Sheldon Richman: on corporatism and the semantics of "capitalism" and "free market"

[Winehole23]

The businessmen of the nineteenth century are to be blamed for courting government to gain special privilege…. The late nineteenth century was an era conspicuously dominated by the assumption that government could be used to achieve various special interest projects, whether it was building a railroad or the development of an “infant industry.”…

Corruption soon followed the new American acceptance of highly centralized political power as a problem-solving device. The process quite clearly began with the American Civil War…. It is true that a time of tremendous building did occur in industry, communication, and transportation across our American continent following the Civil War. But it is also true that the era brought with it the spoilsmen in politics and the exploiters in economic life who were quite willing to work hand in glove in taking the American people for a ride. Boss Tweed and Jim Fisk [pictured here] were all too symbolic of their era….


Never before in American life had the temptation for corruption been so great. Following the Civil War, politicians found themselves dealing in land grants, tariffs, mail contracts, subsidies, mining claims, pensions. The power of taxation gave them power to protect or de[s]troy individual businesses….


The corporation is now and has always been derived entirely from power granted by the state, power directly dependent upon continued enforcement of laws providing it with its special privileges and immunity….


The interpretation of American history which views the latest nineteenth-century businessman as a free enterpriser, while describing government activity as an attempt to restrain laissez-faire, is simply not borne out by the facts.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/no-laissez-faire-there/

We discover that the fortunes realized by our manufacturers are no longer solely the reward of sturdy industry and enlightened foresight, but that they result from the discriminating favor of the Government and are largely built upon undue exactions from the masses of our people. The gulf between employers and the employed is constantly widening, and classes are rapidly forming, one comprising the very rich and powerful, while in another are found the toiling poor.

As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.
http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2012/05/03/forgotten-critic-of-corporatism/


The managerial state has assumed responsibility for looking after everything from the incomes of the middle class to the profitability of large corporations to industrial advancement. This system . . . is . . . an economic order that harks back to Bismarck in the late nineteenth century and Mussolini in the twentieth: corporatism.

In various ways, corporatism chokes off the dynamism that makes for engaging work, faster economic growth, and greater opportunity and inclusiveness. It maintains lethargic, wasteful, unproductive, and well-connected firms at the expense of dynamic newcomers and outsiders, and favors declared goals such as industrialization, economic development, and national greatness over individuals’ economic freedom and responsibility. Today, airlines, auto manufacturers, agricultural companies, media, investment banks, hedge funds, and much more has [sic] at some point been deemed too important to weather the free market on its own, receiving a helping hand from government in the name of the “public good.”

dysfunctional corporations that survive despite their gross inability to serve their customers; sclerotic economies with slow output growth, a dearth of engaging work, scant opportunities for young people; governments bankrupted by their efforts to palliate these problems; and increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of those connected enough to be on the right side of the corporatist deal.


By “capitalism” most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by “capitalism” is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term “capitalism” as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.
Similarly for socialism, Long writes. He thinks most people mean nothing more specific than “the opposite of capitalism.”

Then if “capitalism” is a package-deal term, so is “socialism” — it conveys opposition to the free market, and opposition to neomercantilism, as though these were one and the same.

And that, I suggest, is the function of these terms: to blur the distinction between the free market and neomercantilism. Such confusion prevails because it works to the advantage of the statist establishment: those who want to defend the free market can more easily be seduced into defending neomercantilism, and those who want to combat neomercantilism can more easily be seduced into combating the free market. Either way, the state remains secure.
In sum, the system that most immediately threatens individual liberty is corporatism (with its militarist component) and the word capitalism is too closely associated with corporatism in people’s minds to be useful to advocates of the freed market (http://bookstore.autonomedia.org/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=672).
http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/03/corporatism-is-not-the-free-market/1

[RandomGuy]

In various ways, corporatism chokes off the dynamism that makes for engaging work, faster economic growth, and greater opportunity and inclusiveness. It maintains lethargic, wasteful, unproductive, and well-connected firms at the expense of dynamic newcomers and outsiders, and favors declared goals such as industrialization, economic development, and national greatness over individuals’ economic freedom and responsibility.

That right there is the achilles heel of free market systems.

Unrestrained capitalism leads to highly restrained capitalism through monopolies, and all sorts of anti-competitive behavior.

