← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Buster

Nader for President?

Thread ID: 14024 | Posts: 85 | Started: 2004-06-02

Buster [OP]

2004-06-02 19:09 | User Profile

He's the only anti-war candidate. He was against Nafta and Gatt. Best of all Jews dislike him. He's wrong on the issues where they're more or less all wrong.

Where is Nader on immigration?

Problem: supporting him might re-elect Junior.

Please share your thoughts.

Centinel

2004-06-02 19:21 | User Profile

IMO the only real effect of supporting Nader -- especially if he causes the Dems to lose some key electoral votes to Bush -- is that his platform will drive the Dems further to the left, since lefties who feel the Dems aren't "progressive" enough seem to be his base of support.

He might pick up a few votes on the right this time around too, mainly from people who have been hit hard by globalization, but I would predict most on the far right find his open borders, gun control, pro-homo baggage too much to swallow and will either sit out the election or vote for someone from the Constitution/America First Parties as a protest vote.

Buster

2004-06-02 20:12 | User Profile

I couldn't find his immigration position on his campaign website.

Centinel

2004-06-02 21:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Buster]I couldn't find his immigration position on his campaign website.[/QUOTE]

Well I figured as a former Green (crypto Marxist) Party candidate, Nader would be for wide-open immigration, but maybe I wasn't right.

Here's some stuff I found on his 2000 election stance:

[url=http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=8694]Nader's supply-side immigration policy[/url]

[url=http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Immigration.htm]Ralph Nader on Immigration[/url]

Ruffin

2004-06-02 21:31 | User Profile

Problem: supporting him might re-elect Junior.

Don't let this one bother you. No matter the rottenness of the incumbent, the next one will always be worse - whether he's the same guy or not. At least for the forseeable future, and based on the understanding that third parties are spoilers.

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-06-03 08:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Centinel]He might pick up a few votes on the right this time around too, mainly from people who have been hit hard by globalization, but I would predict most on the far right find his open borders, gun control, pro-homo baggage too much to swallow and will either sit out the election or vote for someone from the Constitution/America First Parties as a protest vote.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe Nader is an open borders advocate. Of course, neither is he an active immigration restrictionist. While he does strongly support the immigrant position with regard to the "Patriot" Act, secrets arrest & detentions, etc., I get the impression he tends to see immigration more as an economic issue, i.e. that it depresses wages (which doesn't play with a lot of his prosperous, ignorant, youthful leftoid supporters, so he doesn't talk about it). I would definitely prefer Ralph Nader's immigration policies to those of John Kerry or Bush, since there's at least an off chance Nader might actually be open to persuasion by intellectual argument, while Bush and Kerry can be expected to continue offering immigration policies that are about as bad as one can imagine....

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-06-03 08:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ruffin]Don't let this one bother you. No matter the rottenness of the incumbent, the next one will always be worse - whether he's the same guy or not. At least for the forseeable future, and based on the understanding that third parties are spoilers.[/QUOTE]

No spoilage this year, as there's nothing to spoil. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether Bush or Kerry wins this election. Nothing could matter less. Whether or not I fart in the next five minutes will matter more, in the greater scheme of things, than whether Bush or Kerry gets to play President for four years. Seen in that proper light, we are all free to vote our consciences this year. I was going to vote for Nader, but now that Peroutka went out of his way to specify that his opposition to foreign aid would include an end to all aid to Israel, I may just have to swing back to the right. I may well not decide until election day. I just know it won't be Bush or Kerry.

Buster

2004-06-05 15:14 | User Profile

Nader-Buchanan in '04?

[url]http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html[/url]

Here's an excerpt:

PB: What are the reasons a conservative should vote for Ralph Nader?

RN: Well, largelyÃ¢â¬â

PB: Rather than Kerry.

[Laughter.]

RN: IÃ¢â¬â¢m not expecting conservatives to change their minds on certain issues that we disagree on, but if we look at the issues where we have common positions, they reach a level of gravity that would lead conservatives to stop being taken for granted by the corporate Republicans and send them a message by voting for my independent candidacy.

Here are the issues. One, conservatives are furious with the Bush regime because of the fantastic deficits as far as the eye can see. That was a betrayal of BushÃ¢â¬â¢s positions, and it was a reversal of what Bush found when he came to Washington.

Conservatives are very upset about their tax dollars going to corporate welfare kings because that undermines market competition and is a wasted use of their taxes.

Conservatives are upset about the sovereignty-shredding WTO and NAFTA. I wish they had helped us more when we tried to stop them in Congress because, with a modest conservative push, we would have defeated NAFTA because it was narrowly passed. If there was no NAFTA, there wouldnÃ¢â¬â¢t have been a WTO.

Conservatives are also very upset with a self-styled conservative president who is encouraging the shipment of whole industries and jobs to a despotic Communist regime in China. That is what I mean by the distinction between corporate Republicans and conservative Republicans.

Next, conservatives, contrary to popular belief, believe in law and order against corporate crime, fraud, and abuse, and they are not satisfied that the Bush administration has done enough.

Conservatives are also upset about the Patriot Act, which they view as big government, privacy-invading, snooping, and excessive surveillance. They are not inaccurate in that respect.

And finally, two other things. They donÃ¢â¬â¢t like Ã¢â¬ÅLeave No Child BehindÃ¢â¬Â because it is a stupidly conceived federal regulation of local school systems through misguided and very fraudulent multiple-choice testing impositions.

And conservatives are aghast that a born-again Christian president has done nothing about rampant corporate pornography and violence directed to children and separating children from their parents and undermining parental authority.

If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion against the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being named George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by the corporate Democrats and told,Ã¢â¬ÂYou got nowhere to go other than to stay home or vote for the Democrats,Ã¢â¬Â this is the fate of the authentic conservatives in the Republican Party.

I noticed this a long time ago, Pat. I once said to Bill Bennett, Ã¢â¬ÅWould you agree that corporatism is on a collision course with conservative values?Ã¢â¬Â and he said yes.

The impact of giant corporations, commercialism, direct marketing to kids, sidestepping parents, selling them junk food, selling them violence, selling them sex and addictions, selling them the suspension of their socialization processÃ¢â¬âyears ago conservatives spoke out on that, but it was never transformed into a political position. It was always an ethical, religious value position. It is time to take it into the political arena.

PB: Well, itÃ¢â¬â¢s a pleasure. Thank you very much for coming over, Ralph.

RN: Thank you very much.

All Old Right

2004-06-07 20:53 | User Profile

Heh heh. Nader knows what bait to use. Trouble is that we know too much about Nader...that he's a real snake. A large reason industry has left the US is Nader's misguided environmental/marxist ideas. Ralph caused much of this problem, now he pretends to be the solution. He's trying to deprive Kerry the same way conservatives want to deprive Bush.

Kerry is not left enough for Nader...Bush is not conservative enough fo the paleos. Let's correct that. Bush is not conservative at all. The theory being that a Bush victory will drive DNC to the left(to rally the base) and a Kerry victory will push the GOP to the right (to rally that base) for the next election.

Got my first issue of TAC, like it so far.

darkstar

2004-06-07 21:15 | User Profile

In the AmCon piece, Nader implies that we should restrict 'skilled immigration'--because it is bad for the 3rd world. He doesn't want a 'brain drain.' He also suggests that corporations support un-skilled immigration because they want to cut labor costs. However, he further suggests that illegal aliens should be accorded full rights, including getting driver licenses and eligibility for in-state tuition.

I would suggest that immigration is a zero-priority issue for Nader. He is caught up in the neo-Marxist worldview, even if he might dredge up some theoretical reasons to support some limits on immigration when interviewed by the likes of Pat Buchanan.

I do think that people such as Walter Yannis should support Nader. Nader shares the economically backward position of certain strains of primite Catholic social thought. And he blathers on about the positive meaning of 'capitalism' in such a way as to make clear that for him, 'capitalism' should actually be conceived of as 'laborism.' I.e., he finds it offensive that peole should benefit from having capital to invest, rather than just from doing the work of investing.

Quantrill

2004-06-08 13:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar] I do think that people such as Walter Yannis should support Nader. Nader shares the economically backward position of certain strains of primite Catholic social thought. And he blathers on about the positive meaning of 'capitalism' in such a way as to make clear that for him, 'capitalism' should actually be conceived of as 'laborism.' I.e., he finds it offensive that peole should benefit from having capital to invest, rather than just from doing the work of investing.[/QUOTE] Backward? Because it does not recognize that the very existence of man should be based upon buying, selling, and the absolute maximization of utility in every transaction at all times with all people? Because it does not hold the belief that more efficient equals better quality of life? Nor believe that the aggregate of many individual person's vices (greed) forms a magical invisible hand that unerringly and virtuously ensures the best possible outcome at all times? Or because it persists in thinking that there is more to life than commerce, and that a just and Christian society should have guidelines to encourage a humane economy?

My, my, that is backward.

Walter Yannis

2004-06-08 15:09 | User Profile

Where in the world did that come from? Jeepers.

I think that Nader is something of a mixed bag, issue-wise.

He's right to be wary (even paranoid) of large corporations. They are the enemy, after all.

I don't know whether Nader is against private property, per se. I don't think he is.

I also think that Nader has the right political approach to the abortion issue - return the matter to the States. This simply isn't a federal matter.

I agree that he probably doesn't care much what color a person is. But in a way that's good, because I think he might just be crazy enough to REALLY NOT CARE instead of using that position as a cover for anti-white animus. Keep in mind that the economic and security arguments standing along provide a great deal of justification for an overwhelmingly white America, without regard to the "national question." Of course, only if one is allowed to argue the entire case in the public square, including Bell Curve issues.

Also, Nader is an Arab, is he not? He might instinctively have animus against a certain Sh*tty Little Country, which would be a good thing in itself.

Walter

Buster

2004-06-08 15:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] I also think that Nader has the right political approach to the abortion issue - return the matter to the States. This simply isn't a federal matter...

