Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 In a message dated 1/16/04 5:24:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > 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. Actually, what I argued was that in the midst of a multiplicity of competing industrial interests, without an objective, non-profit government endorsing claims, the competing interests would essentially cancel each other out. For example, again, the beef industry and make up shoddy anti-soy science and the soy industry can make up shoddy anti-beef science, and both can wage advertising campaigns. But with the FDA endorsing the statement that 25 g soy protein a day keeps the cardiologist away and to limit beef consumption, the competing interests do not have a level playing field on which to compete. So, I'm allowing perfectly for the incentive to lie out of greed. What I'm counting on, is not the non-existence of malice, but the existence of a multiplicity of sources of information from both interested and non-interested parties. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > > 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> Why are you going to the hospital? > 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. I don't know of any definition, no matter how loose, that would allow that sort of classification. In any case, has already adequately answered this one. > In order for the word to mean anything, It already means something, and we look to the dictionary for that meaning, not you. > 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. Look up the word again. > 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. Are you trying to make -my- case or -yours-? > 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. Fine, then I'm going to likewise insist that true laissez-faire capitalism " 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! You stated that " just because people believe and maintain that something is proven doesn't make it so. " which is true. However it's also true that some people will cling tenaciously to an idée fixe in complete indifference to all contrary evidence. My point was that I have no intention of wasting my time arguing with the latter sort of person. > I see. And you maintain that socialism has been scientifically > proven to have caused the ills of the USSR? " The ills of the U.S.S.R. " is a broad category, but yes, it clearly caused many of them. > >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? I didn't single you out. Such attribution passes on this list all of the time, sometimes blatantly, sometimes more obliquely. Remember that this was all in response to your statement that " It's dangerous to stigmatize dissent and assume it has a basis in some kind of psychological malfunction. " I was merely pointing out how libertarians often endure exactly that sort of stigmatization on our list. > 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? I assume you meant to write " ... to deny that -no- self-styled libertarians ... " . If so then my answer depends on whether you are really going to deny that no self-styled socialist can in fact accurately be described as in the grip of an ideological fixation. > >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. There are several countries in Europe with socialist leanings. > 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. How is that possible? You make many bold declarations about capitalism yourself, and base them on claims about human nature. How is that possible if one dare not conclude anything on such bases? > Third, there have been no real-world cases. Then how is it that you can make so many disparaging statements about capitalism, when there is no real-world case of it, and when you consider political science still inadequate to the job of predicting from models? > It is clearly within human nature to follow incentives. How is it so clear given what you write about human nature above? > 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. What are you talking about? > 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. It doesn't require much assumption, since the interested parties in an exchange have an obvious incentive to collect accurate information and look out for their own interests. > The problem is that there will _always_ be incentives to distort > the system, hide the workings and perpetrate deceptions. And the solution is that their will _always_ be incentives to discover and correct the distortions, uncover the workings, and uncover the deceptions. A libertarian government works on the side of those doing the latter, since under libertarian principles as I understand them, the prosecution of fraud, and the enforcement of contracts are among the few legitimate duties of a government. > 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. Why are you talking to me about government bashers? The argument is about libertarianism, not anarchism. In any case, you're attributing all of the same things to big business, so why shouldn't we call you a " business basher " ? By the way, whose skin are you trying to get under by using the African-American subdialectical form " gummint " ? > 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. Would the campaign have been as convincing to the majority of people if absolutely no government agency took part, but only representatives of drug interests and food manufacturers alone? > 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. I really doubt that is saying that, but in any case that's not the libertarian perspective as I understand it. Among the few legitimate roles of government are the prosecution of fraud, and the enforcement of contracts. So how would a libertarian system allow lies such as you claim? > 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. That's