[Capt Bringdown]

no true scotsman

[Winehole23]

beg pardon? was that a comment on something in particular?

[gtownspur]

Random Guy hates reading articles and comprehending them. Good lord. What a total fuck up.

Sheldon is just addressing that defending corporatism (state+business collusion) is defeating the argument for true freed markets, in which govt and economics is seperate. Sheldon Richman is an AnCap left libertarian btw, and his position is that it is state intervention in politics that gives power to corporatism.


Random Guy is not an ideas guy, but a partisan hack on the level of Wild Chodebrah.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Random Guy hates reading articles and comprehending them. Good lord. What a total fuck up.

Sheldon is just addressing that defending corporatism (state+business collusion) is defeating the argument for true freed markets, in which govt and economics is seperate. Sheldon Richman is an AnCap left libertarian btw, and his position is that it is state intervention in politics that gives power to corporatism.


Random Guy is not an ideas guy, but a partisan hack on the level of Wild Chodebrah.

Thansk for speaking for him. He talks of mercantilism and the relationship between corporations and government. Point to me the quote where he expands the discussion to what you assert.

[DarrinS]

FuzzyLumpkins is not pleased that his bromantic soulmate has been taken to task.

[TDMVPDPOY]

shit i was waiting for a thead on this topic being discussed

so what are your guys thoughts on capitalism and automation? that is lowskilled work being replaced by automated machines (low costs more efficiency), good workers being kept back while the unskilled are forced to go back to retrain their skills looking for new job....lol industrys who employ thousands of workers who are all going automated or outsourcing...

the western economies or economies of scale need to do something about costs of labour if they wanna attract investment and jobs....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FuzzyLumpkins is not pleased that his bromantic soulmate has been taken to task.

yeah thats it...

You don't even try to make points anymore your ass has been handed to you so many times now. Now you act like a petulant child throwing out homophobic 'slurs?'

[jack sommerset]

yeah thats it...

You don't even try to make points anymore your ass has been handed to you so many times now. Now you act like a petulant child throwing out homophobic 'slurs?'

Bromance is not a homophobic slur. It's a non sexual relation between two gentlemen. It's a beautiful relationship a women generally can't have with a man. I remember the first time I met my BFF. I knew right fom the start. God bless

[TheSkeptic]

That right there is the achilles heel of free market systems.

Unrestrained capitalism leads to highly restrained capitalism through monopolies, and all sorts of anti-competitive behavior.

You seem like an intelligent guy but I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree with this take.

First of all, monopolies aren't always a bad thing.

Secondly, unrestrained capitalism isn't really what's being addressed here so much as it is corporatism.

Third, anti-competitive behaviour is usually only possible if the government allows it. In a free market system where ethical business practices are encouraged and violations are cracked down on, buyers are usually able to vote with their dollars.

Regulation (law enforcement and fraud prevention) is a good thing. Government interference is something else entirely.

Edit: Well actually we don't disagree on much. Just the question of whether or not the free market is responsible for corporatism.

[Winehole23]

ideal capitalism, like ideal socialism has never yet been tried, and tries to lay down its theoretical inevitability as trump

[TheSkeptic]

ideal capitalism, like ideal socialism has never yet been tried, and tries to lay down its theoretical inevitability as trump

Well obviously to differing degrees but those are the basics of Economics.

[Winehole23]

that "actually existing" capitalism in trend and result perversely resembles its allegedly defunct opponent?

agree 100%

[boutons_deux]

You seem like an intelligent guy but I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree with this take.

First of all, monopolies aren't always a bad thing.

Secondly, unrestrained capitalism isn't really what's being addressed here so much as it is corporatism.

Third, anti-competitive behaviour is usually only possible if the government allows it. In a free market system where ethical business practices are encouraged and violations are cracked down on, buyers are usually able to vote with their dollars.

Regulation (law enforcement and fraud prevention) is a good thing. Government interference is something else entirely.

a benevolent monopoly (or cartel) is the rare exception to the rule. Can you name one?

splitting corporatism from capitalism is bogus, since many corps make more money from playing with their capital rather than productive actions. Big corps ARE capitalists. The entire point of a corp is to amass capital.

