. There are limits to our ability to donate to see certain underserviced areas to not be fully private or even wholly welfare. So I agree with Tuss there about exploitation, yet one must see that a Swedish banker will always exploit, without hopefully over exploiting, to make a dime so that the welfare state is well financed.
What are your thoughts on the welfare system, capitalism, and socialism?
No matter what specific system you have, there will always be someone to try and take advantage of it, at least in this day and age. It doesn't matter if it's capitalism or communism, there's ways to manipulate both and control things and take power from others. The most important thing regarding this is to not settle on a single system so that no single component can be completely taken advantage of, and if it does, that it will not dominate the rest of the system. With this, the ultimate goal is to essentially mix many different forms of government which is currently what's trying to be accomplished. The US and other highly developed countries have in a way combined democracy and a dictatorship to form a Republic, which is then mixed with capitalism for a free market but also mixed with socialism to give people an equal opportunity. There's also a federal standard of laws but also more localized state laws, three different branches of government and an increasingly globalizing economy. With this in mind, it is easy to see why the polarization of democrats and republicans obviously does not benefit the country of the US; the idea of a very small government is no better than the idea of a really big government.
Reading through your section I noticed an inconsistency I couldn't decipher which was this: "Frankly, I think rather than preach towards Ayn Rand and the altar of capitalism and how we need to shrink government."
You said "rather" without defining a second option, so I'm not sure exactly what you are stating as the other possibility.
Aside from what seems like a misconception about poverty being solely linked to laziness, the idea that everyone contributes to reform a government to make it better is what is known as "progressivism" and is one of the foundations of the democratic party, so if you simultaneously "agree" with that and Paul Ryan, you are probably more of a moderate conservative. You keep saying you want things to be individualized such that capitalism can be used by an individual to succeed in proportion to their work, but you ironically show that this impossible without government interference and by definition cannot be a guarantee of capitalism, not that it can be a guarantee of socialism either. If you want everyone to abide by a certain set of rules and standards, you need a government to enforce it.
Looking at history, I would say Capitalism has worked for a smaller group of people, but it has worked extremely well for those people. Socialism has worked for more people, but on a lesser scale. I dont believe either system is full proof. Pure anything hurts someone. I personally believe a government's job is to help the most possible.
Ironically the biggest flaw in both systems is human nature. Something that can not be removed.
No matter what specific system you have, there will always be someone to try and take advantage of it, at least in this day and age. It doesn't matter if it's capitalism or communism, there's ways to manipulate both and control things and take power from others.
I imagine this is why Libertarians define their beliefs as being good a priori. It doesn't matter to them if someone exploits their system or how terrible the life in it is. A child being left to starve to death because private charity hasn't reached her is a morally good thing in a Libertarian state.
No matter what specific system you have, there will always be someone to try and take advantage of it, at least in this day and age. It doesn't matter if it's capitalism or communism, there's ways to manipulate both and control things and take power from others.
I imagine this is why Libertarians define their beliefs as being good a priori. It doesn't matter to them if someone exploits their system or how terrible the life in it is. A child being left to starve to death because private charity hasn't reached her is a morally good thing in a Libertarian state.
Honestly, I've found that the rationale is more based around the erroneous belief that a libertarian or a purely capitalist system is the same thing as a meritocracy, which it is not. Because they seem to believe that life circumstances in such a system are determined by hard work, it's easy for them to write off those who fall through the cracks. But writing off the 'acceptable losses' in society is common to all cultures and political systems. What is good for individuals and what is good for society/humanity aren't the same thing.
But that doesn't mean caring too much about those who fall through the cracks of society is a good thing, either, when it comes at the expense of long term growth or stability. A system that balances the competing interests of individuals is, in my opinion, the most reasonable system. But that doesn't mean that a dog-eat-dog system wouldn't be better for the human race as a whole long-term.
I've always thought about wellfare as a system that is not inherently bad, but too monolithic for it's own good. I've considered how you could downsize the resources and number of people on the system without hurting those who genuinely benefit from it. I've thought about attacking the problem at the source, making wellfare smaller by limiting the number of people who actually need it. There's been talk about a living wage for all full time employees, but that opens a whole other pandora's box of economic problems. Ultimately,as bakgat has stated, there is no perfect system. There will always be the influential and well off and the destitute and forgotten. As much as I wish things were different, I don't think you can legislate away human suffering. At the end of the day, wellfare exists as an idealistic concept. I just hope that more people use it for its intended purpose than abuse it.
No matter what specific system you have, there will always be someone to try and take advantage of it, at least in this day and age. It doesn't matter if it's capitalism or communism, there's ways to manipulate both and control things and take power from others.
