O.T. Re: money and health

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

>

> You're making a dangerous mistake here: just because people

> believe and maintain that something is proven doesn't make it so.

> Nor does the fact that someone arguably attempted something and

> failed mean that thing is doomed to failure by its nature.

It's a very good start to an argument for just that, but

in this case we have a more than just the results, we have

a detailed view of what was going on in the U.S.S.R. at

every stage, and everything exactly followed the theoretical

model explaining why socialism can't work. People can in

principle continue to maintain that the sky isn't blue,

contrary to all evidence, but I have no interest in wasting

my time arguing with them. As Asimov said " You can't reason

with someone whose first line of argument is that reason

doesn't count. " In any case, Gene offered a scenario in

which it was admitted for the sake of argument that socialism

is harmful, but in which it should be regarded as a humanitarian

movement regardless, based on the intent of its founders and

advocates. So absolute proof of its harmfulness was not

required, as it was already made a given for the sake of

argument.

> After all, dietary fat and cholesterol are " proven " to cause heart

disease,

> diabetes and obesity, but we don't concede that we have some sort

of

> fixation because we disagree.

No, it was not -scientifically- proven to do so. If it had been,

then I most certainly would suspect some sort of fixation on

behalf of those of us disagreeing, or at least ignorance, just

as I assume for those now advocating its safety contrary to all

evidence.

> It's dangerous to stigmatize dissent and assume it has a basis in

some kind of

> psychological malfunction.

You mean like attributing greed, selfishness, indifference

to human suffering, or an antisocial attitude to those who

advocate libertarianism? I'm glad to read that you will no

longer condone such stigmatization.

> That said I'm hardly advocating communism or socialism, but the

USSR proves

> nothing about either of them.

It is certainly -one- piece of evidence in the case, far from

proving " nothing " .

> IMO it's fairly clear that none of the -isms as defined can exist

in the

> real world for any length of time, but I wouldn't point to

particular

> alleged instances of them to " prove " my case, I'd argue on logic

and

> science, on human nature and incentives.

But that's exactly what's been done. The processes by which

socialism fails have been worked out by political scientists,

and all real world cases so far fit the model perfectly.

> The grievous failing of capitalism, for example, is that it gives

people an

> incentive to lie and defraud people, and as long as people amass

sufficient

> wealth and power, they can prevent the truth from coming out and

being

> dominant pretty effectively.

Which capitalism is that? The ideal one of theory, or the

one than can't exist in the real world for any length of

time? We know that you dare not argue on the basis of the

latter. Right? :-) But seriously, where have you ever seen

an authentic example of laissez-faire capitalism in action

that entails all the horrors you list above?

> That's not to say capitalism doesn't come closer to a desirable

system design

> than other -isms, just that they're all flawed and require overly

simplistic and

> very inaccurate models of human nature.

You shouldn't assume that just because you operate on an

overly simplistic and very inaccurate model of human nature,

that the rest of us do also. We might very well be smarter

than you. :-)

[Guest guest]

-

>we have

>a detailed view of what was going on in the U.S.S.R. at

>every stage, and everything exactly followed the theoretical

>model explaining why socialism can't work.

I really should be asleep, because I have to get up in a couple hours for a

fun and relaxing trip to the hospital, but I guess I'm too stubborn to let

this go. <g>

The USSR was not a socialist state. I'll grant you that by a lot of

people's lights it was, but only because they loosely define socialism as

any centralized governmental control of the economy. By that loose

definition, however, many dictatorships would be classified as socialist,

as would fascist states and a variety of other systems which clearly should

not be considered socialist. In order for the word to mean anything, it

has to refer to control of the means of production by the workers -- IOW

control of the economy by the populace, not by a dictator or an oligarchy

or some other individual or group completely unanswerable to the people.

I don't think anybody -- including the people who dreamed up socialism --

really worked out how this is supposed to function (probably because

figuring it out would be extraordinarily difficult) and I doubt very much

that a truly socialist country would be sustainable even for a very short

period of time, but it's never happened and it almost certainly never will,

because it ignores a number of fundamental human drives. That's not to say

there aren't elements of socialism, or rather elements of quasi-socialism,

to be found in various countries, but the full system has never been

attempted and thus cannot be judged on the basis of experiment.