"anti-competitive behaviour is usually only possible if the government allows it."

so it's ALWAYS possible AND practiced until the govt makes the POLITICAL decision to try to stop it. That's why you see Repugs almost NEVER start anti-trust suits.

[TheSkeptic]

a benevolent monopoly (or cartel) is the rare exception to the rule. Can you name one?


It's not so much about a "benevolent" monopoly so much as it is about efficiency within an industry. I'm in a hurry so I can't list off specifics, but power generation is an example of a sector where it's more efficient to have one company provide the product rather than a whole bunch of separate ones. Monopolies have had a tendency to form naturally in that industry as a result.



splitting corporatism from capitalism is bogus, since many corps make more money from playing with their capital rather than productive actions. Big corps ARE capitalists. The entire point of a corp is to amass capital.


Yes corporations exist in a capitalist market but they make their money from consumers. If they don't provide anything the market wants or they misuse the funds they're getting, they go bankrupt. "Corporation" simply refers to a specific legal structure here.

Corporatism in the currently popular usage of the term is basically referring to a system where government lets corporations do whatever they want because they fund campaigns and they lobby for the laws they want. Those laws in turn tip the scales in favour of big companies while making things harder on small business owners by extension. That's capitalism on their part but the results on a larger level actually undermine the concept of a free market.

Of course at that point it's just self-interest on the part of the corporation but if the government is passing laws on behalf of these organizations then they're the ones essentially in charge.

The US seems to have elements of both at work here. In practice it's really not an either/or thing tbh.



"anti-competitive behaviour is usually only possible if the government allows it."

so it's ALWAYS possible AND practiced until the govt makes the POLITICAL decision to try to stop it. That's why you see Repugs almost NEVER start anti-trust suits.

Right. Most businesses are going to look out for their own interests.

But that goes back to law enforcement and ethical practices which is what I was saying earlier. Preventing fraud and limiting anti-competitive or predatory behaviour is something that government is needed for. Direct intervention usually not so much. The issue, as you're pointing out, is that they won't.

[TheSkeptic]

that "actually existing" capitalism in trend and result perversely resembles its allegedly defunct opponent?

agree 100%

Sorry I missed this for some reason.

Yes the "capitalist" system as it stands at the moment is an awful lot like socialism. I think what's being argued is that this isn't actually a capitalist free market in the popular sense of the term. "Free market" being the key portion there.

[Winehole23]

I think what's being argued is that this isn't actually a capitalist free market in the popular sense of the term. it's also been argued the era of laissez faire capitalism was neither, but sure

[TheSkeptic]

it's also been argued the era of laissez faire capitalism was neither, but sure

Maybe it comes down to definitions?

Pure laissez faire I don't think has ever been done on a national level but governments have experimented with varying levels of interference. I've never been on board with trying it out in and of itself because it just seems like a bad idea in general.

[ElNono]

True free market capitalism doesn't exist and will likely never exist simply because the actors are entirely unwilling to submit themselves to it. Things like patents, copyrights, intellectual property, etc are things that distort the free market and would necessarily need to be abolished under a true free market capitalism system.

There's also the fact that corruption would be completely rampant on the corporate side also without some degree of regulations. Collusion, bundling, price-fixing, etc are all methods companies still use these days to gain market share and go around strict competition.

[Ignignokt]

Ideas are property. Protecting IP is part of protecting life liberty and property.

[Ignignokt]

Besides i'm not an AnCap. Intellectual property laws signal society that it is not the material matter (book, cd, etc) but the idea (novel, music) that gives value.

[Ignignokt]

ideal capitalism, like ideal socialism has never yet been tried, and tries to lay down its theoretical inevitability as trump

It doesn't matter. The moral case for capitalism is superior to any other system.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ideas are property. Protecting IP is part of protecting life liberty and property.

Only because the law says it is. An argument could be made against mind control.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It doesn't matter. The moral case for capitalism is superior to any other system.

Whats the basis of the morality? Morals are subjective anyway. Its superior for yourself.

[boutons_deux]

It doesn't matter. The moral case for capitalism is superior to any other system.

There is no moral case for capitalism, esp not for the the social/economic Darwinism of US capitalism.

[TheSkeptic]

There is no moral case for capitalism, esp not for the the social/economic Darwinism of US capitalism.