I imagine this is why Libertarians define their beliefs as being good a priori. It doesn't matter to them if someone exploits their system or how terrible the life in it is. A child being left to starve to death because private charity hasn't reached her is a morally good thing in a Libertarian state.
Honestly, I've found that the rationale is more based around the erroneous belief that a libertarian or a purely capitalist system is the same thing as a meritocracy, which it is not. Because they seem to believe that life circumstances in such a system are determined by hard work, it's easy for them to write off those who fall through the cracks. But writing off the 'acceptable losses' in society is common to all cultures and political systems. What is good for individuals and what is good for society/humanity aren't the same thing.
This is a poor figure of libertarians. Libertarians knows merit and survival/wealth/success doesn't correlate 1:1.
The thing with libertarians is that they are die hard "inconsequentialists" (which is, they believe moral things are principles and don't relate to consequences and choices). Taking property against someone's will is wrong, it doesn't matter if it will save children or not. What's wrong is wrong, the ends never justify the means.
Also something that most libertarians don't realize is that government (in one form or another) is inevitable. It's like money. Those things are "spontaneously" generated in human interactions, they should be threated as exogenous constants when we reflect about human societies. A society w/o authority and just as unrealistic as a society without trade and property.
The discussion should be not how much government you must shrink, but if the idea of a private owned government being viable or not, being good or not. Until libertarians start to argue from a point of view of privatizing the existing government instead of shrinking it ad nausea, they can't be taken seriously. Because a private owned government is actually possible and morally correct inside libertarian ethics. A society without a government can be correct inside libertarian ethics, but it's not possible or self sustainable. The main stream libertarian movement in the U.S. are nothing but people hating on taxes and poor understanding of public issues who hide behind the teaching of good authors, such as Mises and classic liberals.
This is a major off topic, sorry Cap Morgan. Later (when more people respond) i will put my own input on the matter of welfare inside a capitalistic system.
Is it one were the Government has significant control over the distribution of goods and services?
If so doesn't that create a society were the people in office have in practice absolute power over those not in office?
That seems to go against the tenants of what one would consider a free society wouldn't it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
I think a good system will find a balance between capitalist-socialist and welfare. Countries like Sweden already have, they're both economically viable and successful and have much more expansive welfare states than we do. The problem is that the United States is too large, too poor and too undereducated to accomplish it any time soon.
This is a poor figure of libertarians. Libertarians knows merit and survival/wealth/success doesn't correlate 1:1.
The thing with libertarians is that they are die hard "inconsequentialists" (which is, they believe moral things are principles and don't relate to consequences and choices). Taking property against someone's will is wrong, it doesn't matter if it will save children or not. What's wrong is wrong, the ends never justify the means.
You know more articulate libertarians than I do. But, in any case, I'm talking about excuses. The rationale isn't 'oh, I she deserved to die because she was lazy', it's a cultural undercurrent of 'I'm hard working and doing okay, so she must have done something wrong somewhere'. It's a natural human reaction, and it's not exclusive to libertarians. It's just that the libertarians I've met are more vocal about it (see also: Ron Paul saying he would allow people without health insurance to die and being met with cheers).
Also something that most libertarians don't realize is that government (in one form or another) is inevitable. It's like money. Those things are "spontaneously" generated in human interactions, they should be threated as exogenous constants when we reflect about human societies. A society w/o authority and just as unrealistic as a society without trade and property.
This is really my biggest problem with Libertarianism in general. Humans are hierarchical in nature, which inevitably ends with larger and larger governments. Especially with things as interconnected as they are today.
The uninformed ones aren't even worth mentioning, but even the informed Libertarians are too far on the side of deregulation. Regulation, for a large part, exists for a reason. The biggest amount of regulation exists around the food and healthcare industries
This is something I've been looking at most of my life, as a conservative I'm naturally opposed to such things. As someone who sees the decline in the family, tribe, and community the government takes on unprecedented roles. Anyone who has studied economic history knows that private charities in time of need decline in relative and real strength to combat problems, which is why the government in it's capacity to tax and the like is able to combat more effectively over a longer time frame to deal with deleterious effects.
Yet, we must return to the problem of capital not going towards the market and choking out investment into new businesses. Equally, there are parasite singles and shut ins after the Lost Decade in Japan that through individual wealth and government have been able to live at home for eternity. Granted Japan has an aging economy and their economic status for young people to get jobs is horrible.
