I would love to learn under somebody like this. In Europe, our chancellors only ever seem to employ leftists and social 'liberals' to work in our higher education establishments and it's made the freedom of learning and variety of opinion much more limited.
"My definition of liberty is negative. freedom FROM force/theft/whatever. your argument is more for positive enforcement. you want to give people things to make them free" You're definitely right here: I think that liberty starts to loose meaning if you define it strictly negatively: if you deprive a man of water, regardless of whether you use force against him, you restrict his liberty. A man's right to water overrules the "property rights" of whoever 'owns' it.
@LordShandor "You do not have the liberty to kill or steal. That is a misunderstanding of what rights are and what liberty is." Liberty simply means freedom from control or authority. A 'right' is a just claim to an action or resource. These two are separate ideas, but the point is still the same: in order for one man to have liberty, another man's liberty must be limited. The role of the state is to strive for equal liberty (not simply liberty for one group, or one man).
The problem with formal equality is that, albeit fair, it is also ruthless. It gives no second chances, and for some sections of society, it means that consequences could be disastrous. Their bad decisions will affect their children and grand-children, snowballing into utter hopelessness for them. We can't all live as if we're on our own, and ones with wealth and power have an obligation to help the less fortunate ones. If not for the benefit of society, then at least out of compassion.
Prof. Otteson is largely correct: the issues of liberty are so confused philosophically and practically that learning exactly what constitutes liberty is a difficult choice. However, the socialist argument here is that we, as a civilization, are more and more maturing to the point where we can recognize that one cannot have liberty without having air, water, food, shelter, clothing, basic health care, and education. That means that a truly Libertarian state must provide these.
"I think that example of water is a little too simplistic." A little, I agree, but wouldn't you agree that the same logic holds if you change the argument to "food", "shelter from the elements", and "basic health care"? Liberty is contingent on these things, rather than the other way around. You're also right about potable water requiring work to produce: in a way we can't have a society based on 'free water' because it would collapse. This doesn't support capitalism, however.
@LordShandor "Equal opportunity does not mean granting an equal starting point." It does if that starting point grants advantages. "That would be socialism." That's right. Libertarian socialism (that's my political denomination, see Wikipedia for a good explanation). As for inheritance, this is a whole separate kettle of fish, but I feel that your solution directly contradicts the idea of equal liberty: if one many has rights to property simply due to his parentage?
Michael Albert and radical economist Robin Hahnel are two of the principle thinkers behind that scheme that I found,there are probably many more. To be the central planner doesn't necessarily mean you have direct power, like you are the dictator. it just means it is their plan or system, they describe how it must work and in their own words how people would have to fundamentally change their beliefs/customs/way of life and so on, for this kind of system to work.
"Socialism is based around central planning." Not necessarily. Originally (in the writings of Marx and Engels) the idea socialist society was seen as almost entirely stateless. The 'promise' of the Russian revolution was that the state would fade away after socialism had been established. Marx even praised the stateless Paris Commune as a perfect example of socialism (although granted, the differences between Socialism and Communism start to blur in that example).
@LordShandor "Government survival is based on a violation of liberty." In a sense I agree, but only in the sense that ANY protection of liberty involves destroying the liberty of another. For example, to protect one citizen's liberty of life, you must stop another citizen's liberty of murdering. To protect one citizen's liberty of property, you must stop another citizen's liberty of theft. Thus the state acts as an equalizer, working to protect liberties of weak and strong alike.
hmm according to the minds behind paracon"parecon is only meant to address an alternative economic theory and must be accompanied by equally important alternative visions in the fields of politics, culture and kinship" this is just an example of my points. this system would be nothing without its architects who say it could never work unless a different and unnatural social order were implemented. this is the great thing all socialists/communists fascists ect have in common.
@Nakorable You're right, neither capitalism nor socialism are forms of government. However, both of them require government to enforce them. People are sometimes under the mistaken idea that capitalism equates to a smaller government. IT doesn't: in order for capitalism to function, a large government is required to force people to adhere to capitalist rules.