Thought this needed repeating.

[Ignignokt]

Thought this needed repeating.

lol.

Yeah, self reliance by voluntary exchange free of state coercion is worse than state coercion and authoritarianism.

scoff!

[Ignignokt]

morality if we mean a code of ethics by which man should live, that is not subjective. There is a standard and that standard is life.

Now ofcourse we are all seperate individuals, and what is required for life varies. But morality should be based on the metaphsyical attributes of man. Which is, that if he is a moral agent, he is so because he can choose his ethics, and because he's able to by reason and not by instinct.

[TheSkeptic]

lol.

Yeah, self reliance by voluntary exchange free of state coercion is worse than state coercion and authoritarianism.

scoff!

A libertarian I presume?

It's about balance. The free market is the best foundation for building an economy but there are controls that need to be in place to preserve it and to protect buyers. That's why a completely laissez faire capitalist free market has never been done on a national scale and you need the state in order to properly enforce that.

The corporatism that's taking place in the US (which is what we were talking about) doesn't have the same moral high ground because it is using state coercion and authoritarianism to get the results it wants. State force really isn't the problem so much as how it's used.

[angrydude]

markets allocate resources more efficiently than any other system. undisputed fact. There is your morality.

People complain about how that money is distributed in society. That disparity arises because of government granted monopolies.

IP laws are bullshit because there are other ways of making money than having a government granted monopoly.

[boutons_deux]

"That disparity arises because of government granted monopolies."

which monopolies?

[Ignignokt]

A libertarian I presume?

It's about balance. The free market is the best foundation for building an economy but there are controls that need to be in place to preserve it and to protect buyers. That's why a completely laissez faire capitalist free market has never been done on a national scale and you need the state in order to properly enforce that.

The corporatism that's taking place in the US (which is what we were talking about) doesn't have the same moral high ground because it is using state coercion and authoritarianism to get the results it wants. State force really isn't the problem so much as how it's used.


You don't need controls, you just need ethics regulations that prevent force or fraud. Govt has no more industry knowledge of what's right or wrong more than the private market.

[TheSkeptic]

"That disparity arises because of government granted monopolies."

which monopolies?

I think it depends on the industry but it does seem like there's a lot of laws and regulations in place that are written to favour larger businesses.


You don't need controls, you just need ethics regulations that prevent force or fraud. Govt has no more industry knowledge of what's right or wrong more than the private market.

Ethics regulations and law enforcement is a type of control. :/ Like I said earlier, direct government interference is what needs to be avoided if it can be helped.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol.

Yeah, self reliance by voluntary exchange free of state coercion is worse than state coercion and authoritarianism.

scoff!

All you are going is supporting corporate coercion and authoritarianism. You need to study 1850-1910 a bit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

morality if we mean a code of ethics by which man should live, that is not subjective. There is a standard and that standard is life.

Now ofcourse we are all seperate individuals, and what is required for life varies. But morality should be based on the metaphsyical attributes of man. Which is, that if he is a moral agent, he is so because he can choose his ethics, and because he's able to by reason and not by instinct.

Bullshit. Ethic is not enforcable unless you join various associations like the bar. Thats contractual.

Morality is arbitrary nonsense. The only thing binding in this country is the law.

As for the 'metaphysical attributes' of man, there is still no definitive distinction of a priori. Given that there is no rational standard but what we invent ourselves which makes it by definition subjective.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't need controls, you just need ethics regulations that prevent force or fraud. Govt has no more industry knowledge of what's right or wrong more than the private market.

Yeah because self monitoring and regulation by industry without oversight has such a good track record.

There is no empirical basis for that whatsoever.

[TheSkeptic]

Yeah because self monitoring and regulation by industry without oversight has such a good track record.

There is no empirical basis for that whatsoever. Outside of a village setting.

Just thought I'd fix that before the example came up. ;)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just thought I'd fix that before the example came up. ;)

Fair enough. Small scale communism has worked as well for all that is worth.

[Ignignokt]

Bullshit. Ethic is not enforcable unless you join various associations like the bar. Thats contractual.

Morality is arbitrary nonsense. The only thing binding in this country is the law.