So this is where I begin to look at this from the conservative perspective, if I want capitalism to work the individual must be able to work enough to do something. And this is where the assumption that anarchists, Austrians, and the like come towards that people will "naturally" be inclined towards something, whenever centuries of abuse and alcoholism and the like has been the norm rather than the rule. Especially during these downturns.
Frankly, I think rather than preach towards Ayn Rand and the altar of capitalism and how we need to shrink government. The likes of Paul Ryan and those, like myself, who preach about individualism and capitalism need to actually be a part of the system for inclusion. This means the homeless woman whose mentally disturbed, it means the abused kid that's got an alcoholic for a father. A good "witness" to conservativism, is the person who tries to reach some of these people. Not to fix them, but to make them in part more whole.
In Tusses' advocacy of socialism and surplus value, there lacked a sense of community. What Keynes called the Animal Spirits or as some sociologists and philosophers a zeitgeist or spirit of the age, either way a sense of direction and culture that guides people but also people who wish to engage each other to build such things. This is sort of the old Jack Kemp or Bobby Kennedy sense of the world. To have concern for the poor, but to get them to get off their asses also requires us to get off of our collective asses and actually be useful.
Instead of arguing size, one must argue for use. It should not matter how big something is, it is always the way you use it. You can force something, but if you shove it down the wrong place it's just going to hurt people. Like any tool, inexperience leads to ruin. Ideology without commitment means nothing, and I do not believe all the 401c3's and 501c3's in the world can do it. Nor can the best socialist systems do so.
To take Tuss, a Swede, his nation's ability to educate and use positive forms of wealth redistribution has allowed for the nation to produce excellent scientists and the like as well as businesses. However, Sweden is known for it's bankers, which sit as the grand viziers of capitalism. How is it that a "socialist state" could be so capitalistic? Because the Swedes understood the value of policy, place, and proportion proper for their society and culture as it has matured and will mature.
Do I believe that a social democracy, in the vein of Bernie Sanders, is a good idea for America? No, hardly, I still want us to see a private system. Europe uses more government systems, something that Thatcher herself failed to realize without fostering philanthropy unlike here in the States. Yet, we must begin to ask more about the family and how to protect financial from predators from within and without that seek to do real harm. Not as a result of "would it be nice," but rather to prevent some person like Adam Lanza from being a murderer and a victim himself of his own disease. The sanctity of human life and dignity comes at a sacrifice for the division of labor.
It is an intricate waltz that must be measured based on appropriateness, scale, and power. To have a healthy society, you must invest in that society. And I'm not talking fat people, I'm talking people that conservatives and even some libertarians find do need help. You won't see Adam Lanza's picture as a grown adult on any cup at the cashier asking for your change, yet you always see those cute little children with cancer. There are limits to our ability to donate to see certain underserviced areas to not be fully private or even wholly welfare. So I agree with Tuss there about exploitation, yet one must see that a Swedish banker will always exploit, without hopefully over exploiting, to make a dime so that the welfare state is well financed.
What are your thoughts on the welfare system, capitalism, and socialism?
Can u distill your point a little more and avoid the stray conceptual allusions and tangents? They show your breath of knowledge yes. They also distract and weaken the force of your point.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say other than "its a fine line"
Can u distill your point a little more and avoid the stray conceptual allusions and tangents? They show your breath of knowledge yes. They also distract and weaken the force of your point.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say other than "its a fine line"
He has a point Morgan. I tried reading that post, and when I got to the end, I didn't understand your last words and I didn't remember your first.
As long as you have the government running welfare, there will inevitably be corruption, misallocation of resources, and gaming of the system.
I like the concept of welfare, but there is a HUGE difference between welfare that I pay into voluntarily and welfare that I am forced to pay for. I do not agree with putting people at gunpoint to pay for something that they necessarily don't want to pay for. That's the whole reason why there is so much fraud and waste in welfare to begin with. The government has no incentive to make sure that money for welfare is being used productively because the government is always going to get that money by force.
The problem I see is that a lot of you guys want to take your cake and eat it too. You can't have government welfare without all the problems that come along with it.
The government has no incentive to make sure that money for welfare is being used productively because the government is always going to get that money by force.
Then I guess we'll actually have to pay attention to the representatives we elect for a change and actually make any effort to find candidates who seem like they want to help society rather than win all of their campaigns with charm and ads with vague, empty promises.
As long as you have the government running welfare, there will inevitably be corruption, misallocation of resources, and gaming of the system.
Yeah, we should totes get investment bankers to run it. Corporate interests are upstanding members of society and would never abuse social systems. It's true, those giants of capitalism are completely unassailable by the kinds of vice and sin those dirty, dirty public sector workers praise every night at their Lenin shrines.