Also, Nader is an Arab, is he not? He might instinctively have animus against a certain Sh*tty Little Country, which would be a good thing in itself.[/QUOTE]

Thankfully, anti-Catholic yahoos are few in number here. Most Christians who visit seem like quite decent Protestant stock.

I don't know where you got this information on abortion. Nader fully endorses the 11 point agenda set by NOW. What more need he say?
He is Lebanese (Arab) by extraction and I presume from a Maronite Catholic background, though he is completely irreligious as far as I know. His most redeeming quality is that the Zionists fume whenever he defends Arabs or criticizes Israeli brutality. Plus I think he could be considered anti-Establishment.
Economically, I would classify him as more or less a European style socialist.
I recall when Buchanan tried to build a bridge with the far left in the person of a black woman whose name I forget (Fulani?). It got rather messy, including lawsuits. I doubt Nader will find it any easier reaching to the far right. I hope I'm wrong.

Walter Yannis

2004-06-08 15:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE][Buster]1. I don't know where you got this information on abortion. Nader fully endorses the 11 point agenda of NOW. What more need he say?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps I'm remembering it wrong, but I recall that this was his position in 2000 when I was considering whether to vote for him then.

Here's a [URL=http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Abortion.htm]LINK[/URL] that seems to support your position generally.

[QUOTE]2. He is Lebanese (Arab) by extraction and I presume from a Maronite Christian background, though he is completely irreligious as far as I know. [B]His most redeeming quality is that the Zionists fume whenever he defends Arabs or criticizes Israeli brutality[/B]. [/QUOTE]

Which is quite an important redeeming quality!

[QUOTE]3. I would classify him as more or less a European style socialist.[/QUOTE]

Probably.

[QUOTE]4. I recall when Buchanan tried to build a bridge with the far left in the person of a black woman whose name I forget (Fulani?). It got rather messy, including lawsuits. I doubt Nader will find it any easier.[/QUOTE]

[URL=http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Abortion.htm]Fulani [/URL] was one of PJB's stranger moves, and one that I never really understood. His choice for VP - [URL=http://fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/2000/washingtonpost091300.htm]Ezola Foster [/URL] - was another bizarre move.

But maybe there is some common ground with the traditional Left that could be found. I think that Distributism is really the way to reach out to the left. It addresses their problems with big corportions - it's all about "small is beautiful" and "think globally, act locally" - but in ways that don't scare off the Left's white, Yuppie adherents.

Maybe. They wouldn't buy our abortion stance, but maybe we could agree to return it to the States where it belongs.

Paleoleftist

2004-06-08 17:07 | User Profile

I sympathize with this:

[QUOTE]The point is this: work should be taxed the least. Then you move to wealth, and then you move to things we do not like. And you will have more than enough to replace the taxes of under $100,000 income and to provide for universal health insurance and decent public transit and to repair the public-works infrastructure. [/QUOTE]

What he is saying is, you neednÃÂ´t change the tax quota, but can still wield a sizeable influence by fine-tuning [I]exactly what[/I] is taxed.

You catch 3 birds with one stone: Discourage harmful things; relieve the needy; pay for the useful.

General Rommel

2004-06-08 18:42 | User Profile

**Nader is a non-white and, very likely, a closet homo - two major problems with my voting for him. In addition to that, he's a hard-core leftist. I could think of other negatives, but that should do for now. **

darkstar

2004-06-08 19:57 | User Profile

Tilting at strawmen, again, are we?

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Backward? Because it does not recognize that the very existence of man should be based upon buying, selling, and the absolute maximization of utility in every transaction at all times with all people? Because it does not hold the belief that more efficient equals better quality of life? Nor believe that the aggregate of many individual person's vices (greed) forms a magical invisible hand that unerringly and virtuously ensures the best possible outcome at all times? Or because it persists in thinking that there is more to life than commerce, and that a just and Christian society should have guidelines to encourage a humane economy?

My, my, that is backward.[/QUOTE]

Quantrill

2004-06-08 20:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]Tilting at strawmen, again, are we?[/QUOTE] Perhaps you would care to explain the nature of these strawmen. Most of them seem like fair descriptions of anarcho-capitalism to me. My description of anarcho-capitalism:

Maximization of utility as the guiding principle of human behavior.
Worship of efficiency.
Absolute faith in the "invisible hand."
Hold that all restrictions on use of private property are inherently unjust.

Now which of those are strawmen?

All Old Right

2004-06-09 00:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]I sympathize with this:

What he is saying is, you neednÃÂ´t change the tax quota, but can still wield a sizeable influence by fine-tuning [I]exactly what[/I] is taxed.

You catch 3 birds with one stone: Discourage harmful things; relieve the needy; pay for the useful.[/QUOTE] Earnings are the property of the earner....not the government, or any do-gooder deciding who needs help with my money. And what I earn certainly doesn't have any business building schools in Iraq. If government did what it was supposed to (very little)it wouldn't have an insatiable appetite for tax money.

Paleoleftist

2004-06-09 00:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=All Old Right]Earnings are the property of the earner....not the government, or any do-gooder deciding who needs help with my money. And what I earn certainly doesn't have any business building schools in Iraq. If government did what it was supposed to (very little)it wouldn't have an insatiable appetite for tax money.[/QUOTE]

Off the mark. He didnÃÂ´t advocate raising taxes, only collecting them differently. Nor did he advocate spending the money on foreign aid.

Also, 'give to Caesar that which is CaesarÃÂ´s'. The demand of minimum government doesnÃÂ´t exactly flow from the Bible or from tradition.

GaConfed

2004-06-09 01:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Off the mark. He didnÃÂ´t advocate raising taxes, only collecting them differently. Nor did he advocate spending the money on foreign aid.

Also, 'give to Caesar that which is CaesarÃÂ´s'. The demand of minimum government doesnÃÂ´t exactly flow from the Bible or from tradition.[/QUOTE]

Yea, maybe so, but in this case Caesar should be state or even local government. Not the feds. I think the less people in a given polity, the more power over the government the people will have. The federal government with its warmaking ability should be given only specific powers and no more.

Paleoleftist

2004-06-09 01:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=GaConfed]Yea, maybe so, but in this case Caesar should be state or even local government. Not the feds. I think the less people in a given polity, the more power over the government the people will have. The federal government with its warmaking ability should be given only specific powers and no more.[/QUOTE]

ThatÃÂ´s ok with me. Austria is smaller than a number of U.S. states, I think, so government means something more local to me. I was not arguing against local decisionmaking.

Bardamu

2004-06-09 02:18 | User Profile

This is for sure. I could never vote for a goddamned Demonrat anyway. The party of Jessie Jackson -- forget about it!

GaConfed

2004-06-09 03:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]ThatÃÂ´s ok with me. Austria is smaller than a number of U.S. states, I think, so government means something more local to me. I was not arguing against local decisionmaking.[/QUOTE]

Well, I think also that it gives more control to the people as to just how expansive government should be. In the case of the US, it would also give citizens numerous choices. The nature of the welfare state would be much different in Georgia than it would be in California or New York. If you don't like it where you live there is more than likely, somewhere else that would suit you better. Also, the people that like where they are can be rid of malcontents. Frankly, I'd love to see all the welfare negroes move up to NYC and live off the Jews' taxes. :thumbsup:

darkstar

2004-06-09 08:47 | User Profile

2, 3, & 4. #1 is also problematic here, since it leaves 'utility' undefined.

Also, why have you reduced 'capitalism' to 'anarcho-capitalism'? Do you think capitalism is only possible as anarcho-capitalism?

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Perhaps you would care to explain the nature of these strawmen. Most of them seem like fair descriptions of anarcho-capitalism to me. My description of anarcho-capitalism:

Maximization of utility as the guiding principle of human behavior.
Worship of efficiency.
Absolute faith in the "invisible hand."
Hold that all restrictions on use of private property are inherently unjust.

Now which of those are strawmen?[/QUOTE]

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-06-09 09:35 | User Profile

My, my, that is backward.[/QUOTE]

BRAVO!!!

I don't know how the concepts of economic liberty and capitalism came to be seen as synonymous in the minds of so many otherwise sane people (it probably had something to do with the Cold War), but capitalism is no less a Jewish abomination than Communism.

darkstar

2004-06-09 10:09 | User Profile

Maybe this happened because capitalism as a theory of economics involves the claim that individuals should enjoy a maximal compatible liberty to make use of their property?

What, pray tell, is this non-capitalist 'economic liberty' that you endorse? The 'liberty' to do what the government decides is the best use of your property for those who run the government?

[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]BRAVO!!!

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-06-09 10:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]Maybe this happened because capitalism as a theory of economics involves the claim that individuals should enjoy a maximal compatible liberty to make use of their property?

I see no evidence that is the case, other than perhaps in a textbook or whatnot. In reality, capitalism is about freedom for multinational corporations to rig the system in order to destroy any potential competition (albeit not always effectively). People can call that a corruption of capitalism, but that's what capitalism really is. To defend capitalism as being flawed due only to its imperfect implementation reminds me of what leftists used to say (and probably still do) about the Soviet Union....

[quote=darkstar]What, pray tell, is this non-capitalist 'economic liberty' that you endorse? The 'liberty' to do what the government decides is the best use of your property for those who run the government?[/QUOTE]

It sounds like you're describing the present conditions. If you asked me whether living in a decent, stable society were more important than the right to pay one's employees three dollars an hour, I'd have to say "YES."

Walter Yannis

2004-06-09 11:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Maybe this happened because capitalism as a theory of economics involves the claim that individuals should enjoy a maximal compatible liberty to make use of their property?[/QUOTE]

I question whether that's a completely accurate definition of capitalism, but I think it does show the fundamental error of the economic theories developed by the Chicago School and others.

That is the extreme (even exclusive) focus on "individuals," with the implicit assumption that only the individual in fact exists, and that the human collective has no cognizable existence. But this simply isn't the case. Human socieites are in fact organisms, just as certain other species like sea hydras and beehives function as single organisms. This is one of the more interesting discoveries of [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226901351/qid=1086779958/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9936076-2026537?v=glance&s=books]sociobiology[/URL], and of [URL=http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/04/rauch.htm]computer modeling of societies[/URL].