nonsense. > 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. What has really made the internet grow and thrive is pornography. Everybody knows that. > 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. Censorship is more often associated with those, let's call them " aggressively non-capitalist countries " , since you deny they're socialist, than it is with such countries as the U.S., Canada or Britain. Do you really think you're going to convince anybody otherwise? ly, I consider your characterization of libertarianism a " distortion of reality " , but you believe you have the right to express it, do you not? > 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. Why are you lecturing me about corporations, Microsoft and the government? We're already agreed that these have nothing to do with capitalism, which like socialism, has of course never been attempted in the real world. > 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. Thank goodness, I'm not really interested in reading about your very specific paranoia. But seriously, you really do believe that you, and you alone have all the insight on what's going on behind the scenes, and what the future holds. Don't you? > > 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. I didn't refer to an antisocial attitude. I was referring to your statement that " 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. " More importantly though, if such horrors " will find expression in -any- political system " , as you claim, then why were you trying to make a -particular- case against capitalism with the fact? Do you really not see the failure in logic here? What is equally true of everything, is distinctive of nothing. > 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? Of course not. For one thing it's well within one's rights to be greedy, selfishness, indifferent to human suffering, or antisocial. We have no right to discourage people from these if that is what they want to be. Such traits are in no way a threat to the rest of us so long as the right of the individual over his own person and property is guaranteed. > 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. Exactly, so why are you opposed to libertarianism, which is the only system that does so? > Second, people have an innate drive to seek an advantage, > and that drive will always lead some people to seek unfair > advantage. Let them seek their own advantage. There's nothing wrong with that, and so long as everybody is free to accept or reject any exchange, then there is no possibility of an unfair advantage. Only forcible interference with free exchange by a third party can give unfair advantage to one side or the other. > 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. Nonsense. Nothing " perfect " is required at all. On what basis do you demand such obviously unattainable perfection? Clearly if you can convince anybody that perfection is required of anything, then you automatically win. In fact, any system, that truly is a -system-, tolerates a certain leeway in the behavior of its subcomponents, and has a system of feed back loops to stabilize itself. All that is required to drive a capitalist economy in the right direction is that -most- people strive after what is in their own best advantage -most- of the time, sans the tools of coercion or fraud, the latter being the most basic principle of libertarianism. > 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. Anybody with any sense at all takes with a grain of salt what a business claims about its product. The problem comes when official or -government- agencies endorse those claims. Under libertarian principles it's possible to bring legal action against anybody making verifiably false claims about their product or service. > 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. Of course they can alter the playing field. That's what power is for, and there are legitimate and honest means to gain power, as well as legitimate and honest uses of power, just as there are illegitimate and dishonest ones. The very role of government is to prevent the latter. If your government can't do that, then it needs overhauling. If your solution is to simply limit the amount of capital one can accumulate, then you're very naive, because power can and will be accumulated in various forms besides capital, as we saw in the Soviet Union, and because the governments of aggressively non-capitalist countries appear to be even more prone to corruption than ones like the U.S., Canada and Britain. > 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. Do you mean to tell me that the political system we have in place now is corrupt? Who says it's not, and what does any of this have to do with the practice of laissez-faire capitalism under a libertarian government? > >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. Don't you recognize your own words? I was doing no more than quoting you when you wrote " 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. " So I guess it is you who have assume the burden of explaining why their models are flawed, and really, how you know that in the first place, given your claims about the inscrutability of human nature. > 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) No, we know nothing more than that you believe your opponents' model is wrong and that yours is right, but no reason why we should believe that's true. > so it's much more likely that your assertion is merely the > juvenile and pathetic retort it looks like. It was nothing more than a quote of your very own words. Were you trying to be juvenile and pathetic when you wrote them, or merely hoping we would accept that you alone know anything about human nature? I don't accept the latter, and that was in fact my point. > > 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. I think you characterize yourself here, not me. I also think you indulge in shameless hyperbole. I've shown here, and in other discussions with you a few cases where your logic has failed. In any case, please show me just one instance on my part of illogic, a faith-based assumption, or disregard of a fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 - If you continue with your ad hominem rhetoric, this will be my last post to you in this discussion. >Why are you going to the hospital? That's where my girlfriend is. > > 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. > >I don't know of any definition, no matter how loose, that would >allow that sort of classification. Here's the Encarta definition of socialism. 