Is there anyone left who doubts we live under corporate fascism??

Balbus:

You've yet to provide evidence that ones needs produces a right to the possessions of another without their consent.

While the needs of another can provide the emotional motivation to another or others to providing those needs by choice, such power should never be relegated to government. Why? Simply because government, no matter how large is incapable of obtaining the facts to make such decisions rationally, and by removing the freedom of choice from the people sets the government above the people, dividing the population into distinct factions, those who provide the means to the government and those who benefit from the means provided by the government. This is how class warfare is made a tool and society is diminished rather than lifted up overall.

If you really wish to create a society where all are equals, why don't you form a commune? Most all of human progress has been a result of individuals who were more equal than most others, and as a result all of society has benefited greatly. Societies where mobility is unimpeded by government will always be more successful than those which try to eliminate failure by spreading it equally among all. Look at Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc.

 

Indie

Once again you evade by bringing up stuff you couldn’t defend when we’ve discussed it before.

Been there done that - The Effort or Luck thread your post 203 you asked me

On what basis is someone entitled to, or have a right to take from, or receive from another without the consent and willingness of the person(s) providing?

Here is the gist of the discussion that followed -
As to the entitlement to take you have already stated that governments should be able to tax, or are you saying that you think all taxes should be voluntary?

If you agree a government is entitled to demand taxes then there is your precedence there is the basis.

Again what is your thinking because you seem to contradict yourself with every reply?

You made the statement that nothing had the right to take from another without the express consent and willingness of the person(s) providing?

But you also seem to think the government should have the right to raise taxes which I’m sure at least some people wouldn’t want to pay, but when I pointed this out you said that-

So I ask what seems like a reasonable question of if you thought taxes should be voluntary and again your reply seem to indicate that government should have the right to raise taxes

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes”
Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

*

You then dropped the subject and went off on something else or I could bring up the Question About Operation of Small Government thread where the same subject came up and you gave me the brush off then demanded a change of subject.

*

Basically we both agree government can raise taxes the question is what aim they are used for.

My goal is to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential
This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

But for a fairer and better society to exist there has to be some balance, between the interests of the few and the many and between the individual and the community, between wealth and the majority - it is about raising the quality of life of all.

Your goals seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place (as you have said openly) where those that you deem as having little value to society should be left to die.

 

Indie

And again we’ve been through this -

But the reason why social welfare was (and still is) fought for is because the charity model never worked was often corrupt and in many cases was counter productive. Do you not remember all those discussions about the deserving and undeserving, that you refused to address?

Again we’ve been through this, when I’ve asked you who should make the decisions you either mumble that you don’t know or it that wealth should. Again this comes back to the deserving and undeserving argument and how the charity model never worked, because it was mostly motivated by the self interest and prejudices of the donors and often based on irrational ideas such as Social Darwinism.

As I’ve pointed out before social inequality and the suppression of social mobility are a direct result of neo-liberal ideas, a criticism of your ideas you have yet to address.

Class division comes about through social inequality and the suppression of social mobility it also limits peoples choices by stifling potential. I’ve pointed this out (and explained it in detail) many times and you have yet to address that criticism.

 

Indie

LOL – if you want to create a society based on total free market/Social Darwinist principles why don’t you? But I think you would need to have a big fence around it to keep in the majority in when they realise they will be the serfs.

But seriously - as pointed out to you many times I don’t think there will ever be a totally equal or completely perfect society, but I would like to work toward societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places where people are more likely to realise their potential

 

Indie

Hell we’ve been here before as well - Here you are in the How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty? Thread - your post 207 and my reply

As with a lot of your thinking you take a simplistic approach.
Lets just pick one of your examples - the first one – automobiles.
This was a development going all the way back to the age of steam rather than a single person’s creation.
No one stepped forward and designed a Bugatti Veyron from scratch, no one person created all the parts and components that make a up an automobile, wheels, tires, pistons, gears, etc were all in existence already.
Yes some people got the patents for things first, but the elements were already in existence and a number of people were working on putting them together.
But then what are cars without roads? And as I’ve already pointed out (I do wish you’d read my posts) – “Then there are the big infrastructural projects financed by government, the transcontinental railroad, the road network, the dams etc”
The thing is that most roads are public works along with the bridges, traffic control systems etc.
I mean Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway act of 1956 has often been called the "Greatest Public Works Project in History".
*

Individuals are products of their society, remove an individual from all contact with any society (language, writing all and any education etc) and the result is a human beast that can contribute little.

I mean what is ‘more equal’ and how do you gauge that superiority?

