Thursday, May 27, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
immigration and socialism
[This post is from this Coffee Party comment thread]
>why is the "legal process" the way it is?
Great question. I don't really know all the historical reasons for the current set of immigration laws. I would guess some of them are probably based in racism or chauvinism. Others exist to control the US labor pool to give advantages to the people already here. I agree with you that the immigration laws need to be changed to be more humane. I think we differ greatly in other areas, though. If I recall correctly from other posts, you are an ardent anti-capitalist. I don't share your level of distaste for capitalism. I agree that great abuses take place within a capitalist society, but abuse is not unique to capitalism. Great abuses take place (or have taken place) within all other forms of society, too. I place the blame on the unethical people that exist within all societies. They always seem to find ways to warp and manipulate the system to their advantage to gain more power, and the more power they gain, the more they can work the system to their advantage. This problem is not unique to capitalist societies. Purely socialist societies will suffer from this too, in my opinion. The only society that would not suffer from this problem is one devoid of unethical people. That's not likely to happen any time soon (if ever).
if all forms of society are vulnerable to abuse and manipulation, what are we to do? Well, chose the least bad one, I guess. People have been debating what is the 'least bad one' for quite some time now. I favor a society that tries to maximize freedom of action and belief, protects everyone's rights, has a government accountable to its citizens, creates laws to punish abusers, creates other laws that try to prevent abuse from happening in the first place.
My problem with socialism it puts too many constraints on peoples actions. Wanting to own a business is not inherently evil in my book. My problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't recognize the need for laws to prevent abuse. They seem content to have only laws to punish abusers. I know I'm greatly simplifying socialism and libertarianism, but this post is long enough as it is. And it's lunch time.
>why is the "legal process" the way it is?
Great question. I don't really know all the historical reasons for the current set of immigration laws. I would guess some of them are probably based in racism or chauvinism. Others exist to control the US labor pool to give advantages to the people already here. I agree with you that the immigration laws need to be changed to be more humane. I think we differ greatly in other areas, though. If I recall correctly from other posts, you are an ardent anti-capitalist. I don't share your level of distaste for capitalism. I agree that great abuses take place within a capitalist society, but abuse is not unique to capitalism. Great abuses take place (or have taken place) within all other forms of society, too. I place the blame on the unethical people that exist within all societies. They always seem to find ways to warp and manipulate the system to their advantage to gain more power, and the more power they gain, the more they can work the system to their advantage. This problem is not unique to capitalist societies. Purely socialist societies will suffer from this too, in my opinion. The only society that would not suffer from this problem is one devoid of unethical people. That's not likely to happen any time soon (if ever).
if all forms of society are vulnerable to abuse and manipulation, what are we to do? Well, chose the least bad one, I guess. People have been debating what is the 'least bad one' for quite some time now. I favor a society that tries to maximize freedom of action and belief, protects everyone's rights, has a government accountable to its citizens, creates laws to punish abusers, creates other laws that try to prevent abuse from happening in the first place.
My problem with socialism it puts too many constraints on peoples actions. Wanting to own a business is not inherently evil in my book. My problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't recognize the need for laws to prevent abuse. They seem content to have only laws to punish abusers. I know I'm greatly simplifying socialism and libertarianism, but this post is long enough as it is. And it's lunch time.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
No free markets
[Here's another of my posts in this thread]
I think, even in the absence of government regulation (and corrupt politicians), large scale markets can never be free from manipulation and exploitation. If the big dogs in the market can't leverage laws and politicians to gain advantages they will use elements from other systems in the overall framework.
I'd like to point out I don't think this is a problem unique to markets. Most (all?) large systems can be manipulated by the powerful players in the system to gain unfair advantage over others by exploiting the overlaps between that system and other systems in the overall framework. This can lead to corrupted governments or corrupted religious organization or corrupted labor groups or corrupted markets, corrupted banking systems, etc, and combination of all of the above.
If each system in the framework can be corrupted by powerful players, what can be done? Another why to think about this problem is to ask: Which system in the framework is the best choice to limit the corruptibility of the other systems? I would argue that a government that is accountable to its citizens is the best choice, provided the citizens participate in and monitor the political processes.
Of course, if all the above is true, but expecting people to participate in and monitor the political processes is unrealistic and will never happen in the real world, then I have no idea what is the best system to keep a check on the others.
I think, even in the absence of government regulation (and corrupt politicians), large scale markets can never be free from manipulation and exploitation. If the big dogs in the market can't leverage laws and politicians to gain advantages they will use elements from other systems in the overall framework.
I'd like to point out I don't think this is a problem unique to markets. Most (all?) large systems can be manipulated by the powerful players in the system to gain unfair advantage over others by exploiting the overlaps between that system and other systems in the overall framework. This can lead to corrupted governments or corrupted religious organization or corrupted labor groups or corrupted markets, corrupted banking systems, etc, and combination of all of the above.