1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles How interesting that it's precisely as I described. However, there's also support to be found for the looser definition I referred to. Here's the dictionary.com definition. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Note that this definition says " owned collectively OR by a centralized government " . Since " a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy " can apply to a wide variety of governmental systems, I'm completely correct in saying that it's a uselessly broad form of the definition because it would cover many fascist states and dictatorships which are centralized and which " often " plan and control their economies. >It already means something, and we look to the dictionary for >that meaning, not you. And behold, the dictionary supports my reading, not yours. >Look up the word again. I say that to you. >Are you trying to make -my- case or -yours-? Am I correct in understanding that you think I'm defending socialism? (BTW, just to nip this little sub-discussion in the bud, I'm not.) >Fine, then I'm going to likewise insist that true laissez-faire >capitalism " has never been attempted and thus cannot be judged >on the basis of experiment " . I never said it has. > > A non sequitur AND a straw man. Congratulations! > >You stated that " just because people believe and maintain that >something is proven doesn't make it so. " which is true. However >it's also true that some people will cling tenaciously to an idée >fixe in complete indifference to all contrary evidence. My point >was that I have no intention of wasting my time arguing with the >latter sort of person. As I said, a non sequitur AND a straw man. You concede that what I said is true, and yet you imply that I'm clinging tenaciously to an idée fixe in complete indifference to all contrary evidence without offering one shred of support for your implication. It's a standard mark of desperation when someone tries to turn a debate from the subject being debated to the person doing the debating. It's very transparent. >I didn't single you out. You made your statement to me, in opposition to points I was making. Don't try to weasel out of it now. > " It's dangerous to stigmatize dissent and assume it has a basis >in some kind of psychological malfunction. " I was merely >pointing out how libertarians often endure exactly that sort >of stigmatization on our list. That is factually incorrect, as any fair reading of posts on this list would make clear. The difference is simple. It is one thing to say that " some proponents " of libertarianism are motivated by greed and are engaging in deceptive rhetoric. Neither I nor anyone else on this list has ever suggested that you or or are lying about your beliefs. It's quite another to suggest that specific list members are psychologically malfunctioning. That is ad hominem rhetoric, and as well as being the last resort of the defeated, it's against list rules. > > 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? > >I assume you meant to write " ... to deny that -no- self-styled >libertarians ... " . No, I wrote precisely what I meant. If you deny that any self-styled libertarians can be described so, you maintain that none can be described so. >If so then my answer depends on whether you >are really going to deny that no self-styled socialist can in >fact accurately be described as in the grip of an ideological >fixation. I see, so you base your statements of belief on whether you can achieve concessions from your opposition, not on what you actually believe? Regardless, I'm not going to dispute that there are deluded and fixated self-styled socialists any more than I'd deny there are deluded and fixated people in every other walk of life. That would be absurd -- and yet you would apparently make a denial of that very type if I didn't offer what by your lights would be a concession. >There are several countries in Europe with socialist leanings. That's supposed to meet a scientific standard of experimental proof? Are you kidding? >How is that possible? You make many bold declarations about >capitalism yourself, and base them on claims about human nature. >How is that possible if one dare not conclude anything on such >bases? I make a few declarations about human nature, and I contrast those with the model of capitalism offered by its advocates. However, I did overstep in one of my statements. It's not impossible, even given the limited state of our understanding of human nature, to prove that socialism is not sustainable. However, the rest of my paragraph stands. > > Third, there have been no real-world cases. > >Then how is it that you can make so many disparaging statements >about capitalism, when there is no real-world case of it, and >when you consider political science still inadequate to the job >of predicting from models? I was not saying that because there have been no real-world cases of socialism we cannot conclude it cannot work, I was disputing your statement