Your definition - at least in its popular version - takes no accounting of this empirical fact of the organismic nature of society, and insists instead on a demonstrably false "contractual" view of society; i.e. the view that the thing we call "society" is really only a collection of individuals that contract with each other.

Distributism is the economic component of a larger Catholic view of the human person and human society. Distributism proceeds from the assumption that the economy is ordered toward the service of people working to support their families, extending to communities, extending to nations. Distributism therefore places all economic activity squarely in the service of human solidarity, based on marriage and family, social and state subsidiarity, and the legal protection of the institution of private property. Distributism thereby recognizes the "social capital" upon which individual prosperity is built (a fact recognized by Adam Smith, by the way, and which of course the capitalism of [URL=http://ufcw99.com/Walmart%20Archive%2003.htm#Lawmaker,%20womens%20groups%20hit%20Wal-Mart.%20%20The%20retailer%20denies%20it%20pushes%20its%20workers%20to%20go%20on%20welfare.]Wal-Mart land utterly denies[/URL]).

Our loud insistence on the primacy of the social organism and social capital is essential to our success, IMHO.

Kevin McDonald showed us how the dynamics of parasitic group organisms and their attack on their host social organisms work. One weapon in the parasite's arsenal is to weaken the collective organism, so that the collective parasite need deal only with atomized individuals it can pick off one at a time. The [URL=http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/chicago.htm]Chicago School [/URL] of guys like Uncle Milty Friedman, the Objectivists like [URL=http://www.aynrand.org/faq/]Ayn Rand (Alisa Rosenbaum)[/URL] and her followers, and others of libertarian bent are part and parcel of that "social atomization" weapon.

Remember also that the corporate board room and the entire usurious banking/consumption/debt system are bastions of power of our Zionist masters. Even if one doesn't buy the Distributist argument, if we hope to survive as a people we're going to have to attack those institutions. Since Distributism undermines the very plinth of their power (through rejection of usury and great suspcion of the corporate organizational form), those who would resist the Pharisee should consider signing on to the program for tactical reasons only.

I'm glad that you're here, Darkstar. Modern capitalist theory is something that we'll have to overcome, and it's great that we have you here to help us define the issues and sharpen our arguments.

Regards,

Walter

Quantrill

2004-06-09 12:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]2, 3, & 4. #1 is also problematic here, since it leaves 'utility' undefined.

Also, why have you reduced 'capitalism' to 'anarcho-capitalism'? Do you think capitalism is only possible as anarcho-capitalism?[/QUOTE] In capitalism, 'utility' would, of course, be defined by each individual, since the whims of each individual are paramount. As for the other points, perhaps I couched them in hyperbole, but I still say that they are valid. Since you are a capitalist defender, and you think highly enough of anarcho-capitalism to put LewRockwell.com in your signature, I assumed you were an anarcho-capitalist. My mistake.

darkstar

2004-06-09 22:08 | User Profile

I agree that the situation faced by advocates of 'pure capitalism' bears some similarity to that faced by Marxists who are bedeviled by Soviet Communism. However, I do not attack Communism just because Soviet Communism went wrong. I attack it because Marx's theories are flawed, and idolize the State in such a way that horrors will inevitably result when Marxism is realized in actuality.

I don't see a similar flaw in capitalism. Capitalism has worked well when the government was not often used to choose winners and losers (North American colonies, 1600's to -early 1800's), and it can work well again.

[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I see no evidence that is the case, other than perhaps in a textbook or whatnot. In reality, capitalism is about freedom for multinational corporations to rig the system in order to destroy any potential competition (albeit not always effectively). People can call that a corruption of capitalism, but that's what capitalism really is. To defend capitalism as being flawed due only to its imperfect implementation reminds me of what leftists used to say (and probably still do) about the Soviet Union....

darkstar

2004-06-09 22:14 | User Profile

LewRockewell features writings by libertarians of many stripes. Not all are 'anarcho-capitalists.' But you are right that that is the dominant viewpoint.

As to #1: If you mean that the guiding principle of human behavior is maximization of utility, regardless of what we might want it to be, then this is perhaps correct, and also a view endorsed by most anarcho-capitalists. This is just a way of saying that humans act to achieve what they think is best. Some choose to bring society closer to their view of what is desired by God, others act only to increase their personal pleasure, etc.

If you mean that capitalist hold that the guiding principle of human behavior ought to be that each individual do what they think is best irregardless of what others want (except as these wants must be considered strategically), then this does not refer to capitalism, but to a form of egoism. Maybe the Randians believe this kind of thing, but as you probably know, Rand is made fun at LR.com quite a lot. This represents the general 'capitalist' view of Rand.

[QUOTE=Quantrill]In capitalism, 'utility' would, of course, be defined by each individual, since the whims of each individual are paramount. As for the other points, perhaps I couched them in hyperbole, but I still say that they are valid. Since you are a capitalist defender, and you think highly enough of anarcho-capitalism to put LewRockwell.com in your signature, I assumed you were an anarcho-capitalist. My mistake.[/QUOTE]

darkstar

2004-06-09 22:20 | User Profile

Perhaps the problem you suggest are found in Chicago School though is real. I think it is probably correct for many Chicago School thinkers, but I am not sure if it is true of, say, a Cschooler like Epstein, who is very much focused on who individual liberties lead to overall good 'for society.' Of course, he doesn't have an account of good for group below the level of 'society,' and this lacunae suggests that he serves the global majority, with (at this level of his theory) little care for the long-term interests of white.

Anyway, the Chicago School is just one school. Capitalist theory is much more extensive, and the 'Locke-Smith' synthesis that represents the mainstream is fully compatible with a belief in the centrality of group interests and the importance of group social capital. When it comes to the anarcho-capitalists, this is even more evident.

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I question whether that's a completely accurate definition of capitalism, but I think it does show the fundamental error of the economic theories developed by the Chicago School and others.

Our loud insistence on the primacy of the social organism and social capital is essential to our success, IMHO.

I'm glad that you're here, Darkstar. Modern capitalist theory is something that we'll have to overcome, and it's great that we have you here to help us define the issues and sharpen our arguments.

Regards,

Walter[/QUOTE]

Paleoleftist

2004-06-09 23:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]I agree that the situation faced by advocates of 'pure capitalism' bears some similarity to that faced by Marxists who are bedeviled by Soviet Communism. However, I do not attack Communism just because Soviet Communism went wrong. I attack it because Marx's theories are flawed, and idolize the State in such a way that horrors will inevitably result when Marxism is realized in actuality.

Well, actually itÃÂ´s [I]very[/I] similar. The theory of Adam Smith is based on the assumptions that everybody is 1) 100% rational and 2) 100% selfish.

Both assumptions are wrong, and the second is also incompatible with having a real community.

From 'The Roots of Honour' (John Ruskin, 1860):

[QUOTE]Among the delusions which at different periods have possessed themselves of the minds of large masses of the human race, perhaps the most curious -- certainly the least creditable -- is the modern soi-disant science of political economy, based on the idea that an advantageous code of social action may be determined irrespectively of the influence of social affection.

Of course, as in the instances of alchemy, astrology, witchcraft, and other such popular creeds, political economy, has a plausible idea at the root of it. "The social affections," says the economist, "are accidental and disturbing elements in human nature; but avarice and the desire of progress are constant elements. Let us eliminate the inconstants, and, considering the human being merely as a covetous machine, examine by what laws of labour, purchase, and sale, the greatest accumulative result in wealth is obtainable. Those laws once determined, it will be for each individual afterwards to introduce as much of the disturbing affectionate element as he chooses, and to determine for himself the result on the new conditions supposed."

This would be a perfectly logical and successful method of analysis, if the accidentals afterwards to be introduced were of the same nature as the powers first examined. Supposing a body in motion to be influenced by constant and inconstant forces, it is usually the simplest way of examining its course to trace it first under the persistent conditions, and afterwards introduce the causes of variation. But the disturbing elements in the social problem are not of the same nature as the constant ones: they alter the essence of the creature under examination the moment they are added; they operate, not mathematically, but chemically, introducing conditions which render all our previous knowledge unavailable. We made learned experiments upon pure nitrogen, and have convinced ourselves that it is a very manageable gas: but, behold! the thing which we have practically to deal with is its chloride; and this, the moment we touch it on our established principles, sends us and or apparatus through the ceiling.

Observe, I neither impugn nor doubt the conclusion of the science if its terms are accepted. I am simply uninterested in them, as I should be in those of a science of gymnastics which assumed that men had no skeletons. It might be shown, on that supposition, that it would be advantageous to roll the students up into pellets, flatten them into cakes, or stretch them into cables; and that when these results were effected, the re-insertion of the skeleton would be attended with various inconveniences to their constitution. The reasoning might be admirable, the conclusions true, and the science deficient only in applicability. Modern political economy stands on a precisely similar basis. Assuming, not that the human being has no skeleton, but that it is all skeleton, it founds an ossifiant theory of progress on this negation of a soul; and having shown the utmost that may be made of bones, and constructed a number of interesting geometrical figures with death's-head and humeri, successfully proves the inconvenience of the reappearance of a soul among these corpuscular structures. I do not deny the truth of this theory: I simply deny its applicability to the present phase of the world. [/QUOTE]

darkstar

2004-06-10 00:45 | User Profile

Smith believes we are 100% rational and 100% selfish? News to me. I don't see any reason to believe this a credible reading of Adam Smith. Perhaps you could provide some textual evidence from Smith's writings?

[QUOTE=Paleoleftist] Well, actually itÃÂ´s [I]very[/I] similar. The theory of Adam Smith is based on the assumptions that everybody is 1) 100% rational and 2) 100% selfish. [/QUOTE]

Valley Forge

2004-06-10 01:04 | User Profile

Capitalism is no less a soul-killing poison than Bolshevism.

darkstar

2004-06-10 02:14 | User Profile

By golly, you're right! What have I been thinking!