Coincidentally, large bureaucracies solve the corruption issue. I know nobody likes that word, bureaucracy, but it's true.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Doesn't a bureaucracy create a strata of people, often those who work/-ed in it who understand how the bureaucracy is run vs the people who do not know how the bureaucracy is run.
Also, that the larger and larger anything is the more complex it becomes.
The more complex a bureaucracy becomes one would assume those who know how it runs become more powerful in said bureaucracy in comparison to those that don't.
So its seems that having a massive bureaucracy would create a group of individuals with much more power over it then those with out.
Now if this bureaucracy has sweeping powers it seems to almost mimic an aristocracy, the book 1984's Inner Party or the Communist Parties of the history seem to show this tendencies.
In my opinion they both are trying to do the same thing, just through different means.
Libertarians seek to cure theft by abolishing the laws.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
Doesn't a bureaucracy create a strata of people, often those who work/-ed in it who understand how the bureaucracy is run vs the people who do not know how the bureaucracy is run.
Also, that the larger and larger anything is the more complex it becomes.
The more complex a bureaucracy becomes one would assume those who know how it runs become more powerful in said bureaucracy in comparison to those that don't.
So its seems that having a massive bureaucracy would create a group of individuals with much more power over it then those with out.
Now if this bureaucracy has sweeping powers it seems to almost mimic an aristocracy, the book 1984's Inner Party or the Communist Parties of the history seem to show this tendencies.
In my opinion they both are trying to do the same thing, just through different means.
Libertarians seek to cure theft by abolishing the laws.
Socialist seek to cure theft by making it legal.
You're implying that bureaucracy can be made useful or wielded effectively by individuals on the inside. This is false. Additional bureaucracy pulls power further and further from individuals (even those on the inside) and creates a system over which no individual, or even a cabal of individuals, truly have control. Even policy makers can only affect the system by making drastic changes.
There is no 'knowing how to run' a bureaucracy. One head of the bureau is more or less the same as the other, with only superficial changes being the difference.
The issue you're concerned with is really the aristocracy that helps control the policy makers.
This is totally false and almost a deliberate lie. Like, if someone actually said this to me in person, I would assume they were insulting me it's so laughably stupid.
I get that most education systems are really just "baby's first grammar school" all the way to grade 12, but come on. You should have a basic concept of what the social contract is by now. Taxes are payment for services rendered, except those services are publicly owned and operated. It is in fact the best deal you can get with your money.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Yeah, we should totes get investment bankers to run it. Corporate interests are upstanding members of society and would never abuse social systems. It's true, those giants of capitalism are completely unassailable by the kinds of vice and sin those dirty, dirty public sector workers praise every night at their Lenin shrines.
Who's saying that an investment bank should be functioning like a charity? We already have private organizations designed to help the poor. The Salvation Army doesn't have the ability to initiate force and take away money at gunpoint like the government does. The SA and other organizations similar to it can only get money by people voluntarily giving money.
Coincidentally, large bureaucracies solve the corruption issue. I know nobody likes that word, bureaucracy, but it's true.
How exactly does bureaucracy solve the issue of corruption? If anything, more bureaucracy exacerbates it. It's the corporations that thrive from all the massive bureaucracy that government creates. You know, the same corporations that you and many people on the forums here hate. Smaller businesses and individuals don't have armies of lawyers or time and money devoted to compliance.
I get that most education systems are really just "baby's first grammar school" all the way to grade 12, but come on. You should have a basic concept of what the social contract is by now. Taxes are payment for services rendered, except those services are publicly owned and operated. It is in fact the best deal you can get with your money.
The social contract really isn't a good excuse to justify statism of any kind. In fact, the social contract really isn't a contract at all when you think about it.
A contract requires two parties; it is not a unilateral instrument. Furthermore, it requires a meeting of the minds (effectively, both parties understand what they're agreeing to), clear terms, actual agreement, and exchange of considerations (you don't need a contract to give a gift).
Old papers signed by the dead are not contracts binding on the living. You can't sign a contract for other people (without their explicit permission, e.g., power of attorney).
To the assertion that a birth certificate is such a contract (agreement), I point out that one person may not sign a contract for another. A parent may act as guardian, and act on a child's behalf, but that still does not entitle them to make promises and enter into obligations for that person.
If the argument is made that a government is moral and justifiable because of a "social contract", the implication is that the "social contract" is a valid form of contract. If "social contracts" are valid, then any "social contracts" made by any persons must be valid. Remember, there is no special pleading for the state. Therefore, a business like Walmart could simply ship $500 worth of groceries and other goods to your house every month without your consent, and proceed to bill you. If you disputed this, they could then tell you that if you didn't like it, you were free to move out of your neighborhood.