>As Asimov said " You can't reason

>with someone whose first line of argument is that reason

>doesn't count. "

A non sequitur AND a straw man. Congratulations!

>No, it was not -scientifically- proven to do so.

I see. And you maintain that socialism has been scientifically proven to

have caused the ills of the USSR?

>You mean like attributing greed, selfishness, indifference

>to human suffering, or an antisocial attitude to those who

>advocate libertarianism? I'm glad to read that you will no

>longer condone such stigmatization.

Very funny. Which specific advocate have I attributed those traits

to? And if you're objecting to the fact that I attributed them to " some "

self-styled libertarians, are you really going to deny that any self-styled

libertarians can in fact accurately be described as possessing some or all

of those traits?

>But that's exactly what's been done. The processes by which

>socialism fails have been worked out by political scientists,

>and all real world cases so far fit the model perfectly.

First, if these political scientists are using the USSR as a model, they're

not talking about socialism. Second, the science of human nature is still

in its infancy, and a lot remains unknown. Therefore political scientists

cannot have conclusively proven anything so complex. Third, there have

been no real-world cases.

>Which capitalism is that? The ideal one of theory, or the

>one than can't exist in the real world for any length of

>time?

The idealized one of theory touted by its advocates _is_ the one which

cannot exist in the real world for any length of time.

It is clearly within human nature to follow incentives. This doesn't mean

that everyone will follow every incentive, just that, as with evolution, if

there's a niche to be filled, it likely won't go unfilled, because filling

it will accord advantage. The theory that pure or " true " capitalism can

only result in the best possible outcome by fairly and accurately valuing

products, services, information and people via the market is based on,

among others, the assumption that these valuations will be performed fairly

and openly on the basis of accurate information. The problem is that there

will _always_ be incentives to distort the system, hide the workings and

perpetrate deceptions.

Gummint-bashers insist that bad ole gummint is the only mechanism by which

the system can be distorted -- by which deceptions can be universally or

even widely perpetrated, and that those deceptions can be maintained for

any significant length of time -- but this is a faith-based assumption that

cannot survive an encounter with the facts. insists, for example,

that there could never have been a campaign against cholesterol without

government involvement in the domains of health and nutrition, but that

statement is absurd on its face. Many of our health " authorities " are not

government-based at all, and media consolidation and ownership of the media

and the resulting power to control the information available to most people

don't require government involvement either.

also argues that the fact that many of us here have seen through the

lies proves that there's nothing wrong with a system that allows lies to be

non-governmentally institutionalized because after all, those lies

obviously have no power since we've seen through them. However, the

greatest single reason (by far) that we've been able to gather what

information we do have and see through those lies we have pierced is the

availability of the internet. Without the internet, virtually none of this

would have happened -- and without the government, there'd have been no

internet.

I'm sure you'll argue that we'd have gotten the internet eventually with or

without government involvement, but I submit that the openness of our

internet, the fact that anyone (well, almost anyone) can publish on the

internet is entirely due to its origins as a public project. Look at AOL

for an example of what an internet-like system would've been if it had

originated in the corporate world. And yes, I know, that's only one

example, so look at all the other areas in which large corporations with

vested interests control access and publishing: censorship is rife,

distortion of reality is endemic.

Furthermore, work is afoot to close the internet, and though corporations

may use the tool of government because it's there and because they've

successfully corrupted it to an amazing degree, their main tools are

non-governmental. Microsoft's near-monopoly power is one of them. Their

plans may be derailed by public outrage, but if so, it will only be because

people have become accustomed to an open system and will be outraged at any

attempt to take that away from them, but in the coming years IT-based

terrorism (and more importantly scare-mongering about same) may be used to

sway public opinion on that matter regardless of the actual merits of any

arguments. I don't have time to spawn an entirely new and even more

off-topic discussion about the direction the computer world is heading in,

but suffice it to say I'm talking about very specific initiatives, not

generic paranoia.

>But seriously, where have you ever seen

>an authentic example of laissez-faire capitalism in action

>that entails all the horrors you list above?

The horrors you refer to, including the subset of them which I cited (I

didn't mention anything like " an antisocial attitude " , whatever exactly

that is -- it's awfully general and very vague) are human traits which will

find expression in any political system. Are you seriously saying that in

pure laissez-faire capitalism, people would be magically transformed such

that " greed, selfishness, indifference to human suffering, or an antisocial

attitude " would all magically disappear?