It seemed to me that capitalism is an economic system based on individual liberty, and one which further allows for white ability to live unburdened from theft and looting by other races. (Also, I had the idea that it had some potential in the area of allowing for massive economic growth).

But then I see it compared to Bolshevism--and I know that has to be right!

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Capitalism is no less a soul-killing poison than Bolshevism.[/QUOTE]

Quantrill

2004-06-10 12:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]By golly, you're right! What have I been thinking!

But then I see it compared to Bolshevism--and I know that has to be right![/QUOTE] First off, capitalism does not equal private property. I believe in private property; I do not believe in capitalism.

Capitalism is only based on individual liberty if individual liberty means egoism. The phrase from the Godfather, "it's nothing personal, it's just business" sums up capitalism in a nutshell. It encourages two sets of morality -- one for private life (family and friends) and one for business, in which anything you can get away with is acceptable. The reality of a human community is that every interaction, including commerce, is personal. To separate the two is artificial and destructive. Society should be governed by Christian morality in all interactions.

Furthermore, capitalism per se does not protect anyone from looting by other races. In fact, it compounds it by opening you up to being looted by others of your own race.

Capitalism uses maximalization of economic utility as its guiding principle. Therefore, anything that cannot readily be assigned a price is not held to have value. This is why capitalism, for example, tears up wetlands and puts strip malls in their places. Strip malls have a tangible economic value, they bring in dollars, and they make the Chamber of Commerce types happy. All a wetland does is house animals and provide beauty, which is necessary for a full life, but which is hardly quantifiable. A good example of this is Jesus' remark -- "What profiteth it a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his soul?" Well, a capitalist would add up the prices of all the material goods in the world, subtract that sum from the monetary value of one soul, and then probably decide to go ahead and gain the whole world.

There is also the problem with assigning costs appropriately, otherwise known as externalities. Pollution from a factory, for example, is produced while making products that will profit just the factory owners, but it affects everyone in the region. The true cost of the pollution, then, has been externalized onto the populace and the taxpayer, though it should be borne by the factory owner.

Capitalism is inherently radical. It discourages any ties to the past or to traditional ways of doing things. It encourages novelty and dissatisfaction with the current order to entice people into continuously buying new things. It encourages materialism and waste by using advertising to create new wants and "needs" out of whole cloth, where previously people had been perfectly content. Finally, since prurience sells, and the sole criterion for capitalism is whether something produces a return on investment, capitalism undermines public morality. Have you seen those Porn Star t-shirts that the teeny-boppers wear? The target demographic for those was 12-year-old girls! But, I'm sure they made some money, and maximized their own utility, so what does it matter?

Finally, for capitalism to work, it requires perfect competition. Perfect competition, over time, leads to one company out-competing the others, growing more powerful, and the becoming a monopoly. Once you have a monopoly, you no longer have competition, and therefore, you no longer have capitalism. Thus, capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction.

Walter Yannis

2004-06-10 15:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Quantrille - Furthermore, capitalism per se does not protect anyone from looting by other races. In fact, it compounds it by opening you up to being looted by others of your own race.[/QUOTE]

No, indeed it does not.

In fact, the corporate organizational form - by separating the management of enormous amounts of wealth from their owners - creates the very niche groups like Jews exploit to their own advantage.

Look at a list of the CEOs of the Fortune 1,000, and you'll see that Jews are vastly overrepresented in that list.

But these 1,000 people have vast influence over government and nearly every aspect of our llives. What we'll eat, what we'll read.

Darkstar: we've been discussing these things for a while. Do you understand my point about how the corporate organizational form destroys property?

In a nutshell, "private property" is defined as a unity of ownership, management and liability for debts. All three of these indicia must be simultaneously present for "property" to exist, at least fully.

But the corporate organizational form unbundles these three components of "property", and thereby destroys property by destroying this unity.

To define my relationship to my car with the same word as my relationship to a share of publicly traded stock in my mutual fund is nonsensical. It's a terrible abuse of language. These are very different things. Whereas in regard to my car I control, operate, maintain and stand liable for my debts, I have no idea even what stock is in my mutual fund on any given day. It is the difference between reality and virtual reality.

Distributism is all about returning the world to reality by re-instituting private property.

It's the same thing the Marxist Left does when they "redifine" things like marriage out of existence. But marriage was always understood to be a voluntary lifelong union of one man and one woman that is open to the begetting and rearing of children. That's what marriage is. Then along come the Marxists and they say "well, from here on out, the word "marriage" also includes two fags who sign a piece of paper." But that's obviously a lie, and I think that you would agree with that.

This all seems rather clear to me. The Chicago School is a victim of fuzzy thinking. They say start out defining property like Adam Smith and even claim him as one of their own, but then change the definition of "property" in mid-argument.

I suspect that a similar "unbundling" argument can and should be advanced against usury - financing where the return of the investor is not a function of profit and loss - but I haven't thought throught that one yet. But isn't it also clear that usury is another niche that our enemies have occupied as a base to a attack us from? Usury is an institution custom designed for Kevin McDonald's group parasites, just as are the boardrooms of public companies.

Walter

Paleoleftist

2004-06-10 18:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]Smith believes we are 100% rational and 100% selfish? [/QUOTE]

ItÃÂ´s the [I]Implicit[/I] assumptions without which 'classic' liberal economy doesnÃÂ´t make sense.

darkstar

2004-06-10 22:25 | User Profile

Oh, it's [I]implicit[/I]. Right.

[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]ItÃÂ´s the [I]Implicit[/I] assumptions without which 'classic' liberal economy doesnÃÂ´t make sense.[/QUOTE]

darkstar

2004-06-10 22:30 | User Profile

I really have no idea what you are talking about when you mention 'capitalism.' It is like you are trying to define Christianity by saying that it promote pedeophilia. Totally bizarre.

All I can say is, you are right that capitalism does not involve 'equal private property.' Rather, it involves 'equal property rights'--everyone has the right to use their property as they decide is best, so long as they do not interfere with others' rights in doing so.

[QUOTE=Quantrill]First off, capitalism does not equal private property. I believe in private property; I do not believe in capitalism.

Furthermore, capitalism per se does not protect anyone from looting by other races. In fact, it compounds it by opening you up to being looted by others of your own race.

darkstar

2004-06-10 22:36 | User Profile

Property is not 'defined' by the unity of ownership, managment, and liability (for debts or in other issues). First of all, if it is your property, you can have anyone you choose manage it, so long as they are willing and available. Second of all, procedures for assigning liability are ultimately determined by social agreements among individuals. Individuals are free to limit their liability toward the owners of a corporation in exchange for some good, such as a contract for products or services.

You object that the government enforces such limitations of liability upon consumers. What a good anarcho-capitalist you are! But limited liability is no an essential feature of capitalism.

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]No, indeed it does not.

In fact, the corporate organizational form - by separating the management of enormous amounts of wealth from their owners - creates the very niche groups like Jews exploit to their own advantage.

Look at a list of the CEOs of the Fortune 1,000, and you'll see that Jews are vastly overrepresented in that list.

But these 1,000 people have vast influence over government and nearly every aspect of our llives. What we'll eat, what we'll read.

Darkstar: we've been discussing these things for a while. Do you understand my point about how the corporate organizational form destroys property?

But the corporate organizational form unbundles these three components of "property", and thereby destroys property by destroying this unity.

Distributism is all about returning the world to reality by re-instituting private property.

Walter[/QUOTE]

Paleoleftist

2004-06-10 22:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]Oh, it's [I]implicit[/I]. Right.[/QUOTE]

See, for example, Reinhold Niebuhr's 1932 'Moral Man', which critiques the Liberal Movement up to the 1930s. Niebuhr faults liberals for allowing themselves to be victims of the Enlightenment, i.e. being incurable optimistically rational about morals and politics. Second, he addresses the issue of the will for power inevitably dominating the will for good. Classic Liberalism, in the sense of Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and John Locke, lends itself as a venue for this to occur through its condonation of egoism as the intrinsic element of (supposed) social harmony. [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664224741/103-2575161-1134255?v=glance[/url]

darkstar

2004-06-10 23:06 | User Profile

If cannot make the argument yourself through textual reference to Smith and Locke, I am not going to be particularly impressed by your book recommendations.

In any case, 'the Liberal Movement' is not 'the laissez-faire' movement. The 'liberalism' of the late 19th and 20th Centuries that took up utilitarian ideas (Bentham, Mill) took a turn to the left, and became anti-capitalist. It is the father of modern 'liberalism.' The classical liberalism of Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, Kant, Bastiat, Smith, Mises, Hayeck, et al is something rather different.

[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]See, for example, Reinhold Niebuhr's 1932 'Moral Man', which critiques the Liberal Movement up to the 1930s. Niebuhr faults liberals for allowing themselves to be victims of the Enlightenment, i.e. being incurable optimistically rational about morals and politics. Second, he addresses the issue of the will for power inevitably dominating the will for good. Classic Liberalism, in the sense of Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and John Locke, lends itself as a venue for this to occur through its condonation of egoism as the intrinsic element of (supposed) social harmony. [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664224741/103-2575161-1134255?v=glance[/url][/QUOTE]

Paleoleftist

2004-06-10 23:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]The classical liberalism of Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, Kant, Bastiat, Smith, Mises, Hayeck, et al is something rather different.[/QUOTE]

Classical Liberalism is precisely the view that believes in the invisible hand (personal egoism leading to universal good). But thereÃÂ´s no reason why that should be so.

darkstar

2004-06-10 23:46 | User Profile

You reduce the classical liberal tradition to one point from Smith, which you also misrepresent.

Here is the Wealth of Nations: [url]http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html[/url]

Here is The Theory of Moral Sentiments: [url]http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS.html[/url]

Try doing a search on 'egoism.' It will come up blank, my friend.