In accordance with social contract logic, I would simply create my own social contract with the government itself whereby I "tax" the government for the services I provide in the economy that they benefit from, in an amount that is equal to what they have "taxed" me. What would be the difference between these 2 social contracts? Nothing, except of course, that the state has far more violence with which to enforce their "social contract" then I do. That, of course, is the root of the matter. It's the whole idea of might makes right. Pay up, or you get either put in a cage or shot.
Those who are high on Capitalism, what is the nation to do with those Capitalism doesnt/isnt working for? Are they just our 'dirty little secret'? Or does America deport them? Execute them?
Those who are high on Capitalism, what is the nation to do with those Capitalism doesnt/isnt working for? Are they just our 'dirty little secret'? Or does America deport them? Execute them?
Capitalism requires that people be poor. There is nothing in it that requires the wealthy to share their money with the poor and such the wealthy gain a larger and larger separation from the poor hoarding their wealth. It would also be in the best interests of the wealthy to minimize the printing of money so as to maximize the return on investment of money they loan out. This would eventually lead to the extreme of Serfdom all over again: all the wealth in the hands of few and everyone else fighting for scraps.
I get that most education systems are really just "baby's first grammar school" all the way to grade 12, but come on. You should have a basic concept of what the social contract is by now. Taxes are payment for services rendered, except those services are publicly owned and operated. It is in fact the best deal you can get with your money.
Defend this position.
I don't remember signing any contract. I did not voluntarily enter into any binding agreement to be taxed a portion of my labor, etc.
I get it though, I signed the contract by default simply by being born here, and if I don't like it, I can leave.
This is like arguing that a cow has agreed to be milked dry or slaughtered for it's beef simply by being born on the farm, and if it doesn't want to be milked or slaughtered for beef, it can leave.
Except this excuse clearly ignores the fact that everywhere the cow could go is just another farm. The cow could jump the fence, but it would only land in on the property of another farmer. Ready to milk it dry, or slaughter it for it's beef.
Countries are simply organized tax farms, and the leaders are the farmers.
Maybe, just maybe, we have the best possible farm - and that might be as good as it gets - since some farms are cruel, hazardous, or have far worse standards of living for it's cattle.
Here, in this farm we can be "happy cows", with all our "privileges" and ****. While the farmer gets his milk or beef.
Then the farmers are brilliant, they put some of the cows on the payroll, so that any cows who complain or try to point out the violent nature of their situation, are quickly marginalized, labeled as trouble makers, and "radicals" who need to be suppressed.
I don't remember signing any contract. I did not voluntarily enter into any binding agreement to be taxed a portion of my labor, etc.
When I eat at a restaurant I do not sign any contract binding me to pay for me food. Shall I walk out when I am done and get self-righteous when asked to pay?
Yet, we must return to the problem of capital not going towards the market and choking out investment into new businesses. Equally, there are parasite singles and shut ins after the Lost Decade in Japan that through individual wealth and government have been able to live at home for eternity. Granted Japan has an aging economy and their economic status for young people to get jobs is horrible.
So this is where I begin to look at this from the conservative perspective, if I want capitalism to work the individual must be able to work enough to do something. And this is where the assumption that anarchists, Austrians, and the like come towards that people will "naturally" be inclined towards something, whenever centuries of abuse and alcoholism and the like has been the norm rather than the rule. Especially during these downturns.
Frankly, I think rather than preach towards Ayn Rand and the altar of capitalism and how we need to shrink government. The likes of Paul Ryan and those, like myself, who preach about individualism and capitalism need to actually be a part of the system for inclusion. This means the homeless woman whose mentally disturbed, it means the abused kid that's got an alcoholic for a father. A good "witness" to conservativism, is the person who tries to reach some of these people. Not to fix them, but to make them in part more whole.
In Tusses' advocacy of socialism and surplus value, there lacked a sense of community. What Keynes called the Animal Spirits or as some sociologists and philosophers a zeitgeist or spirit of the age, either way a sense of direction and culture that guides people but also people who wish to engage each other to build such things. This is sort of the old Jack Kemp or Bobby Kennedy sense of the world. To have concern for the poor, but to get them to get off their asses also requires us to get off of our collective asses and actually be useful.
Instead of arguing size, one must argue for use. It should not matter how big something is, it is always the way you use it. You can force something, but if you shove it down the wrong place it's just going to hurt people. Like any tool, inexperience leads to ruin. Ideology without commitment means nothing, and I do not believe all the 401c3's and 501c3's in the world can do it. Nor can the best socialist systems do so.