Because they contribute to society or because they have wealth, because you seem to trying to reward wealth irrespective of contribution while trying to stifle the potential of many that could contribute.

Your stance just doesn’t seem logical or reasonable.

 

Indie

Can you give an example of the societies you speak of?

I mean those countries with the greatest levels of social mobility according to the London School of Economics are “Norway at the top followed by Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany and Canada”

Those countries are usually thought of by many right wing Americans of having near ‘socialist’ type systems.

As to Greece, Italy, and Spain this was pointed out to you earlier –

In Greece the government that was in power just prior to the crisis (2004-2009) was the “strictly neoliberal” right wing New Democracy Party which used derivatives as a means of hiding the true level of their debts. In Spain the neo-liberal Peoples Party was in power from 1996-2004 (and created the conditions for that countries housing bubble) and was succeeded by an opposition party ‘of the left’ that followed many of its neoliberal ideas and as for Italy the right wing neoliberal Silvio Berlusconi has been in power for eight of the last ten years.

 

Indie

Well your last post just highlights once more that you don’t seem able to defend your ideas from criticism and once more I wonder why you still hold on to these ideas when you clearly can’t defend them from criticism.







*

 

Balbus

"I mean those countries with the greatest levels of social mobility according to the London School of Economics are "Norway at the top followed by Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany and Canada”"

Social mobility or economic equality? Those countries are ones with small populations in contrast to the U.S., they are also net exporters, and have abundant natural resources and are more energy independent. Many of the States which make up the U.S. could achieve such success on their own. Can you provide an example with similar population, geographic extent, and natural resources, to the U.S. where social and economic equality and mobility have been achieved? Without detailed analysis of the various causes which have produced a desired result we often complicate the situation we are attempting to solve, and only worsen the situation by continually repeating the same effort.
All forms of government eventually fail as power over the governed increases to the point that the people eventually rebel against it, overthrow it and start anew. Socialism is no different, as it eventually becomes incapable of providing the wants of the people, as the needs begin to exceed the ability of provision.
In order to accomplish your desires you will first have to change human nature, and that I don't believe can be accomplished even with force. Humans will always produce the greatest effort in order to receive a greater reward, and when the reward becomes equal regardless of the effort exerted, the effort will trend toward the lowest common denominator. Need a good example? Look at most every unionized work force. If you wish to see an example of the opposite, look at, if they still exist workers who are paid based on production and quality. My Dad was a machinist who was paid by the piece produced that met quality standards of the inspector. He made gears for truck transmissions.

To make a point, when all people are equal, mobility no longer exists. Some may have to work much harder in order to provide the needs of others, but if that work is not rewarded greater the incentive to produce eventually diminishes, and if it is rewarded enough to become acceptable, equality eventually diminishes.

 

Indie

"I mean those countries with the greatest levels of social mobility according to the London School of Economics are "Norway at the top followed by Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany and Canada”"

Oh and yet another old evasion tactic – what next - you’ll say you won’t answer unless the countries have the same demographic make-up or only if they’re on the same longitude and latitude or unless they have the exact same number of letters in their name etc etc etc etc anything to get out of addressing the point….

LOL - Oh then you do…

You’re hilarious.

 

Indie

Why isn’t the US a net exporter?

As I’ve pointed out in the Decline thread the rise of wealth’s power and influence in the US coincides with the decline in US’s exporting ability.

Fall in top rate tax
1945 - 94%
1970 – 70%
1982 – 50%
1990 – 28%
2010 – 33%
The neo-liberal ‘trickle down’ ideas that counselled low taxation of the rich took hold in the Reagan era and have remained throughout the steeper period of decline.

Rise in top levels of pay
In the 1950’s CEO pay was 25-50 times that of an average worker that has risen to 300-500 times by 2007.
A bigger gap than any other developed nation.

Trade deficit
1960 – Trade surplus of 3.5 billion
2008 – Trade deficit of 690 billion
(The last time the US posted a trade surplus was in 1975)

Decline in manufacturing
1965 - Manufacturing accounted for 53% of the US’s economy.
2004 – It accounted for 9%
The Economist (10/1/2005) stated: “For the first time since the industrial revolution, fewer than 10% of American workers are now employed in manufacturing.”

 

Indie

That seems to be a rather simplistic viewpoint.

There are many reasons why governments ‘fail’ and the failure does not always mean that the whole political system fails. I mean in a properly functioning democracy a government can be ‘overthrown’ at an election but that does not mean the system is overthrown.

Also it depends on what the definition of ‘the people’ is in the context of the ‘governed’, it would be extremely naive to believe that every rebellion conducted in the name of ‘the people’ was actually so.