to the effect that we've seen it implemented and we've seen all implementations fail. > > It is clearly within human nature to follow incentives. > >How is it so clear given what you write about human nature >above? To what specifically are you referring? > > 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. > >What are you talking about? You impugn my intelligence and yet... very well. Are you familiar with evolution and evolutionary niches? (You're not a creationist, are you?) Not every creature -- and not every species -- attempts to fill every niche. However, virtually all available niches are filled, and when they're emptied (for example by some kind of natural catastrophe, like a massive asteroid impact) they don't stay empty for long (in evolutionary terms). There's an incentive to fill a niche. There's profit, so to speak, in filling an empty niche. Similarly, human nature functioning in sociopolitical systems creates niches and incentives. Not every person or group will attempt to fill every niche, but eventually, all niches will get filled. So if, for example, there's an incentive for a real estate developer to lie about his buildings, not every developer will do so, but you can be assured that some will, and to the degree they get away with it, they'll win competitive advantage over those who don't -- even if, in the long term, ALL of those developers are caught in their deceptions and brought to rights. There will ALWAYS be people who will believe that they're unique in their ability to get away with it, and there will ALWAYS be people who simply won't care about what might come ten, twenty or fifty years down the road. >It doesn't require much assumption, since the interested parties >in an exchange have an obvious incentive to collect accurate >information and look out for their own interests. Ah, so now, perhaps, we get to the heart of the matter. You assume that the definite incentive interested parties in an exchange will have to acquire accurate information will be sufficient to ensure the acquisition of that accurate information, yes? Yet people have a similar incentive in today's world. Nobody (well, just about nobody) actually wants to be deceived. And yet people are deceived all the time. Why would pure capitalism grant people magical powers of discernment? >And the solution is that their will _always_ be incentives to >discover and correct the distortions, uncover the workings, and >uncover the deceptions. Of course there will be incentives. I never suggested otherwise. The question is not whether there will be some good incentives, the question is how powerful the bad incentives will be in shaping society -- how the entire network of incentives will interact, and where the balance point will turn out to be. Your assumption, not supported by history, experiment, the science of human nature, or sound political science -- and not defended on any such grounds by you either except by assertion -- is that laissez-faire capitalism somehow overwhelmingly overpowers and nullifies bad incentives. You have not explained how this is so except to say that " there'd be good incentives " , but without a detailed, specific and defensible argument explaining _why_ those good incentives would overpower the bad ones and _how_ exactly they'd do it, your assumption is just an unsupported assertion. >Why are you talking to me about government bashers? The >argument is about libertarianism, not anarchism. I'm not sure I want to venture down this detour, but are you really suggesting that nobody who wants to radically diminish the size and power of government is bashing government? IOW, only people who want to eliminate it entirely are bashing it? Are you kidding? >so why shouldn't we call you a " business basher " ? That wouldn't be an especially unfair description, provided it wasn't constructed and employed to suggest that I object to business itself, rather than the practices of many businesses -- and to the incentive system which leads them to act badly. I have a big problem, for example, with the stock option incentive system that led to disasters like Enron. >By the way, whose skin are you trying to get under by using >the African-American subdialectical form " gummint " ? I've heard plenty of white people use the term, and everywhere it's used, it's used in ignorance and prejudice. >Would the campaign have been as convincing to the majority of >people if absolutely no government agency took part, but only >representatives of drug interests and food manufacturers alone? See, there's your hidden assumption that in the absence of government, the workings of a laissez-faire economy would be fully open, transparent and honest showing its head again. Drug interests and food manufacturers are expert at hiding their hands, at creating " objective experts " and " disinterested organizations " which in reality are nothing more than drug interest and food manufacturer propaganda arms. The incentive is there to do so, and if anything, the removal of government would increase, not decrease, the incentive. That practice, BTW, is hardly limited to the drug and food industries, and it's abundantly documented in _Trust Us, We're Experts_. >I really doubt that is saying that, He said it explicitly and has not objected to my characterization, so I can only conclude he did indeed say and mean exactly that. >So how would a libertarian system >allow lies such as you claim? There are several possible ways, depending in part on which variant of libertarianism were to be established. It's a fairly standard libertarian position that nothing should be regulated (except, I guess, direct physical violence, though philosophically I don't see how the distinction is defensible) and all torts should be handled through the courts. But in the courts, it's