My point is twofold. First, any ideal political system must account for

all aspects of human nature as it really is, not just the aspects we like

to acknowledge, and must rely on no false conceptions or distortions of

human nature. Second, people have an innate drive to seek an advantage,

and that drive will always lead some people to seek unfair advantage.

The idea that pure capitalism inevitably yields the best results depends on

perfect fairness -- a market in which people have clearly and accurately

defined choices and make the best choices for themselves. But perfect

fairness will never exist, or at best will be highly transitory, because

unfairness will always have the potential to yield advantage. And so

instead of choosing between " food made with partially hydrogenated oils

which are therefore cheaper to buy but which cause extremely serious health

problems down the line " and " food that's more expensive in the short term

but is much healthier in the long run and also saves hugely on all kinds of

medical costs down the road " , or some other honest expression of the

options, the profit motive will always lead some people to seek to sell PHO

as a healthier option, and with a sufficient concentration of capital,

which pure capitalism does absolutely nothing to prevent, that sales pitch

will acquire the appearance of truth.

Adam envisioned a sea of capital full of small businesses and

individuals. He never dreamed of our modern state of affairs, in which

concentrations of capital are so vast they approach the size of seas. When

individual capitalist entities are so vast, they can alter the playing

field whether or not government is present.

and have insisted that grains and vegetable oils triumphed

over animal products because government, for whatever reason, chose to side

with grains and vegetable oils over animal products. (The fact that they

don't explain _why_ government happened to make that choice is, BTW, a

weakness in their explanation.) They're ignoring three key facts. First,

the vegetable product industry is vastly more profitable than the animal

product industry, and thus has more money to spend on lobbying and

manipulation of policy and public opinion. Second, the vegetable product

industry OWNS some of the animal product industry, and just as with any

other example of an internal conflict of interest, external behavior is

often harmonized, which is to say that since vegetable products are more

profitable, the animal product people don't say what they're not supposed

to say. Third, virtually all of the animal product industry has,

unfortunately, become entirely dependent on the vegetable product industry

by employing confinement husbandry instead of pasturing (and especially

grass-feeding). As I'm sure you know, it's not smart to piss off the only

people who can supply you with a vital commodity.

>You shouldn't assume that just because you operate on an

>overly simplistic and very inaccurate model of human nature,

If you're genuinely asserting that my model of human nature is overly

simplistic and very inaccurate, you assume the burden of explaining

why. However, it's highly unlikely you have more than a vague idea of what

my model of human nature actually is (I've said relatively little on the

matter, and I don't think it would be possible to deduce what exactly I

believe from the few statements I've made, though since I don't have a

standing catalog of my statements I suppose I could be wrong) so it's much

more likely that your assertion is merely the juvenile and pathetic retort

it looks like.

>We might very well be smarter

>than you. :-)

In light of the rampant illogic, faith-based assumptions and near-total

disregard of facts in this debate, that's highly unlikely.

-

[Guest guest]

>

> From: " wtsdv " <liberty@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:01:15 -0000

>

> Subject: O.T. Re: money and health

>

>

>

>>

>>> I think that concluding a concept is humanitarian even while

>>> admitting it is not workable " now or ever " is more a sign of

>>> an ideological fixation than the converse.

>>

>> Really? How exactly does that work?

>

> When one continues to follow or advocate a course which

> has been shown to have an effect opposite to the one

> desired, then it's likely that at least -some- sort of

> fixation is involved. What else could it be? However

> humanitarian the goals of socialism's advocates, the

> results of its implementation have proved to be anything

> but humanitarian.

>

And a socialist would claim the same of capitalists - that it has been shown

to not work (of courrse, based on different criteria than the capitalist

would used), and also, both that most examples cited were not true socialist

governments (e.g. the Soviet Union), and that in some cases governments

because more authoritarian because of economic and military pressure by the

U.S. (e.g. Nicaragua). Given the history of capitalism and socialism,

perhaps one has to be a bit fixated to claim that one form or the other will

work, but in terms of being humanistic, it seems to me that the concept of

socialism IS humanistic, and the concept of capitalism is not.