As for the 'metaphysical attributes' of man, there is still no definitive distinction of a priori. Given that there is no rational standard but what we invent ourselves which makes it by definition subjective.


Morality is not arbitrary in the sense that you can't escape the consequences of what ethics you choose. Ultimately morality has to be based on an objective standard.

And as far as there is no standard definition of the nature of man, that's the most ridiculous. First man is a concept and concrete that exist within the metaphysical universe and is bound by his nature. A man can't fly with his arms, a man can't instinctively know where north or south is without using his reason. there is much more.

To claim that man's nature is socially constructed is to imply that that consciousness precedes existence. Well you can believe what you want to believe, that's fine. And a man who is 400 lbs and eats cheeseburger daily might think he's eating morally but he will suffer the consequences of his actions. So yes morality is subjective in the sense that man has "free will" to choose and shape his morality, but ultimately it has to be based on an objective standard if man wishes to live, because the single purpose of morality is to show man how to live on earth. Or else, why would someone who doesn't want to live, or wants to commit suicide need a code of ethics? why would animals need a code of ethics if they are wired for survival and their will is constricted to non existent. A beaver doesn't wake up and decide, "I'm not going to build a damn, fuck my nature". but many of us do decide to evade reality, our nature, and we do face consequences which do lead to death.


On to the question of govt..

Since i've already explained the need for govt to be based on the nature of man as being a "free willed" "rationally capable" human being, then the task is for govt, if it chooses to be moral must be constructed to allow for the men in that society to operate freely, and to choose their way of survival through reason as rational beings so long as they don't infringe on others.


As far as controls. Having govt agencies that regulate industry is a recipe not for consumer freedom but for monopoly privelege. Just look at how many Monsanto, Haliburton, X sundry business has had the privelege to sit in influential areas in govt in order to influence govt to write regulation for their favor.


If you want to talk about track record, look at the regulation of education, healthcare, and other areas. The record shows decline, not progress.


Facts, and morality are not on your side.

[Ignignokt]

I think it depends on the industry but it does seem like there's a lot of laws and regulations in place that are written to favour larger businesses.



Ethics regulations and law enforcement is a type of control. :/ Like I said earlier, direct government interference is what needs to be avoided if it can be helped.

if that's the case, govt can only show force when coercion or fraud is present, but it can't manage, or decide what is right between a voluntary transaction, that is a recipe for a descent into dictatorship.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Morality is not arbitrary in the sense that you can't escape the consequences of what ethics you choose. Ultimately morality has to be based on an objective standard.

And as far as there is no standard definition of the nature of man, that's the most ridiculous. First man is a concept and concrete that exist within the metaphysical universe and is bound by his nature. A man can't fly with his arms, a man can't instinctively know where north or south is without using his reason. there is much more.

To claim that man's nature is socially constructed is to imply that that consciousness precedes existence. Well you can believe what you want to believe, that's fine. And a man who is 400 lbs and eats cheeseburger daily might think he's eating morally but he will suffer the consequences of his actions. So yes morality is subjective in the sense that man has "free will" to choose and shape his morality, but ultimately it has to be based on an objective standard if man wishes to live, because the single purpose of morality is to show man how to live on earth. Or else, why would someone who doesn't want to live, or wants to commit suicide need a code of ethics? why would animals need a code of ethics if they are wired for survival and their will is constricted to non existent. A beaver doesn't wake up and decide, "I'm not going to build a damn, fuck my nature". but many of us do decide to evade reality, our nature, and we do face consequences which do lead to death.


On to the question of govt..

Since i've already explained the need for govt to be based on the nature of man as being a "free willed" "rationally capable" human being, then the task is for govt, if it chooses to be moral must be constructed to allow for the men in that society to operate freely, and to choose their way of survival through reason as rational beings so long as they don't infringe on others.


As far as controls. Having govt agencies that regulate industry is a recipe not for consumer freedom but for monopoly privelege. Just look at how many Monsanto, Haliburton, X sundry business has had the privelege to sit in influential areas in govt in order to influence govt to write regulation for their favor.


If you want to talk about track record, look at the regulation of education, healthcare, and other areas. The record shows decline, not progress.


Facts, and morality are not on your side.

You completely avoid the salient point in the issue: the notion of good and bad. You can create you own ethic as can any other man. Thus the term subjective. The issue is when you apply your subjective basis of morality to others. Its bullshit.