To take Tuss, a Swede, his nation's ability to educate and use positive forms of wealth redistribution has allowed for the nation to produce excellent scientists and the like as well as businesses. However, Sweden is known for it's bankers, which sit as the grand viziers of capitalism. How is it that a "socialist state" could be so capitalistic? Because the Swedes understood the value of policy, place, and proportion proper for their society and culture as it has matured and will mature.
Do I believe that a social democracy, in the vein of Bernie Sanders, is a good idea for America? No, hardly, I still want us to see a private system. Europe uses more government systems, something that Thatcher herself failed to realize without fostering philanthropy unlike here in the States. Yet, we must begin to ask more about the family and how to protect financial from predators from within and without that seek to do real harm. Not as a result of "would it be nice," but rather to prevent some person like Adam Lanza from being a murderer and a victim himself of his own disease. The sanctity of human life and dignity comes at a sacrifice for the division of labor.
It is an intricate waltz that must be measured based on appropriateness, scale, and power. To have a healthy society, you must invest in that society. And I'm not talking fat people, I'm talking people that conservatives and even some libertarians find do need help. You won't see Adam Lanza's picture as a grown adult on any cup at the cashier asking for your change, yet you always see those cute little children with cancer. There are limits to our ability to donate to see certain underserviced areas to not be fully private or even wholly welfare. So I agree with Tuss there about exploitation, yet one must see that a Swedish banker will always exploit, without hopefully over exploiting, to make a dime so that the welfare state is well financed.
What are your thoughts on the welfare system, capitalism, and socialism?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The line between socialism and totalitarianism is also umm very very thin and that is largely the appeal for many liberals (who are totalitarian but just think they are socialists). As one quote I love goes... "In the heart of every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out."
In short if you can keep the programs efficient and meeting a real need (and not have it be about marxist social engineering schemes) I can get behind a lot of different forms of welfare.
That being said women should pay for their own birth control when it's like $9 a month, people on welfare should be encouraged to get jobs, and people on welfare who are like "I could work if I wanted to" are scum.
No matter what specific system you have, there will always be someone to try and take advantage of it, at least in this day and age. It doesn't matter if it's capitalism or communism, there's ways to manipulate both and control things and take power from others. The most important thing regarding this is to not settle on a single system so that no single component can be completely taken advantage of, and if it does, that it will not dominate the rest of the system. With this, the ultimate goal is to essentially mix many different forms of government which is currently what's trying to be accomplished. The US and other highly developed countries have in a way combined democracy and a dictatorship to form a Republic, which is then mixed with capitalism for a free market but also mixed with socialism to give people an equal opportunity. There's also a federal standard of laws but also more localized state laws, three different branches of government and an increasingly globalizing economy. With this in mind, it is easy to see why the polarization of democrats and republicans obviously does not benefit the country of the US; the idea of a very small government is no better than the idea of a really big government.
Reading through your section I noticed an inconsistency I couldn't decipher which was this: "Frankly, I think rather than preach towards Ayn Rand and the altar of capitalism and how we need to shrink government."
You said "rather" without defining a second option, so I'm not sure exactly what you are stating as the other possibility.
Aside from what seems like a misconception about poverty being solely linked to laziness, the idea that everyone contributes to reform a government to make it better is what is known as "progressivism" and is one of the foundations of the democratic party, so if you simultaneously "agree" with that and Paul Ryan, you are probably more of a moderate conservative. You keep saying you want things to be individualized such that capitalism can be used by an individual to succeed in proportion to their work, but you ironically show that this impossible without government interference and by definition cannot be a guarantee of capitalism, not that it can be a guarantee of socialism either. If you want everyone to abide by a certain set of rules and standards, you need a government to enforce it.
Ironically the biggest flaw in both systems is human nature. Something that can not be removed.
I imagine this is why Libertarians define their beliefs as being good a priori. It doesn't matter to them if someone exploits their system or how terrible the life in it is. A child being left to starve to death because private charity hasn't reached her is a morally good thing in a Libertarian state.
Honestly, I've found that the rationale is more based around the erroneous belief that a libertarian or a purely capitalist system is the same thing as a meritocracy, which it is not. Because they seem to believe that life circumstances in such a system are determined by hard work, it's easy for them to write off those who fall through the cracks. But writing off the 'acceptable losses' in society is common to all cultures and political systems. What is good for individuals and what is good for society/humanity aren't the same thing.