>> So, your reasoning seems to be, that because some people claim

>> that their ideas are humanitarian, despite the fact that they

>> might be, in fact, harmful, no idea that may be impractical can

>> be humanitarian? I don't follow the logic.

>

> Be careful to make a distinction between humanitarian

> intent and humanitarian results.

I am being very careful to make that distinction.

> If we know an idea

> to be " in fact, harmful " , as you write here, regardless

> of the good intention of its advocates, then why are we

> required to pretend it's humanitarian in -fact-?

I don't know that socialism is 'in fact' harmful, at least compared to

capitalism, so, I guess I cannot pretend that I believe that its advocates

are, by definition, not humanitarians! You claim to KNOW this, and that

might inspire a debate about what knowledge is, etc, which I certainly don't

have the time for. However, I think it's clear that you DON'T know this. It

is an opinion.

>

>> There is also a difference between your example and the Marx

>> quote. The Marx quote is humanitarian in ideology (at least in

>> my view) because it views all people as fundamentally equally

>> deserving of getting what they need, and all people as equally

>> responsible to contribute effort to the welfare of all.

>

> It is not humanitarian in -my- view. If Marx freely

> chooses to help others with his -own- time, effort,

> and resources, then he's certainly a humanitarian.

> However if he advocates forcibly taking -my- time,

> effort, or resources to help a cause that I don't choose

> to support, then he is certainly not behaving humanely

> towards -me-.

>

LOL! If you are filthy rich, and he forcibly takes away much of your wealth

and property and feeds and houses many people, than he is a hell of a better

humanitarian in my view than you are.

> Your idea that " all people are responsible to contribute

> effort to the welfare of all " is just that, -your- idea.

????? What in the world are you talking about. I cited it as a humanitarian

one. I have never claimed that I am a socialist.

> Some people have the idea that interracial marriage is

> immoral. Do they have the right to impose that idea on

> the rest of us, and forbid interracial marriage?

What in the world are you talking about? You apparently believe that it is

not immoral to have huge amounts of wealth while many people are homeless

and starving. All things being equal, nothing should be taken from anyone.

But if I had to choose between two systems - one in which there was an upper

limit on wealth, and where people and companies would be obligated to

provide for the less fortunate, and one where people and companies were free

to amass enormous wealth while others suffered, I'd choose the former.

> Some

> people believe it's immoral not to worship Jesus.

Ultimately, any system we devise depends on what we believe to be moral and

what we believe to be immoral. As does yours.

> Do

> they have the right to force the rest of us to do so?

> This is precisely what you're advocating.

Absolutely not. Your reasoning is totally corrupt.

>It's -your-

> ethical belief that it's wrong not to support others in

> need, so you think it perfectly acceptable to forcibly

> take others' resources to that end.

And you believe that it's immoral to take anyone from anybody, so you'd let

much of the human race live in misery while you lived in a castle.

I'm not going to waste my time by reading any further. Obviously there is no

chance that you'd ever be convinced, and I just don't take what you are

saying seriously either.

> If you don't believe

> in interracial marriages, then you're not required to

> marry someone of a different race, but you don't have the

> right to interfere with someone else doing so. If you

> believe in worshipping Jesus, then you have the right to

> do so unmolested by others, but you do not have the right

> to force others to join you. If you believe it's immoral

> to kill and eat animals, then you have the right to refrain

> from eating meat, but you do not have the right to stop

> others who wish to do so. So if you likewise believe you

> owe something to the upkeep of others, then you have every

> right to give whatever you wish of your -own- time and

> resources, but absolutely none to force me or anybody else

> to do the same.

>

> What's the difference in imposing personal ethical beliefs,

> and imposing personal religious beliefs?

>

>> There is nothing ideologically humanitarian about the low fat,

>> high carb diet.

>

> Of course there is. It would be inhumane to stand by and

> say nothing while naive people ate all the fat they wanted

> and avoided carbs, and then died right and left from heart

> attacks and diabetes, wouldn't it?

>

>> You are simply emphasizing that those who believe that the diet is a

>> healthy one ae mistaken.

>

> As are those who believe in socialism. If I can call the

> diet a spade, regardless of the good intent of its advocates,

> then why can't I likewise call socialism a spade?

>

>> Hate? Whoa - no, I don't hate by a long shot.

>

> Well goodness, I'd hate to see how you talk to someone

> you do hate! :-)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>