easy to dilute the perception of cause. Is Herbert's cancer or heart disease the result of asbestos, or cigarettes, or partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, or just chance, since cancer is a universal? And to PHOs really cause heart disease? A PHO vendor is going to have vast quantities of money to spend on creating and presenting the science he wants. So in such a system, how do you establish what's truth in the first place? > > and > > without the government, there'd have been no internet. > >That's nonsense. I take it you're only calling that latter part nonsense, but I note you don't explain why you assume it's nonsense. History's on my side, not yours. >What has really made the internet grow and thrive is pornography. >Everybody knows that. This is a non-sequitur. The _actual nature_ of the internet was defined long before pornography came to it, and though porn's certainly had a profound impact on its size and adoption rate, porn's ability to thrive on the net was in part a result of the created nature of the internet. I don't offhand know whether porn was ever available internally on AOL, but even if it was, its existence would always have been at the sufferance of one entity -- AOL. >Censorship is more often associated with those, let's call them > " aggressively non-capitalist countries " , since you deny they're >socialist, than it is with such countries as the U.S., Canada or >Britain. Do you really think you're going to convince anybody >otherwise? A straw man of epic proportions. You apparently continue to assume I'm defending socialism, and apparently you also think that I'm therefore defending censoring countries since you believe they're socialist. The assumptions are both absurd. I don't like censorship, I don't like socialism (at least not in its full scale), and I don't like countries like China and Cuba. Nor haveI never defended any of them. >Why are you lecturing me about corporations, Microsoft and the >government? We're already agreed that these have nothing to do >with capitalism, which like socialism, has of course never been >attempted in the real world. I see, so you're now suggesting either that monopoly power couldn't exist in a laissez-faire system or that it could exist but it would never be used to such ill effect? Why? Do you dispute the existence and power of network effects? (You certainly wouldn't be alone in doing so, and it would go a long way towards explaining why you believe what you believe.) >But seriously, you really do believe >that you, and you alone have all the insight on what's going on >behind the scenes, and what the future holds. Don't you? More ad hominem psychoanalysis. , do you really not understand how clear it is that people turn from discussing the subject under debate to the person engaging in debate when they're out of arguments to make about the actual subject? You're just making yourself look bad. People can agree or disagree with me -- hell, they can like or dislike me -- but I don't go around turning discussions from the subject to the person. >I didn't refer to an antisocial attitude. I was referring to >your statement that " 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. " I see, so this is what you characterize as " _an_ antisocial attitude " (my emphasis)? >More importantly though, if such horrors > " will find expression in -any- political system " , as you claim, >then why were you trying to make a -particular- case against >capitalism with the fact? I should have said " any political system devised or proposed or enacted to date " . I do hold out some hope that progress in the science of human nature can eventually enable us to devise fair political systems which encourage competition and achievement without rewarding undesirable behaviors. At the very least, we ought to be able to reduce the incentives to behave badly. But I don't know exactly how to do that in a sustainable way, or I'd be suggesting specific fundamental reforms instead of mere specific policy objectives. I'm also not sure any such system can ever work well indefinitely, because all possible systems are subject to evolution (or, if you'd prefer, to evolution-like forces). If you hold undesirable behaviors in check, the incentive to circumvent the system will probably inevitably lead to new workarounds. There will always be incentives to beat the system, and successful new techniques will probably always evolve, requiring the evolution and creation of new counter-measures, etc. It's an arms race. Unfortunately, arms races can be as wasteful and destructive as they can be productive and useful. >Do you really not see the failure in >logic here? What is equally true of everything, is distinctive >of nothing. I never said it was equally true of everything, just that it was (to some degree) true of everything. > > 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. > >Exactly, so why are you opposed to libertarianism, which is the >only system that does so? Libertarianism doesn't do so. Or rather, I suppose you could say it does, since the basic idea is " let people do whatever the hell they want with virtually no restrictions " , except that advocates insist that libertarianism would by its very nature prevent fraud, distortion, profit from dishonesty, etc., which is not true. Some libertarians do have the courage of their convictions, though, and agree that if an entire city is completely destroyed by an earthquake, that's cool, so be it -- IOW their means justify any ends. I don't think I've ever run into that particular argument on this list, though. >Let them seek their own advantage. There's nothing wrong with >that, and so long as everybody is free to accept or reject any >exchange, then there is no possibility of an unfair advantage. >Only forcible interference