[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Classical Liberalism is precisely the view that believes in the invisible hand (personal egoism leading to universal good). But thereÃÂ´s no reason why that should be so.[/QUOTE]

Quantrill

2004-06-11 02:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]I really have no idea what you are talking about when you mention 'capitalism.' It is like you are trying to define Christianity by saying that it promote pedeophilia. Totally bizarre.

Uh, I think this statement is much more bizarre than anything I wrote. I was discussing the defining features of capitalism.

[QUOTE=darkstar] All I can say is, you are right that capitalism does not involve 'equal private property.' Rather, it involves 'equal property rights'--everyone has the right to use their property as they decide is best, so long as they do not interfere with others' rights in doing so.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you have deliberately misunderstood my statement or not. I wrote "capitalism does not equal private property" as in "capitalism != private property." I did not mean "capitalism does not provide equal amounts of private property." Of course, it doesn't. I was making the observation that the economic system known as capitalism is not the same thing as the idea of private property. Private property can exist without capitalism, as indeed is did for thousands of years.

darkstar

2004-06-11 02:24 | User Profile

Oops, sorry, I just misread your statement. Not intentionally, so far as I know. In any case, capitalism does not equal private property, agreed.

Rather, capitalism is an economic system wherein an private property rights are central. When these rights are respected, and individuals trade goods or services, you have capitalism.

[QUOTE=Quantrill] I'm not sure if you have deliberately misunderstood my statement or not.[/QUOTE]

Exelsis_Deo

2004-06-11 04:26 | User Profile

Darkstar, you are right to say that Capitalism is not based on Property RIghts. Real Capitalism used to have that as one of its bases, but no longer. Real Capitalism is the reason why housing values are up over 100 % in the last 5 years because the wealthy are buying up all the prime areas such as coastline. And I don't mean wealthy families and individuals, I mean corporations. The John Keyes and Adam Smith view of " laissez faire " capitalism no longer applies to the modern world. Not at all. Paradigm shifts and monumental differences exist between 2004 and 1800. I know you know this. But truly, the term " capitalism " no longer has any meaning. We live in a world of systems. The systems do not differentiate between capitalism money or communist money or dictator money or anything. It's just money. And the basis of said money is only a figment of imagination, given its value by the Governing Presence. For example, in the last 4 weeks alone, the Federal Reserve has issued, printed and put into the public money flow over 150 billion dollars. These dollars never existed only 5 weeks ago. That's why the whole issue of the " National Debt " only makes me laugh or puke in disgust. Debt. Debt to whom ? Debt to the House of Rothschild and Rockefeller and Warburg ??? It's really all a big joke, especially to them. They don't work for money, as we do, they PROCESS it, like the way we brush our teeth. They just keep fomenting and feeding the usurious SYSTEM of fake money. Meanwhile, they also hold the vast share of REAL MONEY, the precious metals, and truly it's the Catholic Church which is the only institution remaining that sitll has vast wealth grown over its history which is a last hold-out in their eyes. But the Church spends millions on the poor, and the Church does not charge usury, which is a sin, and is not in the banking business and that's why they don't nearly match the wealth of the globalists. Personally, I truly believe that targeted reaction and a coup is the only way of trying to take American Rights back. I think you know what I mean, so there's no real reason to elaborate further.

darkstar

2004-06-11 04:40 | User Profile

Of course theories of laissez-faire still 'apply.' They apply to any people who can decide how to treat others and their claims to property. If you mean that we don't have a laissez-faire system--no kidding. Blather about 'paradigm shifts' in such matters is typical neo-Marxist rhetoric.

Yes, we need a return to the gold standard. Could be that corporations are driving housing prices up. However, I doubt they are the main culprit--and, you know, it is ultimately 'individuals and families' who own corporations. Housing prices are going up because of mass immigration and the Fed's monetary policies.

I am not a Catholic. If the Catholic church thinks 'usury' is a sin, that is just more medieval barbarism.

[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Darkstar, you are right to say that Capitalism is not based on Property RIghts. Real Capitalism used to have that as one of its bases, but no longer. Real Capitalism is the reason why housing values are up over 100 % in the last 5 years because the wealthy are buying up all the prime areas such as coastline. And I don't mean wealthy families and individuals, I mean corporations. The John Keyes and Adam Smith view of " laissez faire " capitalism no longer applies to the modern world. Not at all. Paradigm shifts and monumental differences exist between 2004 and 1800. I know you know this. But truly, the term " capitalism " no longer has any meaning. We live in a world of systems. The systems do not differentiate between capitalism money or communist money or dictator money or anything. It's just money. And the basis of said money is only a figment of imagination, given its value by the Governing Presence. For example, in the last 4 weeks alone, the Federal Reserve has issued, printed and put into the public money flow over 150 billion dollars. These dollars never existed only 5 weeks ago. That's why the whole issue of the " National Debt " only makes me laugh or puke in disgust. Debt. Debt to whom ? Debt to the House of Rothschild and Rockefeller and Warburg ??? It's really all a big joke, especially to them. They don't work for money, as we do, they PROCESS it, like the way we brush our teeth. They just keep fomenting and feeding the usurious SYSTEM of fake money. Meanwhile, they also hold the vast share of REAL MONEY, the precious metals, and truly it's the Catholic Church which is the only institution remaining that sitll has vast wealth grown over its history which is a last hold-out in their eyes. But the Church spends millions on the poor, and the Church does not charge usury, which is a sin, and is not in the banking business and that's why they don't nearly match the wealth of the globalists. Personally, I truly believe that targeted reaction and a coup is the only way of trying to take American Rights back. I think you know what I mean, so there's no real reason to elaborate further.[/QUOTE]

Quantrill

2004-06-11 12:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]Rather, capitalism is an economic system wherein an private property rights are central. When these rights are respected, and individuals trade goods or services, you have capitalism.[/QUOTE] Not true. Private property rights are respected, and individuals trade goods and services under distributism as well, for example. Capitalism is characterized by the belief that each person's unrestrained greed (unless it becomes outright aggression) will collectively create the "invisible hand" that causes everything to turn out for the best. Because this is the case, the other results I discussed in my earlier post follow.

Usury is exploitation. Disapproving of it is hardly "barbarism."

Walter Yannis

2004-06-11 13:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE][darkstar]Property is not 'defined' by the unity of ownership, managment, and liability (for debts or in other issues). [/QUOTE]

Yes it is.

[QUOTE]First of all, if it is your property, you can have anyone you choose manage it, so long as they are willing and available. Second of all, procedures for assigning liability are ultimately determined by social agreements among individuals. Individuals are free to limit their liability toward the owners of a corporation in exchange for some good, such as a contract for products or services. [/QUOTE]

I agree that parties to a contract may contract out management of their property just as they can contract to limit liability. But here's what you're missing: they can only contract to do so in regard to each other. Two parties to a contract can't get together and limit the rights of the rest of humanity in regard to their property.

But that's exactly what the state does in allowing the use of the corporate form. The state allows anybody to limit their liability in regard to the other six billion people on the planet through the simple connivance of incorporating a company and observing a few legal fictions.

Anybody can [URL=http://www.delaware-corporation-service.com/]incorporate in Delaware [/URL] for a few hundred dollars, and thereby shield unlimited amounts of their property from the just claims of others. This is a terrible abuse. It destroys the unity that is private property. To the extent our system relies on the corporate form we cease having a civil society based on private property and the rule of law.

[QUOTE]What a good anarcho-capitalist you are![/QUOTE]

Well, I definitely believe in the free market, with the state acting as umpire, with laws designed to force actors to internalize their own costs. I think that the state should provide for the common defense, and provide assistance to those who can't help themselves. I think that that the state has to be supported by a substantial tax system. I don't know if that makes me an "anarcho-capitalist" - but I think not.

[QUOTE] But limited liability is no an essential feature of capitalism.[/QUOTE]

You say that "limited liability is no essential feature of capitalism" but that is patently false. Look around you. The most salient feature of modern capitalism is the stock exchange. Much of the economy is under the control of large corporations. This is capitalism.

And capitalism is indeed just a short step from socialism.

But maybe we're just getting hung up on definitions. If we can agree that the corporate organizational form distorts the free market and should be at least greatly curtailed in its use, then we agree on a great deal.

Do you agree with that?

darkstar

2004-06-11 15:55 | User Profile

A 'yes it is response' with no further back-up is not worthy of any further response.
I quite clearly stated that the government forces limitations of liability. I understand quite well that individuals can only limit liability recourses for themselves, contrary to your rather arrogant claims that this point somehow escaped me. What you fail to see is that we in fact agree that the current corporate form is unjust. It is not in keeping with the capitalist ideal. Where we disagree is on the need to unite ownership and managment. Also, I sense that you do not see the potential of contractual limitations of liability, and how these could be made to cover almost all parties who would be affected by a businesses activies.
You do not understand the distinction between 'essence' and 'accident.' That corporations with state enforced liability-limits exist today under a quasi-capitalist system tells us nothing about what is essential to capitalism, any more than the fact that most American's have a Social Security number tells us something about the essence of being an American.

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Yes it is.

And capitalism is indeed just a short step from socialism.

Do you agree with that?[/QUOTE]

darkstar

2004-06-11 15:58 | User Profile

Distributivism is better termed 're-distributivism.' It redistributes individuals capital goods, which are their property. Thus it does not respect property rights. It is socialism-lite.

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Not true. Private property rights are respected, and individuals trade goods and services under distributism as well, for example. Capitalism is characterized by the belief that each person's unrestrained greed (unless it becomes outright aggression) will collectively create the "invisible hand" that causes everything to turn out for the best. Because this is the case, the other results I discussed in my earlier post follow.

Usury is exploitation. Disapproving of it is hardly "barbarism."[/QUOTE]

Quantrill

2004-06-11 18:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]Distributivism is better termed 're-distributivism.' It redistributes individuals capital goods, which are their property. Thus it does not respect property rights. It is socialism-lite.[/QUOTE] First, it is Distributism, not Distributivism. Perhaps you are thinking of "redistribution?" Secondly, socialism is where the state owns all property. Distributism is where property is as widely distributed among among as many different private property holders as possible. So, it is not "socialism-lite," but rather socialism's polar opposite.

darkstar

2004-06-11 19:07 | User Profile

Look, you can call it 'distributism' or 'distributivism,' it is still redistribution of property, and thus socialism-lite.