Some people like being fat. Some beavers don't build dams. That does not make that person or beaver immoral. It just means they made a choice. Just becuase a bunch of people agree that its 'immoral' does not make that an inherent virtue.

There is zero basis for external rational construct that is irrefutable or absolutely certain. That should be obvious with the use of correlation coefficients. Modern physics just adds more fuel to that fire from a different frame of reference.

No one is going to argue that elite privilege in this country is a major issue. The solution is not to give them free reign. Again there is zero evidence empirically that it works.

Quite the contrary. When it comes down to it. Given free reign elites worm their way into government anyway. Thats the entire point of this article and really what history should have taught you. Look at the behavior of the food, mining, railroad, steel and banking industries of the 19th century.

I have long held that the Constitution of the country is fundamentally flawed as it does not even consider the oh so fundamental reality of corporate culture. The solution is not to do the same shit that we have tried before. Neither the status quo or the 19th century.

[Ignignokt]

You completely avoid the salient point in the issue: the notion of good and bad. You can create you own ethic as can any other man. Thus the term subjective. The issue is when you apply your subjective basis of morality to others. Its bullshit..


Yeah people can choose their morality, that's called free will, thanks for agreeing with me that man's nature involves free will. We can agree on that.

As far as consequences, yeah, people can choose ethical positions, but they will suffer the consequences. Good and bad in the context of life is pretty simple, if it advances your life then it's good, if it destroy's it is bad.

Morality is not a set of rules that determine a be all end all "good" and "bad" as floating platonic abstractions outside of context.

Being fat for someone in with good geans might be desirable if it helps him achieve a certain goal that enhances his life.
But if you have a history of diabetes, cancer, and high bp, then being fat is utterly irrational, it's going to kill you, and it's bad.

Bad in the sense that it is a choice that leads to death.

If you were to say, well, what if they really want to die. Well to that I say, then you don't need morality to achieve death. You can choose nothing, you could sit on a beach shore waiting, doing nothing and ultimately you either will die of hunger or dehydration.

[Ignignokt]

Good and Bad is contextual to individual moral agents, time, and space. But there is an objective standard. If you say there isn't you're simply wrong.

Morality is a set of values.

Without life, you can't have values. What is of value to a dead man?

Life is the basis of all values and is the ultimate end. Therefore, there is an objective measure by which man should choose to live on earth. This is called (ethics), Ethics involves metaphysics. But before you answer the question of ethics you must first figure out the metaphysical ie Nature.

The muslim, the christian, the jew, athiest, spur, laker, etc all these have one value in common...LIFE.

None of these entities could achieve or need values, ethics and so forth if it wasn't for LIFE.

What are we dealing with here?

Well, all these entities are MAN.

And they all live in a UNIVERSE which requires them to achieve values in order to live.

Well what should be the basis of their ethics?

[Ignignokt]

as far as the need for govt.

This is your logic.

Govt+business (crony corporate capitalism) = bad.

therefore we need more govt.


excuse me but that is unreasonable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What is the objective standard for morality and why?

Consequences implies the notion of bad. As I said some people want to be fat. Some people wnat to be dead. The only basis for the good or bad are human cultural constructs. The elites of the 19th century found beauty in fatties. Feudal Japan saw suicide as honorable as do people in severe pain.

Another way of looking at it is there are subsequent events. You can view them as good or bad. That does not make for an objective reality

[FuzzyLumpkins]

as far as the need for govt.

This is your logic.

Govt+business (crony corporate capitalism) = bad.

therefore we need more govt.


excuse me but that is unreasonable.

Bullshit. i said that government needs to be fundamentally changed how it operates. You know like changing the Constitution. I never said more, I said different.

Try again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Also the jury is still out in terms of free will. If our understanding of brain chemistry evolves to the point where you can reduce behaviors and activity down to brain functions and response to external stimuli exclusively then what then?

Einstein's approach was that 'god doesn't play dice.' Essentially that cuase and effect are reality within a rational contruct. if that is the case then events as they unfold follow particular patterns and as such the uncertainties we assume are reality are in fact not.

We don't know. thats the entire point. All you do is bluster at certainties and there is no justification for that.