I believe you should be able to give everyone an equal set of liberty and they can choose whether or not it will may them equally happy. It's impossible to make everyone happy with what they got, but if you only allow some to have more liberty than others, than there is no possible way for everyone to have a chance at happiness. (I think that made sense, but it may have sounded better in my head.)
@oseanain "True liberty involves procuring those things for yourself." Under Capitalism, the number one way to procure capital and economic power is to privately already own capital. This means that in a society where everyone has an equal right to procuring capital, everyone would also have equal right to starting ownership of capital. For example, imagine a society where 90% of the population was forbidden to labour, as they don't have "ownership" of labour. Is this liberty?
@LordShandor "In a free capitalist society, there are no rules to enforce." Nonsense. In a capitalist society, the rights to the results of labor are forcible granted to whoever owns the means of production. For example, suppose we live in a 'free' capitalist society. I notice some unused land and want to grow food on it. Someone else owns the land, and doesn't want me to grow anything on it. What happens? May I grow food there? What will happen if I plant seed and begin harvesting?
@LordShandor "The purpose of government is to protect liberty? When has this *ever* been the case?" Oh, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that all governments are great at protecting liberty. I guess I should have said "The purpose of government SHOULD be to protect liberty." That is to say, in my opinion that is the role of the state: to guarantee as much liberty for as many people as possible.
"The reason the free market works without planning is because mens interests are not antagonistic to one another." I agree with you on this point: the free market usually does an excellent job of keeping distribution efficient. However, you are incorrect that socialism requires central planning: I've already given you Parecon as one example, and Marxist communism as a second. The rules of a free market must be kept by a forceful state, so the idea that capitalism is stateless doesn't hold.
"What good is a central plan without central planners?" Socialism doesn't need to be centrally planned. 'Parecon' is a good example of unplanned, distributed socialism. There have even been unplanned market-driven socialist economies proposed. For example, suppose (through market forces) that the majority of the US population switched from banks to credit unions, and from store chains to co-ops, ending with almost no property under private ownership. Would this be capitalism?
@LordShandor "...you are mistaken that a person can own something intangible such as labor..." Excellent! On this we agree. The next step is to agree that other intangibles (such as intellectual rights, patents, and rights to profits or inheritance) also cannot be owned. But this misses the point: if liberty involves procuring property for ourselves, then our state should be structured such that all have equal chance to procure property. This would mean revising capitalism.
@LordShandor "I would suggest you read up on Kinsella..." I'll take a look at it, thanks for the suggestion. "Socialism requires force." Not necessarily: stateless socialism would require much less force than our current state-centered capitalism. But even so, ALL social systems require force. All protection of liberty requires force as well. The question is: who gets the force? Under libertarianism, the force is divided as equally as possible.
I was talking about Sweeden, Norway, Switzerland, France, the UK, and Germany as the better part. While still entering recession (as most of the world tends to do when the US economy tanks) they have kept their welfare and health care programs solvent. They have much longer lives, healthier citizens, and fewer poor. While I don't think these systems can apply in the United States on such a scale, it would be ignorant to ignore their effects. The other stuff you said is true except police state?
best description of Rousseau's method isnt my own:"Start with the idea that society is contrary to Nature; devise contrivances to which humanity can be subjected; lose sight of the fact that humanity has its motive force within itself; consider men as base raw materials; propose to impart to them movement at will, feeling and life; set oneself up apart, immeasurably above the human race-these are the common practices of the social planners. The plans differ; the planners are all alike ." bastiat
Not everyone is free to choose their station in life. Our choices are limited by circumstances beyond our control, and I would say human dignity requires us alleviate said circumstances. The poorer you are, the less choices you have
JOw 585 All the more reason to have as capitalistic and meritocratic a society as possible so anyone of any socioeconomic class can rise or fall on their own merit.