But, you know, who really cares? 'Distributism' and 'Distributivism' are both commonly used to refer to the same thing--to save you the trouble of having to reason thru that one.

Exelsis_Deo

2004-06-15 04:57 | User Profile

Indeed, Darkstar, it is you who bores us, and you can sneak away like some kind of defensive Insurance claims rep, do you work for Geico ? You have no mind. The system which supports you will be brought down. Yannis and Quantrill both agree with me here, and the depth of Our understanding is obviously Beyond your capabilities. QUantrill, high-five hands up and Walter, may I always speak so truly.. Darkstar ? I suggesthttp://www.infowars.comonly because you are incapable in your young mind of understanding anything and truly speak from no credibility whatsoever. Quantrill, I really loved your defense of my statement of Usury as Sin, coming from you, it really meant a lot. I know I carry the Catholic banner ( much lower than Walter ) but our differences are laughable compared to the snakes like Darkstar and their feeders, who daily keep us in bondage to an unholy system of loaning the same fake money they create. [QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Darkstar, you are right to say that Capitalism is not based on Property RIghts. Real Capitalism used to have that as one of its bases, but no longer. Real Capitalism is the reason why housing values are up over 100 % in the last 5 years because the wealthy are buying up all the prime areas such as coastline. And I don't mean wealthy families and individuals, I mean corporations. The John Keyes and Adam Smith view of " laissez faire " capitalism no longer applies to the modern world. Not at all. Paradigm shifts and monumental differences exist between 2004 and 1800. I know you know this. But truly, the term " capitalism " no longer has any meaning. We live in a world of systems. The systems do not differentiate between capitalism money or communist money or dictator money or anything. It's just money. And the basis of said money is only a figment of imagination, given its value by the Governing Presence. For example, in the last 4 weeks alone, the Federal Reserve has issued, printed and put into the public money flow over 150 billion dollars. These dollars never existed only 5 weeks ago. That's why the whole issue of the " National Debt " only makes me laugh or puke in disgust. Debt. Debt to whom ? Debt to the House of Rothschild and Rockefeller and Warburg ??? It's really all a big joke, especially to them. They don't work for money, as we do, they PROCESS it, like the way we brush our teeth. They just keep fomenting and feeding the usurious SYSTEM of fake money. Meanwhile, they also hold the vast share of REAL MONEY, the precious metals, and truly it's the Catholic Church which is the only institution remaining that sitll has vast wealth grown over its history which is a last hold-out in their eyes. But the Church spends millions on the poor, and the Church does not charge usury, which is a sin, and is not in the banking business and that's why they don't nearly match the wealth of the globalists. Personally, I truly believe that targeted reaction and a coup is the only way of trying to take American Rights back. I think you know what I mean, so there's no real reason to elaborate further.[/QUOTE]

darkstar

2004-06-15 05:31 | User Profile

What a moving response, Exelsis. It's nice to know you care to peak around these dead threads, and sprinkle them with your wisdom.

How old are you, by the way? Since you concern yourself with my 'young mind.'

Well, do get on with 'speaking from credibility,' and Random Capitalization of words. Very nineteenth Century like -- very touching.

PS I will of course study those links to sanity you so charitably Offered to us. I am sure those will set me on the Proper Papal course, if I take Care to read them while counting the Rosary.

Quantrill

2004-06-15 13:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]Look, you can call it 'distributism' or 'distributivism,' it is still redistribution of property, and thus socialism-lite.

But, you know, who really cares? 'Distributism' and 'Distributivism' are both commonly used to refer to the same thing--to save you the trouble of having to reason thru that one.[/QUOTE] You are merely re-stating your original assertion. So, I ask you again, how can widespread private ownership of property constitute socialism (or socialism-lite)?

Also, if it is 'commonly' called "distributivism," it seems odd that I have never once heard that term, not in the writings of Fanfani, Belloc, Chesterton, nor the Southern Agrarians.

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-06-15 14:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]In any case, capitalism does not equal private property, agreed.

Rather, capitalism is an economic system wherein an private property rights are central. When these rights are respected, and individuals trade goods or services, you have capitalism.[/QUOTE]

I'm not precisely certain of the official definition of capitalism, but doesn't what you've described constitute less than the capitalist lowest common denominator, as it were? Couldn't you take all the things you just said about capitalism and say them about mercantilism too?

darkstar

2004-06-15 20:05 | User Profile

Well, there is of course no 'official' definition of capitalism, so that's a problem. But most theorists who endorse capitalism are going to reject mercantalism and distributism on the grounds that they often fail to respect property rights. In mercantilism, property owners have their property seized ('taxed'), or face restrictions on its use, in order to support officials views of 'what is good for the country.' In distributivism, property deemed to be to 'centralized' is seized and redistributed, while restrictions are put in place on the use of property to maintain decentralized ownership -- again, property owner's have their rights violated on a large scale.

From Locke onward, capitalist theory has postulated that taxes should only be levied to provide security and justice (courts). According to some theorists, taxes may also be levied in support of 'public goods' such as utlities and roads -- but these moves are typically seen as deviations from capitalism made in order to be practical.

[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I'm not precisely certain of the official definition of capitalism, but doesn't what you've described constitute less than the capitalist lowest common denominator, as it were? Couldn't you take all the things you just said about capitalism and say them about mercantilism too?[/QUOTE]

Quantrill

2004-06-15 20:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]Well, there is of course no 'official' definition of capitalism, so that's a problem. But most theorists who endorse capitalism are going to reject mercantalism and distributism on the grounds that they often fail to respect property rights.

Distributism does not fail to respect property rights. It simply recognizes some limitations on those rights. Every man has a right to earn a living, but not twenty or thirty livings. I do not deny that Distributism places more restrictions on the use of private property than capitalism. My original point was that capitalism fetishizes maximization of utility and efficiency to the point that any restriction on that maximization in the name of morality, no matter how slight, is seen as inherently unjust. You disagreed with that, but here you are going on about the primacy of property rights, and how any infringement is unjust. Which is it?

[quote=darkstar]In distributivism, property deemed to be to 'centralized' is seized and redistributed, while restrictions are put in place on the use of property to maintain decentralized ownership -- again, property owner's have their rights violated on a large scale.[/QUOTE] From whence springs this right to own any amount of anything? And how is it imbued with such sanctity that satisfying this right trumps all other considerations?

darkstar

2004-06-15 22:22 | User Profile

Fine, what you call 'limit,' proponents of laissez-faire call 'fail to respect.'

Some such proponents of property rights do focus on maximization of 'societal utility.' However, it is not clear that this is the view of Locke, and it is certainly not the view of most 18th and 19th C classical liberals who were de facto or actual proponents of laissez-faire. Likewise, Nozick and Narverson, the two most famous 20th Century academic proponents of laissez-faire theory, explicitly deny that property rights are based in maximizing 'societal utility.'

You ask what the bases of property rights are. There are any number of answers given in the literature. Locke, at least, thought property rights were given by God.

You might look at the discussion of property rights offered by Narveson at [url]http://www.againstpolitics.com/libertarianism/[/url]

Although this material is about libertarianism, this doctrine is a stronger version of laissez-faire theory, so it will be applicable. And the material offers more nuanced explanations concerning property rights than those given by Locke.

If you would like a more detailed answer, I would have to know what you think makes something right or wrong, period. Only then can I give you an answer that is meaningful to you, as to why it is wrong to violate property rights.

Also, it would be helpful if you could explain what you mean by 'maximizing utility' and 'maximizing efficiency.' Then I could better tell you how theorists do or do not propose these goals as the bases for capitalism.

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Distributism does not fail to respect property rights. It simply recognizes some limitations on those rights. Every man has a right to earn a living, but not twenty or thirty livings. I do not deny that Distributism places more restrictions on the use of private property than capitalism. My original point was that capitalism fetishizes maximization of utility and efficiency to the point that any restriction on that maximization in the name of morality, no matter how slight, is seen as inherently unjust. You disagreed with that, but here you are going on about the primacy of property rights, and how any infringement is unjust. Which is it?

From whence springs this right to own any amount of anything? And how is it imbued with such sanctity that satisfying this right trumps all other considerations?[/QUOTE]

Quantrill

2004-06-16 18:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]Fine, what you call 'limit,' proponents of laissez-faire call 'fail to respect.'

Exactly my point. Capitalism regards any limitation on what one does with one's property as inherently unjust.

[QUOTE=darkstar] Some such proponents of property rights do focus on maximization of 'societal utility.' However, it is not clear that this is the view of Locke, and it is certainly not the view of most 18th and 19th C classical liberals who were de facto or actual proponents of laissez-faire. Likewise, Nozick and Narverson, the two most famous 20th Century academic proponents of laissez-faire theory, explicitly deny that property rights are based in maximizing 'societal utility.'

I'm not sure where you are getting 'societal utility' from. In capitalism economic theory, people are considered to be rational, and they are assumed to be trying to maximize their personal utility in every transaction.

[QUOTE=darkstar]You ask what the bases of property rights are. There are any number of answers given in the literature. Locke, at least, thought property rights were given by God.

Actually, I didn't ask about the basis of property rights per se; I asked about the basis for your opinion that they should be unlimited. I recognize the right for a man to take a wife. I do not recognize the right of a man to take five wives. Just because a right is legitimate, it does not therefore follow that the right is unlimited.

[QUOTE=darkstar]If you would like a more detailed answer, I would have to know what you think makes something right or wrong, period. Only then can I give you an answer that is meaningful to you, as to why it is wrong to violate property rights.

I already consider it wrong to violate property rights. I simply have a different conception of what property rights entails than you do.