[Th'Pusher]

Also the jury is still out in terms of free will. If our understanding of brain chemistry evolves to the point where you can reduce behaviors and activity down to brain functions and response to external stimuli exclusively then what then?

Einstein's approach was that 'god doesn't play dice.' Essentially that cuase and effect are reality within a rational contruct. if that is the case then events as they unfold follow particular patterns and as such the uncertainties we assume are reality are in fact not.

We don't know. thats the entire point. All you do is bluster at certainties and there is no justification for that.

Have you read Sam Harris' Free Will? I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

[TheSkeptic]

if that's the case, govt can only show force when coercion or fraud is present, but it can't manage, or decide what is right between a voluntary transaction, that is a recipe for a descent into dictatorship.

Yes and no. Generally speaking the state shouldn't be reallocating resources and interfering with various transactions. That said the government does have to balance that against what's good for society as a whole. To a large extent the government does manage and decide what's right through laws.

For example, it's illegal for you or I to buy certain types of weapons. Even if there's no coercion involved and we find a willing dealer, the government has already decided that we can't have them. It's another form of control that works to keep harmful goods out of people's hands.

Also, government interference in the market is sometimes beneficial (usually if there's insightful economists around) and is absolutely necessary at other times.

What it comes down to is making sure that conditions are equitable as a general rule and making moves to stabilize the currency/economy when the need comes up. The problem is that many governments don't consider the unintended consequences of their actions because they don't always understand how seemingly unrelated policies can impact things on a micro-level.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Have you read Sam Harris' Free Will? I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

I have not but I will put it on my list.

i have just felt that brain chemistry as it evolves to further and further understanding will lead to all manner of discoveries beyond just simple psychology.

Its a stark reality but if you can reduce all human activity to understandable phenomenon then where is the soul for example. Where is free will.

If it cannot be explained as such then it will lead us in a different direction in terms of what we need to understand or finding out what we are capable of understanding.

Its a worthwhile pursuit.

[Th'Pusher]

I have not but I will put it on my list.

i have just felt that brain chemistry as it evolves to further and further understanding will lead to all manner of discoveries beyond just simple psychology.

Its a stark reality but if you can reduce all human activity to understandable phenomenon then where is the soul for example. Where is free will.

If it cannot be explained as such then it will lead us in a different direction in terms of what we need to understand or finding out what we are capable of understanding.

Its a worthwhile pursuit.

I agree. I highly recommend the book - it's more of an essay. It is an easy read and only 70 pages, but I think he makes a pretty compelling argument free will doesn't exist.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/no-laissez-faire-there/

http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2012/05/03/forgotten-critic-of-corporatism/




http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/03/corporatism-is-not-the-free-market/1

Good reads. Thanks.

[Ignignokt]

What is the objective standard for morality and why?

Life is, because without life we could not value values or achieve them.

[Winehole23]

ah, teleology

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Life is, because without life we could not value values or achieve them.

This is circular logic. You say it is because you define 'life' by the premise.

There are a whole manner of things that comprise 'life.' I assume you are talking about consciousness or that you can experience things. That life comprises how a being experiences things through time.

However different people experience different things in 'life' and come to value different things. Mutually exclusive things. All you do is label your values as 'good.'

If you want to define life as some mystical thing then we are at a fundamental disagreement and there is no point in talking more.

[Winehole23]

you're right, there isn't

[Ignignokt]

This is circular logic. You say it is because you define 'life' by the premise.

There are a whole manner of things that comprise 'life.' I assume you are talking about consciousness or that you can experience things. That life comprises how a being experiences things through time.

However different people experience different things in 'life' and come to value different things. Mutually exclusive things. All you do is label your values as 'good.'

If you want to define life as some mystical thing then we are at a fundamental disagreement and there is no point in talking more.
man u are so dense. Life I mean as in living as opposed to death. Otherwise, nevermind you are retarded, and dont even know what circular logic is. Can values be valued if you are a corpse?

[Ignignokt]

And I dont advocate universal values you stupid Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_, I have already said ppl.are different and require tjeir own specific values. All I said is that those values are only.good if they further the life of the individual.