But that doesn't mean caring too much about those who fall through the cracks of society is a good thing, either, when it comes at the expense of long term growth or stability. A system that balances the competing interests of individuals is, in my opinion, the most reasonable system. But that doesn't mean that a dog-eat-dog system wouldn't be better for the human race as a whole long-term.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
This is a poor figure of libertarians. Libertarians knows merit and survival/wealth/success doesn't correlate 1:1.
The thing with libertarians is that they are die hard "inconsequentialists" (which is, they believe moral things are principles and don't relate to consequences and choices). Taking property against someone's will is wrong, it doesn't matter if it will save children or not. What's wrong is wrong, the ends never justify the means.
Also something that most libertarians don't realize is that government (in one form or another) is inevitable. It's like money. Those things are "spontaneously" generated in human interactions, they should be threated as exogenous constants when we reflect about human societies. A society w/o authority and just as unrealistic as a society without trade and property.
The discussion should be not how much government you must shrink, but if the idea of a private owned government being viable or not, being good or not. Until libertarians start to argue from a point of view of privatizing the existing government instead of shrinking it ad nausea, they can't be taken seriously. Because a private owned government is actually possible and morally correct inside libertarian ethics. A society without a government can be correct inside libertarian ethics, but it's not possible or self sustainable. The main stream libertarian movement in the U.S. are nothing but people hating on taxes and poor understanding of public issues who hide behind the teaching of good authors, such as Mises and classic liberals.
This is a major off topic, sorry Cap Morgan. Later (when more people respond) i will put my own input on the matter of welfare inside a capitalistic system.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Is it one were the Government has significant control over the distribution of goods and services?
If so doesn't that create a society were the people in office have in practice absolute power over those not in office?
That seems to go against the tenants of what one would consider a free society wouldn't it?
You say that as though there are positive figures of Libertarians.
You know more articulate libertarians than I do. But, in any case, I'm talking about excuses. The rationale isn't 'oh, I she deserved to die because she was lazy', it's a cultural undercurrent of 'I'm hard working and doing okay, so she must have done something wrong somewhere'. It's a natural human reaction, and it's not exclusive to libertarians. It's just that the libertarians I've met are more vocal about it (see also: Ron Paul saying he would allow people without health insurance to die and being met with cheers).
This is really my biggest problem with Libertarianism in general. Humans are hierarchical in nature, which inevitably ends with larger and larger governments. Especially with things as interconnected as they are today.
The uninformed ones aren't even worth mentioning, but even the informed Libertarians are too far on the side of deregulation. Regulation, for a large part, exists for a reason. The biggest amount of regulation exists around the food and healthcare industries
Unfortunately, I've yet to find a positive example of a Libertarian IRL
It's a shame because they aren't necessarily wrong, it's just a lot of people take it too far.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Can u distill your point a little more and avoid the stray conceptual allusions and tangents? They show your breath of knowledge yes. They also distract and weaken the force of your point.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say other than "its a fine line"
He has a point Morgan. I tried reading that post, and when I got to the end, I didn't understand your last words and I didn't remember your first.
I like the concept of welfare, but there is a HUGE difference between welfare that I pay into voluntarily and welfare that I am forced to pay for. I do not agree with putting people at gunpoint to pay for something that they necessarily don't want to pay for. That's the whole reason why there is so much fraud and waste in welfare to begin with. The government has no incentive to make sure that money for welfare is being used productively because the government is always going to get that money by force.
The problem I see is that a lot of you guys want to take your cake and eat it too. You can't have government welfare without all the problems that come along with it.
Then I guess we'll actually have to pay attention to the representatives we elect for a change and actually make any effort to find candidates who seem like they want to help society rather than win all of their campaigns with charm and ads with vague, empty promises.
Yeah, we should totes get investment bankers to run it. Corporate interests are upstanding members of society and would never abuse social systems. It's true, those giants of capitalism are completely unassailable by the kinds of vice and sin those dirty, dirty public sector workers praise every night at their Lenin shrines.
Coincidentally, large bureaucracies solve the corruption issue. I know nobody likes that word, bureaucracy, but it's true.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Also, that the larger and larger anything is the more complex it becomes.
The more complex a bureaucracy becomes one would assume those who know how it runs become more powerful in said bureaucracy in comparison to those that don't.
So its seems that having a massive bureaucracy would create a group of individuals with much more power over it then those with out.
Now if this bureaucracy has sweeping powers it seems to almost mimic an aristocracy, the book 1984's Inner Party or the Communist Parties of the history seem to show this tendencies.
In my opinion they both are trying to do the same thing, just through different means.
Libertarians seek to cure theft by abolishing the laws.
Socialist seek to cure theft by making it legal.