If each system in the framework can be corrupted by powerful players, what can be done? Another why to think about this problem is to ask: Which system in the framework is the best choice to limit the corruptibility of the other systems? I would argue that a government that is accountable to its citizens is the best choice, provided the citizens participate in and monitor the political processes.
Of course, if all the above is true, but expecting people to participate in and monitor the political processes is unrealistic and will never happen in the real world, then I have no idea what is the best system to keep a check on the others.
Road to Serfdom, version 3.0
[This post is from this thread]
For a time back in the 90's I became really interested in libertarian thinking and read many libertarian books and bought into that way of thinking. Since then I came to realize that, although the theories espoused by libertarian writers may be compelling, they don't translate well into the real world. I came to believe it's not possible for free markets to persist in the real world and yield optimal social results. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The world is not only ‘wanters’ and ‘havers’ engaging in commerce. Markets coexist within a framework containing many other systems: Political systems, legal systems, banking systems, religious systems, energy distribution systems, information distribution systems, road systems, international treaty systems, extended family systems, reputation systems, etc, etc. Some of these system are fairly independent of the market system, others intersect and overlap the market system. The reason unregulated free markets eventually fail in the real world is that unethical people use elements of these other systems to gain huge, unfair advantages within the market system. Some government intervention is necessary to help prevent or correct these unfair advantages and to create stability in the system. Of course, government is another system existing within the overall framework and unethical people work hard at manipulating government to gain advantages in one or more of the other systems. It's a big tangled mess of feedback loops that distort any chance for a truly free market to work well in the long term. In fact, I feel these feedback loops, and the opportunities for manipulation they create, cause all the ‘isms’ (capitalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, egalitarianism, etc) to fail in the long run, if left untended, unregulated.
If nothing works, then what to do? Well, I didn’t say ‘nothing works’, I said ‘nothing works when left untended’. Therefore, what are needed are tools to monitor the various systems affecting society, the power to do something when corrections are necessary, and the realization that adjustments will need to be continually made as time goes by. IMHO, the tools and power to do that must come from a government that is accountable to its citizens (otherwise government will just become another system manipulated by the powerful). The tools and power can't come the market. The invisible hand is too easily manipulated these days and to hard to hold accountable.
That said, we as citizens can't just sit back and assume government will always do the right thing. Government is subject to manipulation, just as is everything else in the overall framework. It's our responsibility as citizens to make adjustments to government. Sometimes that will mean supporting an expansion of government to prevent or correct unethical behavior in some the other systems within the framework (including the market system), and sometimes pushing for limiting government to correct abuses or bad government policies. Perhpas most importantly we need to take action when our ability to affect government is threatened. If we lose the ability to affect government...well then bad things happen, to say the least. :-)
We must always keep in mind that the world is full of flawed people and imperfect systems and know that the *best* we can do is muddle along, but the worst we can do is sit back and trust everything to just work.
For a time back in the 90's I became really interested in libertarian thinking and read many libertarian books and bought into that way of thinking. Since then I came to realize that, although the theories espoused by libertarian writers may be compelling, they don't translate well into the real world. I came to believe it's not possible for free markets to persist in the real world and yield optimal social results. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The world is not only ‘wanters’ and ‘havers’ engaging in commerce. Markets coexist within a framework containing many other systems: Political systems, legal systems, banking systems, religious systems, energy distribution systems, information distribution systems, road systems, international treaty systems, extended family systems, reputation systems, etc, etc. Some of these system are fairly independent of the market system, others intersect and overlap the market system. The reason unregulated free markets eventually fail in the real world is that unethical people use elements of these other systems to gain huge, unfair advantages within the market system. Some government intervention is necessary to help prevent or correct these unfair advantages and to create stability in the system. Of course, government is another system existing within the overall framework and unethical people work hard at manipulating government to gain advantages in one or more of the other systems. It's a big tangled mess of feedback loops that distort any chance for a truly free market to work well in the long term. In fact, I feel these feedback loops, and the opportunities for manipulation they create, cause all the ‘isms’ (capitalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, egalitarianism, etc) to fail in the long run, if left untended, unregulated.
If nothing works, then what to do? Well, I didn’t say ‘nothing works’, I said ‘nothing works when left untended’. Therefore, what are needed are tools to monitor the various systems affecting society, the power to do something when corrections are necessary, and the realization that adjustments will need to be continually made as time goes by. IMHO, the tools and power to do that must come from a government that is accountable to its citizens (otherwise government will just become another system manipulated by the powerful). The tools and power can't come the market. The invisible hand is too easily manipulated these days and to hard to hold accountable.