[QUOTE=darkstar] Also, it would be helpful if you could explain what you mean by 'maximizing utility' and 'maximizing efficiency.' Then I could better tell you how theorists do or do not propose these goals as the bases for capitalism.[/QUOTE] If you take a general survey of economics course at any university, supply and demand, perfect competition, and maximization of utility will likely be the first three things they cover.

darkstar

2004-06-16 19:49 | User Profile

--You took an econ course, so of course everyone must recognize that when you talk about 'maximizing utility,' you are referring to the Econ 101 version! No, of course this phrase never appears anywhere else in intellectual debate.

[QUOTE=Quantrill]

If you take a general survey of economics course at any university, supply and demand, perfect competition, and maximization of utility will likely be the first three things they cover.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you could read some Richard Epstein to see where theories of laissez-faire talk about societal utility. There is this branch of thought called 'utilitarianism' you should probably read up on.

You seem to complain that 'capitalist theory' assumes that individuals act to maximize their utility. 'Utility' is of course the thing we learn about in Econ 101 -- yes, but which Econ 101? Did you go to Harvard, Backwater State, what? What do you mean by 'maximizing utility'? And what is your objection to maximizing utility?

--Laissez-faire theorists do of course recognize limits to property rights. Property rights must be limited as violence is limited.

--As to my personal opinion as to the basis of property rights: I embrace a Nozickean approach. What is mine is not to be 'limited' by others, except insofar as I violate their property rights (assuming self-ownership). This is because we must minimize that number of cases where one individual makes use of another without their consent. For example, if I decide I need someone's kidney, and therefore rip it out of their back, I am making use of them without their consent, and this is not just. We see that such coercion is unjust in many cases, but we see no reason to believe that it is just in the remaining cases. Therefore we must conclude that it is always best to minimize the use of such coercion. Hence, we should not interfere with others' property, except to minimize coercive interference. In sum, we should respect property rights.

Quantrill

2004-06-16 20:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]--You took an econ course, so of course everyone must recognize that when you talk about 'maximizing utility,' you are referring to the Econ 101 version! No, of course this phrase never appears anywhere else in intellectual debate.

Maximization of utility is a stock economic phrase. It is a basic concept. People do not go on and on about it because it is taken for granted. It is a basic assumption. I was pointing out how it is taught in basic economics courses to illustrate that point.

[QUOTE=darkstar]You seem to complain that 'capitalist theory' assumes that individuals act to maximize their utility. 'Utility' is of course the thing we learn about in Econ 101 -- yes, but which Econ 101? Did you go to Harvard, Backwater State, what? What do you mean by 'maximizing utility'? And what is your objection to maximizing utility?

Utility is different for every person. It is a function of what that person values. I might assign value to a plate of escargot, while you may not. We will each try to maximize (get more of) those things we value (utility.) This is all very obvious; I have trouble understanding why you keep demanding a definition of utility, as if it were something arcane. I find it simply unbelievable that you have never encountered this term before. I have no objection to maximizing utility per se; I have an objection to making that the highest good, and the ideal around which all of society must revolve.

[QUOTE=darkstar] --Laissez-faire theorists do of course recognize limits to property rights. Property rights must be limited as violence is limited.

I reject the idea that physical violence is the only possible misuse of property. When companies sell pornography, they are damaging the whole society. When someone specifically markets slutty cloths to nine-year-old girls, they are damaging the society. When Wal-Mart moves into a small town and puts every other retailer in the entire area out of business, they are damaging that community. Capitalism has no way to properly account for these costs, so they are assumed to not exist. When a property owner externalizes his costs onto others, he is harming them, thought he may not be ripping the kidneys out of their backs (as in your charming example.)

The main tenet of capitalism -- that when everybody acquires as much as they can and does whatever they want with it (excepting violent kidney-stealing, of course), it creates a free market which operates with perfect and inexorable justice -- is false.

darkstar

2004-06-16 22:16 | User Profile

'Maximization of utility' is of course a stock economic phrase. However, this does not mean people mean exactly the same thing by it, when the use the term.

More to the point, the phrase also appears in other fields relevant to our debate, such as game theory, philosophy, and systems-theory.

Contrary to what you imply, 'maximization of utility' is an arcane concept. You manage to explain it as each person acting to 'maximize (get more of) those things we value (utility).' You then go on to explain that this cannot be society's highest consideration. This is very confusing. First of all, 'getting more of' and 'maximize' are obviously to different things. Second of all, it is not clear how it even could be bad that society were tp revolve around the goal of each individal maximizing those things each individual values. If each individual got a maximal amount of what they wanted, how can anyone complain? From what vantage point would one lodge a complain? To do so is to reveal that there is at least one individual who is not having maximally achieving what they value, and would like the system to work better at allowing maximization of utility. The goal of maximizing utility never comes into question.

The debate is entirely about how one measures utility and its maximization, given that utility must always be judged from a particular vantage point, and may not properly be the subject of interpersonal comparisons. But this has nothing to do with your initial claim that capitalism wrongly posits maximization of utility as the highest goal. Indeed, all economic theories involve the claim that they maximize utility (if one uses an understanding of maximizing 'utility' of the individual-centered sort that you offer).

--I too reject the thesis that violence is the only possible misuse of property. But this has nothing to do with what I wrote. The issue was not misuse in general, but that misuse which may be combatted with violence.

--'The main tenet of capitalism -- that when everybody acquires as much as they can and does whatever they want with it (excepting violent kidney-stealing, of course), it creates a free market which operates with perfect and inexorable justice -- is false.' This is not the main tenet of capitalist theory or of any theory I have ever heard of, and this 'point' about kidney stealing is extremely childish. What you in fact object to is not that laissez-faire principles restrict only things such as kidney stealing, but that they restrict too much--for example, they restrict you from using violence to enforce your views concerning children's clothing.

Exelsis_Deo

2004-06-17 02:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]What a moving response, Exelsis. It's nice to know you care to peak around these dead threads, and sprinkle them with your wisdom.

How old are you, by the way? Since you concern yourself with my 'young mind.'

Well, do get on with 'speaking from credibility,' and Random Capitalization of words. Very nineteenth Century like -- very touching.

PS I will of course study those links to sanity you so charitably Offered to us. I am sure those will set me on the Proper Papal course, if I take Care to read them while counting the Rosary.[/QUOTE]

Mercantilism was only the precursor to rampant Capitalism, and Capitalism is a beast without boundary. That is why we have laws. That is why the Anti-Trust movement attempted to break the Oil and Railroad monopolies in 1890-1910 and that is why the Union movement spilt blood to have political relevance in the 1920s and 30s. Pure Capitalism is so far separated from the bourgeiosie movement of the 1760-1830 era that as these paradigms evolve, we as freedom loving and hopefully empathetic human beings can recognize the vast tectonic-plate level shifts when they occur over the years. Right Now, the fiat money system is so rooted in our world that truly these definitioins have absolutely LOST their relevance in the present and are not even functioning at all. Darkstar, I have more respect for you after reading your follow-up postings, but we must never lose sight of the Big Picture. Communism, Socialism, Utopianism, Utilitarianism, all these things are creations of the last couple hundred years.. these spoiled pukes you quote, Keyes, Smith, even Russel or ( i know not you ) Marx ( the starver of his own children ) are not even credible historical figures anymore. They were worded at a time in history when the masses were not " worded " and their own class advantages raised them into the life they are " remembered " for. Adam Smith was speaking of economics as it Was, not as it Is, the difference in time is totally insurmountable ! Still, they were only satisfying their own material needs, don't try to make Smith into a Philosopher. He was anything but. And try to accept the facts of ecomomic life as they exist, and try to work towards countering the present, not looking for guidance from irrelevant men of their own time.

and remember ....

Matt 6:19-21 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Quantrill

2004-06-17 15:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar] Contrary to what you imply, 'maximization of utility' is an arcane concept. You manage to explain it as each person acting to 'maximize (get more of) those things we value (utility).' You then go on to explain that this cannot be society's highest consideration. This is very confusing. First of all, 'getting more of' and 'maximize' are obviously to different things.

Perhaps I should have said "getting the most possible' instead of 'getting more of.''

[QUOTE=darkstar]Second of all, it is not clear how it even could be bad that society were tp revolve around the goal of each individal maximizing those things each individual values.

It is undesirable for a society's highest goal to be the selfish gratification of each individual' selfish desires, with only the most cursory consideration of the welfare of the community.

[QUOTE=darkstar]If each individual got a maximal amount of what they wanted, how can anyone complain? From what vantage point would one lodge a complain?

Each person constantly attempting to maximize his utility is not the same as each individual achieving maximum utility. Your statement above confuses the two.

[QUOTE=darkstar]To do so is to reveal that there is at least one individual who is not having maximally achieving what they value, and would like the system to work better at allowing maximization of utility. The goal of maximizing utility never comes into question.

Here is exactly where we differ. The idea that the entire society, culture, and nation should be structured around the maximization of each person's own idea of his own utility is exactly what I do call into question.

[QUOTE=darkstar]--I too reject the thesis that violence is the only possible misuse of property. But this has nothing to do with what I wrote. The issue was not misuse in general, but that misuse which may be combatted with violence.

Then you recognize that restrictions on the use of private property, other than just restricting violence, would be valid?

[QUOTE=darkstar]This is not the main tenet of capitalist theory or of any theory I have ever heard of

I am explaining the overall worldview which capitalism encourages, and the negative consequences thereof. Capitalists do place an almost religious faith in the workings of the market.

[QUOTE=darkstar]and this 'point' about kidney stealing is extremely childish.

I believe you were the one who introduced kidney-stealing into the discussion.