You're implying that bureaucracy can be made useful or wielded effectively by individuals on the inside. This is false. Additional bureaucracy pulls power further and further from individuals (even those on the inside) and creates a system over which no individual, or even a cabal of individuals, truly have control. Even policy makers can only affect the system by making drastic changes.
There is no 'knowing how to run' a bureaucracy. One head of the bureau is more or less the same as the other, with only superficial changes being the difference.
The issue you're concerned with is really the aristocracy that helps control the policy makers.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
This is totally false and almost a deliberate lie. Like, if someone actually said this to me in person, I would assume they were insulting me it's so laughably stupid.
I get that most education systems are really just "baby's first grammar school" all the way to grade 12, but come on. You should have a basic concept of what the social contract is by now. Taxes are payment for services rendered, except those services are publicly owned and operated. It is in fact the best deal you can get with your money.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Who's saying that an investment bank should be functioning like a charity? We already have private organizations designed to help the poor. The Salvation Army doesn't have the ability to initiate force and take away money at gunpoint like the government does. The SA and other organizations similar to it can only get money by people voluntarily giving money.
How exactly does bureaucracy solve the issue of corruption? If anything, more bureaucracy exacerbates it. It's the corporations that thrive from all the massive bureaucracy that government creates. You know, the same corporations that you and many people on the forums here hate. Smaller businesses and individuals don't have armies of lawyers or time and money devoted to compliance.
The social contract really isn't a good excuse to justify statism of any kind. In fact, the social contract really isn't a contract at all when you think about it.
A contract requires two parties; it is not a unilateral instrument. Furthermore, it requires a meeting of the minds (effectively, both parties understand what they're agreeing to), clear terms, actual agreement, and exchange of considerations (you don't need a contract to give a gift).
Old papers signed by the dead are not contracts binding on the living. You can't sign a contract for other people (without their explicit permission, e.g., power of attorney).
To the assertion that a birth certificate is such a contract (agreement), I point out that one person may not sign a contract for another. A parent may act as guardian, and act on a child's behalf, but that still does not entitle them to make promises and enter into obligations for that person.
If the argument is made that a government is moral and justifiable because of a "social contract", the implication is that the "social contract" is a valid form of contract. If "social contracts" are valid, then any "social contracts" made by any persons must be valid. Remember, there is no special pleading for the state. Therefore, a business like Walmart could simply ship $500 worth of groceries and other goods to your house every month without your consent, and proceed to bill you. If you disputed this, they could then tell you that if you didn't like it, you were free to move out of your neighborhood.
In accordance with social contract logic, I would simply create my own social contract with the government itself whereby I "tax" the government for the services I provide in the economy that they benefit from, in an amount that is equal to what they have "taxed" me. What would be the difference between these 2 social contracts? Nothing, except of course, that the state has far more violence with which to enforce their "social contract" then I do. That, of course, is the root of the matter. It's the whole idea of might makes right. Pay up, or you get either put in a cage or shot.
Capitalism requires that people be poor. There is nothing in it that requires the wealthy to share their money with the poor and such the wealthy gain a larger and larger separation from the poor hoarding their wealth. It would also be in the best interests of the wealthy to minimize the printing of money so as to maximize the return on investment of money they loan out. This would eventually lead to the extreme of Serfdom all over again: all the wealth in the hands of few and everyone else fighting for scraps.
Defend this position.
I don't remember signing any contract. I did not voluntarily enter into any binding agreement to be taxed a portion of my labor, etc.
I get it though, I signed the contract by default simply by being born here, and if I don't like it, I can leave.
This is like arguing that a cow has agreed to be milked dry or slaughtered for it's beef simply by being born on the farm, and if it doesn't want to be milked or slaughtered for beef, it can leave.
Except this excuse clearly ignores the fact that everywhere the cow could go is just another farm. The cow could jump the fence, but it would only land in on the property of another farmer. Ready to milk it dry, or slaughter it for it's beef.
Countries are simply organized tax farms, and the leaders are the farmers.
Maybe, just maybe, we have the best possible farm - and that might be as good as it gets - since some farms are cruel, hazardous, or have far worse standards of living for it's cattle.
Here, in this farm we can be "happy cows", with all our "privileges" and ****. While the farmer gets his milk or beef.
Then the farmers are brilliant, they put some of the cows on the payroll, so that any cows who complain or try to point out the violent nature of their situation, are quickly marginalized, labeled as trouble makers, and "radicals" who need to be suppressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
When I eat at a restaurant I do not sign any contract binding me to pay for me food. Shall I walk out when I am done and get self-righteous when asked to pay?
Welcome to the market of nations. You have over 100 options to chose from.