 

Indie

“those countries with the greatest levels of social mobility according to the London School of Economics are "Norway at the top followed by Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany and Canada””

The Scandinavian countries have traditionally been the ones with high degrees of union membership among employees. .

Finland – 74%
Sweden – 71%
Denmark – 67%
Norway – 53%

I believe for the US union membership is around 11.9%.

 

Indie

As I keep having to point out to you I don’t think there will ever be a totally equal or completely perfect society, but I would like to work toward societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places where people are more likely to realise their potential

It depends what you mean by ‘greatly rewarded’ – as I pointed out above at the time the US had a trade surplus CEO pay was about 25-50 times that of an average worker. That had rose to 300-500 times by 2007 just as the trade deficits rose (the last time the US posted a trade surplus was in 1975) until by 2008 it was running at 690 billion.

Many economists believe that while reward can breed incentive the profit maximisation model favoured by neo-liberals with its large scale remuneration for high echelon managers has a detrimental effect on businesses because it breeds a short-termist viewpoint that can have a bad effect on a company’s long-term viability.

A manager making only 25-50 times the average is going to be interested not only with the short term but also the long term because even at that level of wage it would still take them awhile to be independently wealthy. On the other hand if you make in only a short time a vast fortune then one you are likely to take dangerous risks (knowing you walk away sitting pretty if it goes wrong) or you strip the company short term to boost your income because you don’t have to worry about the long term. Look for example at the decline in the US motor industry and such individuals as James (Jimmy) Cayne, of Bears Stearns.

 

I know what you meant, according to the 'London School of Economics', but I assume you would claim that greater social equality exists in those countries, which leaves me wondering what your definition of mobility is.

The answer to your question, which I was not evading, would have to be the societies of the U.S., and I assumed you only asked facetiously.

And excluding your nonsensical ending, you briefly began to point out some of the many variables which centralized governments fail to consider in their planning, that are best understood locally.

"Why isn’t the US a net exporter?"

That question can be answered from a Left point of view or a Right point of view, neither which would be correct. As the intent is not to solve a problem but only to argue from a political perspective, I wouldn't bother wasting time trying to answer the question.

 

Indie

You said – “Societies where mobility is unimpeded by government will always be more successful than those which try to eliminate failure by spreading it equally among all”

I asked – “Can you give an example of the societies you speak of?”

Does this reply – “The answer to your question, which I was not evading, would have to be the societies of the U.S” – mean you think US society is more socially mobile than others because it is less impeded by government involvement?

Because (1) that doesn’t fit in with much of your argument so far about the US and (2) it seems to run counter to most studies on social mobility, I mean according to the 'London School of Economics' study “Britain and the United States have the lowest levels of intergenerational mobility, or the highest levels of intergenerational persistence. The Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland) and Canada tend to have high rates of social mobility. Norway itself proved to be the most mobile. Germany was also included in this study and was found to be in the middle of the scale.”

Basically the countries which had taken the more neoliberal route (that you support) had the worst levels of social mobility.

 

Indie

So what in your opinion is the ‘correct’ answer?

So how would you ‘solve’ the problem?

Oh I see you suggest you have a great answer then tell us that it is beneath you to tell us about it

LOL – this is just more evasion because you know you can’t defend your answer.

Because your answer would be to give more power and influence to wealth which as pointed out at length above seem to be the source of the current problems in other words your ‘great’ answer would be to make a bad situation worse.

 

Balbus:

You ask a question and follow up by demonstrating the futility of answering it.
I think it would be sufficient to simply say that neither of us would have anything to say that we would agree on, no matter how lengthy our discussion.

 

Indie

I don’t care if you agree with me or not – I’m not here trying to persuade you nor am I interested in ‘converting’ you.

As I’ve said many times now I’m trying to understand the views you hold and I’m curious as to why you hold these ideas when so clearly you seem incapable of defending them from criticism.

 

Nor do I care. and you most obviously put little effort into trying to understand anything at all. I think I've written sufficiently of what my views are, and why, and see no possibility of writing anything that would suffice in eliminating, or even reducing your criticisms, which in my view are based on irrational thinking probably as a result of your education, or raising which were likely much different than mine. British vs American, are we not?

And it's corporate cronyism we are living under.

 

Indie

I do find it hard to understand your views – because when they’re examined they don’t seem to have any rational or reasonable basis and you seem unable to defend them from the criticism that they don’t seem to have any rational or reasonable basis.

And if my criticisms are based on irrational thinking wouldn’t you be able to easily address them rather than depending on evasion to try and worm out of giving answers?