[QUOTE=darkstar]What you in fact object to is not that laissez-faire principles restrict only things such as kidney stealing, but that they restrict too much--for example, they restrict you from using violence to enforce your views concerning children's clothing.[/QUOTE] This is no deduction on your part -- I fairly explicitly stated as much. Whereas you consider it violence to restrict the 'rights' of a porn merchant or culture destroyer or polluter, my view is that their actions against the community are the 'violence' that should be restricted. I am standing up for the rights of the community, against an excessive and radical individualism, of which capitalism is the very embodiment.

darkstar

2004-06-17 16:59 | User Profile

--'It is undesirable for a society's highest goal to be the selfish gratification of each individual' selfish desires, with only the most cursory consideration of the welfare of the community.' As I said, 'maximization of utility' is an arcane concept. This is clear from the fact that you, like many others, do not understand it, even though you given it formal study. Here you conflate 'getting the most possible' of what one values, with 'selfish gratification of each individual's selfish desires.' [/I][I]What one values may not be selfish, nor will achieving what one values be always be gratifying in a more than formal sense. [/I]

You do not understand that even progress toward goals such as 'having property be widely distributed,' or 'having it be the case that corporations do not market inappropriate clothing,' will count as an increase in utility for an individual having such goals. Thus you wrongly separate considerations of utility from supposed 'higher considerations.'

You make many other errors, and offer many non sequiters. Your lame response of 'I believe you mentioned the kidney first' is the kind of non sequiter that suggests that you are locked in an ideological position irrespective of your ability to rationally justify it--either to yourself, or to others. I do not think you will benefit from more discussion in this thread; likely, you need to engage in some more fundemental re-thinking of your reasoning, and its results.

Quantrill

2004-06-17 19:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar] You do not understand that even progress toward goals such as 'having property be widely distributed,' or 'having it be the case that corporations do not market inappropriate clothing,' will count as an increase in utility for an individual having such goals. Thus you wrongly separate considerations of utility from supposed 'higher considerations.'

I, in fact, understand that quite well. Virtually every outcome is desired by someone. However, that does not detract from my point. Some outcomes are desirable for the entire community and some are not. If someone desires to maximize a personal benefit that harms the community, then that is a negative thing. I

[QUOTE=darkstar] You make many other errors, and offer many non sequiters.

But, of course you can't be troubled to actually point them out.

[QUOTE=darkstar]Your lame response of 'I believe you mentioned the kidney first' is the kind of non sequiter...

Perhaps we should revisit the definition of a non sequitur -- n 1: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it 2: (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

Let's see -- [QUOTE=darkstar]For example, if I decide I need someone's kidney, and therefore rip it out of their back, I am making use of them without their consent, and this is not just. Led to.. [quote=Quantrill]The main tenet of capitalism -- that when everybody acquires as much as they can and does whatever they want with it (excepting violent kidney-stealing, of course), it creates a free market which operates with perfect and inexorable justice -- is false. Led to... [quote=darkstar]and this 'point' about kidney stealing is extremely childish. Led to... [quote=Quantrill] I believe you were the one who introduced kidney-stealing into the discussion.

Those are all clearly related, so I see no non sequitur. In addition, my statement was clearly a joke, and a very gentle one at that. Perhaps you are a bit too sensitive?

[quote=darkstar]...that suggests that you are locked in an ideological position irrespective of your ability to rationally justify it--either to yourself, or to others.

Pot calling the kettle black? You don't exactly strike me as a paragon of broad-mindedness.

[quote=darkstar]I do not think you will benefit from more discussion in this thread; likely, you need to engage in some more fundemental re-thinking of your reasoning, and its results.[/QUOTE] Likewise. Finally something we agree on.

darkstar

2004-06-17 20:16 | User Profile

When your econ professor explains that the free market maximizes utility, this is a claim about first order ex ante utility. To you, of coure, 'maximizing utility' has one univocal meaning, which you focus on to put some theoretical dressing on your ill-conceived objections to a free market.

Your only real objections have nothing to do with problems in the account of maximizing utility. You want an economic system wherein violence is used for goals other than limiting violence; the proponent of laissez-faire claims that such use of violence is not to form part of the employed economic system.

Quantrill

2004-06-17 20:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar] Your only real objections have nothing to do with problems in the account of maximizing utility. You want an economic system wherein violence is used for goals other than limiting violence; the proponent of laissez-faire claims that such use of violence is not to form part of the employed economic system.[/QUOTE] I want an economic system where violence is used for the goal of limiting harm, as well as limiting violence.

From an earlier post-- [quote=darkstar]I too reject the thesis that violence is the only possible misuse of property. But this has nothing to do with what I wrote. The issue was not misuse in general, but that misuse which may be combatted with violence.

I consider it legitimate to use force to stop misuse of property that causes real harm to the community at large, whereas you consider it legitimate to use force only to stop physical violence. That is the difference in a nutshell.

darkstar

2004-06-17 21:00 | User Profile

Yes, fine. I think there is always something illegitimate about using violence except to limit present or future violence; and this includes using violence as punishment for past violence.

I would add that this does not mean I rule out entirely the use of violence for other purposes, only that I consider such violence to involve a degree of illegitimacy, and as therefore not properly included in the economic system one takes as one's ideal. So, for example, if the survival of the white race depended on seizing property from wealthy capitalists, I might support this as a one time act of war. However, I would object more strongly to use of such violence to be part of an ongoing system.

Such ongoing, systemic violence is what conservative call for when the appeal to use of communal authority to enforce, through violence, prohibitions on drug-use, pornography for adults, etc. These sorts of problems I think are best handled by the free market, as Hoppe explains in his Democracy: the God that Failed, and related essays.

Limiting accumulation of wealth is, to my mind, not very deeply rooted in English-speaking conservatism. Again, I would strongly object to the use of ongoing limits, and for a variety of reasons. Some are Nozickean; some have to do with my estimations that such limits will, in our time, be used to harm whites to the perceived benefit of non-whites; and others have to do with my view that, even within the white community, the higher forms of human development will be limited if the community does not recognize the true liberty of the individual.

[QUOTE=Quantrill]I want an economic system where violence is used for the goal of limiting harm, as well as limiting violence.

From an earlier post--

Ponce

2004-06-17 22:09 | User Profile

Because I don't read the same material that you guys do it funny to me when you guys go at it,,,,,,, is like, I bet you I can throw my rock further out than you.

I do read what you write, but with one eye close, I find it to be informative but boring.

Buy hey, is ok by me after all thats why we are here.

darkstar

2004-06-17 23:01 | User Profile

Yes, fine. I think there is always something illegitimate about using violence except to limit present or future violence; and this includes using violence as punishment for past violence.

Quote: Originally Posted by Quantrill I want an economic system where violence is used for the goal of limiting harm, as well as limiting violence.

From an earlier post--

Paleoleftist

2004-06-18 00:58 | User Profile

Darkstar: I think I disagree with you about first things here: Property involves duties as well as rights, and the economy is not a value in itself. Rather it serves specific values which are a given and not, certainly not in their entirety, to be decided upon by the whims of the consumer.

To give but one example: The free market can not, and does not want to, check pornography, drugs and abortion. To check such things is what the state is for. Libertarianism -in the sense of 'to each according to his whims and/or spending power- and the rule of morality are simply incompatible.

darkstar

2004-06-18 01:58 | User Profile

--I am not sure what it would mean to claim that the economy is a value in itself.

--Yes, property rights involve duties. For one, they involve the duty to respect others' property rights. Other duties might be involved; but it is not clear that failure to perform them obviates one's property rights.

--You will have to explain what you think the state is, if you think only it can stop abortion. In a state-less area, a private protective agency would seem just as able to arrest abortion doctors as a state is in its territory. As to pornography and drugs: these will be limited by the market, insofar as private employers may refuse to hire those who use them, and insofar as communities and individuals who abuse them will wither away in economic competition. Again, these arguments are well worked out by Hoppe and others, I don't think it is very interesting to simply repeat their work. Plenty of Hoppe's essays are available at hanshoppe.com

--'Libertarianism -in the sense of 'to each according to his whims and/or spending power- and the rule of morality are simply incompatible.' This isn't any sense of 'libertarianism' that has anything to do with what theorists who call themselve 'libertarians' argue for. You might just as easily define 'libertarianism' as 'to each according to their love of borst,' if one cares so little about the meaning of terms and how they are used.

Exelsis_Deo

2004-06-23 04:22 | User Profile

Darkstar, I applaud your meanderings in dead ecomomic thoughts, but I am an adult living in America and none of that has any relevance to us anymore. You sound like a victim of public education to me.
It's appealing to the inquisitive mind I understand to consider what you say, but it also is totally separated from reality. To even study the men you mention from hundreds of years ago is to live in a fantasy world.

darkstar

2004-06-23 06:03 | User Profile

I am glad that I what I write is not relevant to you. Personally, I think you are a kook who needs medication.

Since what I write is not relevant to you, could you please kindly ignore my posts in the future?

Yours truly, a possibly-educated-by-a-public-school-really-none-of-your-business-dark-poster

[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Darkstar, I applaud your meanderings in dead ecomomic thoughts, but I am an adult living in America and none of that has any relevance to us anymore. You sound like a victim of public education to me.
It's appealing to the inquisitive mind I understand to consider what you say, but it also is totally separated from reality. To even study the men you mention from hundreds of years ago is to live in a fantasy world.[/QUOTE]

Exelsis_Deo

2004-06-23 17:40 | User Profile

Ok bud. Well, I'm not a kook , although I admit to drinking too much late at night sometimes and letting the piss and vinegar spill forth. I have to work on that problem. As far as what you've said concerning ecomonics, I must stand by my point that it is truly irrelevant. The historical paradigm that existed 200 years ago no longer exists .. I prefer to discuss reality as it is. Perhaps we can agree in the future on other subjects, and I apologize for my digressions.

Paleoleftist

2004-06-23 23:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]--

Really? By the rule of morality I mean morality backed up by law and/or shunning. Last time I checked, this wouldnÃÂ´t be acceptable to a 'Libertarian'.

darkstar

2004-06-24 00:20 | User Profile

I think you 'checked' the wrong thing. What did you check?

[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Really? By the rule of morality I mean morality backed up by law and/or shunning. Last time I checked, this wouldnÃÂ´t be acceptable to a 'Libertarian'.[/QUOTE]

Paleoleftist

2004-06-24 20:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]I think you 'checked' the wrong thing. What did you check?[/QUOTE]

Your definition of morality may be less inclusive than mine.