That said, we as citizens can't just sit back and assume government will always do the right thing. Government is subject to manipulation, just as is everything else in the overall framework. It's our responsibility as citizens to make adjustments to government. Sometimes that will mean supporting an expansion of government to prevent or correct unethical behavior in some the other systems within the framework (including the market system), and sometimes pushing for limiting government to correct abuses or bad government policies. Perhpas most importantly we need to take action when our ability to affect government is threatened. If we lose the ability to affect government...well then bad things happen, to say the least. :-)
We must always keep in mind that the world is full of flawed people and imperfect systems and know that the *best* we can do is muddle along, but the worst we can do is sit back and trust everything to just work.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The problem with entrenched political parties
[This post came from this Coffee Party Los Angeles thread]
@DeAnna. I'm fairly cynical so I agree with you that a third party (or any party) eventually, over time, becomes more concerned with their quest for power over their rivals rather than their original purpose for coming into existence (i.e. representing their constituents). I take that as a fundamental fact of life that we have to consider when thinking about laws related to elections and political parties. For example, if my cynical belief is true, it suggests we need to change the laws to remove the barriers to independent and new party candidates, because long established parties have become too caught up in the quest for power and no longer do a good job of representing their constituents. Changes in the law to support a more diverse set of elected officials (more than just Dems and Repubs) will also give people more than just two viable choices come election time. Having more viable choices will lead to a Congress that better reflects the diversity of views held by the people.
@DeAnna. I'm fairly cynical so I agree with you that a third party (or any party) eventually, over time, becomes more concerned with their quest for power over their rivals rather than their original purpose for coming into existence (i.e. representing their constituents). I take that as a fundamental fact of life that we have to consider when thinking about laws related to elections and political parties. For example, if my cynical belief is true, it suggests we need to change the laws to remove the barriers to independent and new party candidates, because long established parties have become too caught up in the quest for power and no longer do a good job of representing their constituents. Changes in the law to support a more diverse set of elected officials (more than just Dems and Repubs) will also give people more than just two viable choices come election time. Having more viable choices will lead to a Congress that better reflects the diversity of views held by the people.
understanding your opponent
[Posted on this Coffee Party thread]
People on the left who criticize the small-government people on the right as heartless, uncaring, and unsympathetic toward the underprivileged need to realize that the small-government people on the right really believe their way is the better, more moral, more caring way. That their way will achieve better results for all, including the underprivileged, and they can point to very intellectual, philosophical, and rational authors to support those claims (e.g. Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek to name just a couple). The people on the right are not, in general, heartless, uncaring, and unsympathetic. The left is making a mistake by generalizing them in that way.
To the left I say, if you don't understand your opponent, your strategies will have less chance of success.
People on the left who criticize the small-government people on the right as heartless, uncaring, and unsympathetic toward the underprivileged need to realize that the small-government people on the right really believe their way is the better, more moral, more caring way. That their way will achieve better results for all, including the underprivileged, and they can point to very intellectual, philosophical, and rational authors to support those claims (e.g. Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek to name just a couple). The people on the right are not, in general, heartless, uncaring, and unsympathetic. The left is making a mistake by generalizing them in that way.
To the left I say, if you don't understand your opponent, your strategies will have less chance of success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
>it might be better if we know who the
>segregationists are
I suppose if there existed an equivalent non-segregated alternative for every segregated business (equivalent in terms of product, service, cost and convenience), then it might be better to allow segregated businesses to exist so customers can make more informed choices (and hopefully ... See Moreput the segregated businesses out of business). However, this condition (i.e. equivalent alternatives everywhere) has never existed and is never likely to exist.
I should add that it's ridiculous to claim that separate sections within a business are equal sections. Any business that chooses to create separate sections based on race are not likely to treat the customers in the non-White section the same as they treat the customers in the Whites-only section. The SCOTUS declared separate is not equal back in the 50s I believe.
What to do then? There are a few options:
1) Allow segregated businesses to existing without competitive alternatives?
2) Subsidize non-segregated alternatives where needed to create competition?
3) Mandate that all businesses be non-segregated (as was done via the Civil Rights Act)?
Which option is best? That depends on who is doing the judging and what criteria is being used to judge 'bestness'. I bet I can guess which option the owners of the segregated businesses would chose. Snark aside, it comes down to what is better for the country. Mandating non-segregation creates a precedence saying government can limit some of the choices of business owners, but increases the options, opportunity, and dignity of non-Whites. Different people will evaluate these trade-offs differently depending on their personal value system. To me, I think the choice is clear. Mandating non-segregated businesses results in the greater good, but it's important to realize that it does come with a price. The price is that the government now has the power (via SCOTUS rulings) to limit some of the choices of business owners. It's up to us as voters to make sure that power is not used inappropriately.