Everyone, no matter how diverse, needs food, shelter, and clothing to live. Those areas are what the focus is on. You can't make plays if you sleep in dirt.
"If you want to consider the possibility of people en masse mutually coming up with the 'master plan' attend a local school board meeting." Socialism doesn't necessarily require a 'master plan', but even if it did, we know from socialist structures that we see today (like successful coops) that it is possible to have a democratic economic power, just as it's possible to have democratic political power.
"What they all have in common is that the central planner, or the originator of the made up system sees humanity as clay." Who would be the central planner in a Parecon society?
Doesn't formal equality include equal, unfettered access to a community that forms democratic citizens with liberal values? What about equal obligation to civil service?
If one decides that the liberties that is given to him doesn't make him happy, then he should be able to get out of the Social Contract with others, and provide for himself. Then he'll be at the State of Nature.
if we are assuming this is a pure capitalist free market economy you would have to remove that government preference. In which case I don't think either of us could argue with any weight about why they would be better. does who owns the service really affect the quality or prices that the consumer pays? before you say yes, you are probably saying so with assumptions about a favoritive corporatism leaning economy in mind. consumption is the purpose of any economic action after all.
the reason the free market works without planning is because mens interests are not antagonistic to one another. they trade between each other for things the other needs. socialism does not work that way. that mechanism where the mutual NEED for something motivates the transaction is missing in socialism so how is the coordination to be done? answer: there has to be central plan/planner.
I think that example of water is a little too simplistic. if you look into it further it shows why enforcing property rights is the logical choice. lets say we feel that person A who needs water has a "right" to some water that person B owns. water is very rarely found in nature in a form that a person can consume. in a real world scenario water is likely to be far away from where a person lives. someone has to purify it and transport it. the work to do this takes time.
@twheel2 "Who/what is a 'Libertarian' state?" It's a state or government whose purpose and goal is to protect and encourage equal liberties for all its citizens. "A computer program that fairly allocates resource evenly?" Don't be silly: Of course, the problem how best to structure a state devoted to individual liberty is a tricky one (as is evidence by the fact that I think this state would necessarily have to limit capitalism, while others seem to think that capitalism IS liberty).
"In a true free market, the number one way to procure capital is not to have it already." This shows that there's a difference between 'free market' and 'capitalism'. But under capitalism, it is certainly true that the number one way to gain money is to have capital. Under capitalism, a mediocre billionaire who barely pays any attention to his investments will make far more money than the best and smartest construction worker in the world. Why?
I really don't get how people buying into credit unions or coops, even if completely would have to do with socialism. would it be capitalism? your talking about an event or act. do these people still own their own businesses, houses. do they still work for wages? with credit unions for example you are under the assumption that they are better for the customer. they do typically offer more free services but they get government money/tax kickbacks that banks don't.
@ "Someone has to decide who gets how much air, water, food, and healthcare. This leads to... more and more regulations, and eventually, authoritarianism." Authoritarianism is the risk that ALL systems of government run. Capitalism is no different (in that the right to property and the right to capital gains must be forcible assured by granting power to the state). "Instead, the government stays out of charity." The purpose of government is to protect individual liberty. This is charity.
I think you have a decent point in a way here. although I disagree in some ways. we could still be free to do as we pleased for a while without those necessities but it would be short lived since we would soon die. the question is how can these things be obtained by people with the smallest amount of effort possible. I strongly disagree that socialist methods are efficient at all in doing this.
"You talk about anarchist socialist ideas, but your rhetoric is the same as Marx." As I mentioned, a lot of Marxism was actually anarchist, with a focus on stateless socialism. But your right that Marxist rhetoric is only one way to address the issue, and that we haven't really touched on the consumer.