with free exchange by a third party >can give unfair advantage to one side or the other. It appears that you're either assuming that deception cannot be successfully perpetrated without forcible third-party intervention, which is logically and factually indefensible, or assuming that deception is not unfair, which I'd argue is morally indefensible. So which is it? >On what basis >do you demand such obviously unattainable perfection? Excuse me? I require no such thing. Many advocates of laissez-faire capitalism and libertarianism, however, insist that their preferred system(s) would inevitably achieve perfect valuation every time, though to be fair I think at least some of those advocates say this because they believe that whatever comes out of their system is, ipso facto, the best. What _I_ require is pragmatism, systemic fairness and overall improvement, not some doctrinaire adherence to a religious ideology regardless of the consequences. I see the building codes save society lives and absolutely gargantuan quantities of money at comparatively minute expense to builders without inevitably running into liability problems which far exceed anybody's ability to pay for damage, so I believe in using building codes. Etc. (And to your possible insurance response, I have two words in response: " dietary fat " .) >The problem comes when >official or -government- agencies endorse those claims. First, what do you mean by this distinction between " official " and " government " agencies? Do you mean to suggest that non-governmental endorsement can be the problem too? In that case, how does removal of government solve anything? Second, assuming you just mean government all the way through, you're wrong. As _Trust Us, We're Experts_ clearly documents, industry is expert at creating the appearance of neutral, third-party endorsement -- including NON-governmental endorsement. I also find it fascinating, BTW, that you assume that in this country full of government-haters everybody takes the word of government as gospel whereas nobody would ever be deceived by businesses if only it weren't for government. >Under >libertarian principles it's possible to bring legal action >against anybody making verifiably false claims about their >product or service. In principle, I agree, but in practice there are two problems. First, successfully bringing legal action is hardly assured for a variety of reasons, including those bogus " experts " I keep mentioning and the extreme fiscal imbalance between the two parties. Second, turning everything over to the courts is MASSIVELY inefficient and, as I detailed in another post, will inevitably result in some situations in which liability exceeds any conceivable business's ability to pay. Therefore it's definitionally going to lead to situations in which legal action fails to redress grievances. >If your government can't do that, then >it needs overhauling. Yes, and the one fact we probably agree on is that our government needs a lot of overhauling. (I'm assuming you live in the US, but there's not a government on earth which doesn't need tons of overhauling by either of our lights, so I think it's a safe statement either way.) >If your solution is to simply limit the >amount of capital one can accumulate, Hardly. Short of a constant fight for control of government, though, I don't know what can be done that would be really effective and fair. > > >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. > >Don't you recognize your own words? Of course I recognize my own words. It's a very juvenile trick to turn around and apply someone's words to him instead of responding substantively. >So I guess it is you who >have assume the burden of explaining why their models are flawed, I've already explained at length in many posts, including ones to you. And again, you resort to shifting the discussion from the subject to the person. You made a claim but did not support it. I said by making that claim, you assume the burden of supporting it. Your response was not to support your claim but to apply my words to something else I'd said. You turning the discussion from the subject to the person is becoming a very consistent pattern, and as I said at the beginning of this post, I'm not going to continue the discussion if you continue employing that tactic. It's an irritating, offensive waste of time. >and really, how you know that in the first place, given your claims >about the inscrutability of human nature. We don't know everything about human nature, but we hardly know nothing either, and I never said we did. > > so it's much more likely that your assertion is merely the > > juvenile and pathetic retort it looks like. > >It was nothing more than a quote of your very own words. As I said, juvenile and pathetic. If I say something, you reply, and I say " that's non-responsive " -- and then you turn around and parrot me, saying " that's non-responsive " , you're not addressing the subject, you're shifting the debate to the person. As you keep doing. >In any case, please show me just one instance on my >part of illogic, a faith-based assumption, or disregard of a >fact. Just read my responses, including this one. Instances are abundant. And BTW, your impugnment of my intelligence was YET ONE MORE instance of your shifting of the discussion away from the subject being debated and to the person doing the debating. That is both offensive and pathetic. Looking back over my post to you, I see it's full of objections to your ad hominem rhetoric. This sort of debate is noise. It's garbage. It's bad for the list. If you continue with it, I won't participate, and if you attack other people, you'll hear from me. If, however, you want to keep things polite and substantive, bring it on. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.