You miss the point though. Goal of equality is to put people at or somewhat above subsistence level. People might not want wealth, but their survival depends on access to minimum amount of it. Comparing wealth to self respect is a poor analogy
I think its worth it to point out that the definition of liberty you use is different from a classical liberal/libertarian leaning person. My definition of liberty is negative. freedom FROM force/theft/whatever. your argument is more for positive enforcement. you want to give people things to make them free, we want to keep people from taking your property/free will from them.
Only where the Holy Spirit is Lord, can there be both equality and liberty. The early Church experienced both liberty and equality only when the the Church as a body individually and collectively were ruled by the Holy Spirit. The Bible says they had all things common. Those that were possessors of land and great wealth sold their possessions and brought the money and laid it at the Apostles feet. Distribution was then made from there and equality was experienced for a short time. There is no indication when this ceased. This was only successful when the people gave out of their abundance freely and not forced. It’s more blessed to give then to receive. Give and it shall be given unto you, is how God’s economy works in His kingdom.
I don't know about this "capitalism" you mention. but in a true free market. the number one way to procure capital is not to have it already(this is not a chicken or egg argument. i see it as more a common sense issue) you get it by selling your time/efforts to someone who has capital. or if you don't want to do that you could take raw materials and sell them or improve them in some way and sell them. heck, people make money by telling jokes for goodness sake.
if you want to consider the possibility of people en masse mutually coming up with the "master plan" attend a local school board meeting. I think you could multiply the discord seen by 10 if they were talking about what the perfect society would entail. or exactly how much health care each person should get/give. a majority could easily trample on a minority, and with it the hopes of any socialist utopia. without an elite group or person in charge of deciding,
Capitalism is an economic system. Feudalism is a political system. The idea of a constitutional monarchy/democratic republic was the rebuttal to feudalism. Capitalism always existed and the rebuttal was Communism. In ancient times when one person had three chickens and traded for a goat, he was engaging in capitalism before currency was even invented. Capitalism has existed as long as the idea of personal property existed which was developed in prehistoric times.
you talk about anarchist socialist ideas. but your rhetoric is the same as marx, alot of talk about the means of production and ownership of capital(usually fixed) ownership of business. I think this perspective ignores the consumer, which is ultimately everyone.
No i agree with that our foreign and domestic spending is outrageous and that we should spend resources fighting an unwinable battle against marijuana. I was saying that we don't live in a police state here. Although we have had our privacy invaded by laws such as the patriot act, calling the US a police state is a gross exaggeration as we are nothing close to actual police states in history.
the person who does it must be compensated. the difference between socialism and a free market is who pays. in socialism everybody pays for person A's water even person B! In an attempt to force everyone to take care of everybody else, all sense of personal responsibility is diminished. individuality decreases. I highly disagree that not giving somebody something is the same as depriving them of it. human beings need affection lets say you like a girl. do you have a "right" to her affection? lol
I heard that Paris Hilton watched this and she like totally agrees with the views expressed in this video. She didn't understand most of it but she still thinks it's hot.
The better part of Europe would like to disagree with you, but that wouldn't work in America anyway. Just pointing out that the statement itself is incorrect, although I agree with the message behind it.
listen to the socialist concept of liberty from a personal perspective: "I have the right to demand that 'society(an imaginary conglomeration of my neighbors)' give me the necessities of life(the state cannot give me these things itself because it can only take them from my neighbors). this means that if my neighbor does not give me these things. he is infringing upon my liberty(we will avoid mentioning my neighbors liberty for obvious reasons) "
you can give people a minimum, so if someone wants extra he can work more etc. but that's not possible. Dignity is not about "free" choice, because choices are conditioned by our environment, so if you have 2 choices and you choose the stupid one have you dignity ? Stop this philosophical crap, and learn about a resource based economy. The duality socialism vs liberalism is over the goal now is to feed,give education and homes to everybody without destroying the biosphere and without human work.
There is so much value in your comment! Thank you for sharing. I completely agree that education and basic needs of survival has to be given to everyone in the world without exception. I'm sure nearly everyone agrees to this but still it has not happened. So much ressources are wasted on other things.