[Winehole23]

I don't buy that the fittest necessarily survive. It's the 21st fucking century. It's way more accurate to say the survivors survive. Putting the results down to values is yet another begged question...but I digress...were you saying something?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm guessing your drunk, Ig. You are usually much more inherent and less belligerent. Although it could be that I can be irritating.

Regardless, we were talking about objective values versus subjective. Specifically:


Good and Bad is contextual to individual moral agents, time, and space. But there is an objective standard. If you say there isn't you're simply wrong.

Again what is the objective standard?

You said life; I talked about what life is in my estimation: experience as perceived by consciousness. Are you talking about some transcendental shit?

[Winehole23]

Isn't that allowed anymore, or did you already dismiss it from class?

[Winehole23]

Ignignokt can talk about whatever he wants, asshole.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Living up to your name, wine? What are you upset with this time?

What you are asking/claiming is hardly coherent. I never dictated anything. i even made a point to say what I thought he meant by saying life versus some widespread declarative.

I actually find the notion of a rational objective construct appealing. I just have found few that are compelling. Euler's equations go a long long way though. I don't see a moral framework there though.

The last was a legitimate question. The notion of an oversoul or the cosmic pulse or whatever else notions that Emmerson injected are significant in American culture. I have no direct experience or belief in the notion myself but that doesn't mean that I am anything other than a skeptic. Its unprovable.

I'm just trying to understand what he is saying.

[Winehole23]

which you're not too good at

[FuzzyLumpkins]

which you're not too good at

Are you trying to troll me? You have yourself a good little rage cry?

[Winehole23]

cry over what, pointing out that you're a pretentious dolt with a bad temper and even worse manners?

:lol:toast

[Winehole23]

that didn't hurt at all

[FuzzyLumpkins]

cry over what, pointing out that you're a pretentious dolt with a bad temper and even worse manners?

:lol:toast

:lol you calling me pretentious.
:lol charm
:lol manners

I didn't lose my temper in this case. You are the one throwing the tantrum.

Your little rants at me remind me of my ex-girlfriend. I wonder what specifically I said that started you down this path. You are entirely too emotional about me.

You should stop.

[Winehole23]

what, being bored?

[Winehole23]

"Don't sell yourself short, Judge, you're a tremendous slouch."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what, being bored?

For someone that bores, I certainly elicit a strong emotional response. I just picture you drunk raging when you rant post 4 times in 2 minutes at 3AM.

Hope you don't drive like that.

When I called transcendentalism 'shit' it really seemed to set you off. Your stark anger at going cavalier defending Ig's right to think something reads as you defending your own beliefs.

:lol manners
:lol charm
:lol pretentious

[Winehole23]

I certainly elicit a strong emotional response. how would you know this?

[Winehole23]

all I've done is to address you with the same dismissiveness and sarcasm you use on us all the time. you got a problem with that?

get bent.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

how would you know this?

You channeling Poptech now?

How would you know that I have a bad temper?

Really about the only thing more you could do to act more butthurt would be to start a callout thread about me.

[Winehole23]

never started one. have you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

all I've done is to address you with the same dismissiveness and sarcasm you use on us all the time. you got a problem with that?

get bent.

:lol us
:lol my problem

I wasn't dismissive towards Ig. Pedantic sure but not dismissive. With Ig i was not even sarcastic or at least not attempting to be.

[Winehole23]

whatever, dude. you got a blind spot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

never started one. have you?

I have been butthurt before. Darrin has really pissed me off with his deception for example. I haven't started a thread about it.

I don't start many threads as a matter of course though so it doesn't say much.

Did you actually wan to talk about objective rational constructs or do you want to continue trolling me?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

whatever, dude. you got a blind spot.

Or perhaps you are wrong? Care to be specific as to what I am dismissive about?

Sarcasm implies intent so I can say that I am not trying to be with certainty but what specifically did I just outright dismiss with Ig?

Blindly lashing out is bad manners.

The way that I see it is that I have pedantic perspective having read on this particular subject and my preconceived notions of what he was talking about were getting in the way of my understanding what he was getting at.

I fail to see how asking him what he means is dismissive. Sorry that I am a empiricist.

[Wild Cobra]

WH, you have to keep in mind Fuzzy's favorite book:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/internetbulliesfordummies.jpg

[PublicOption]

a true free market does not hand out special treatment to certain industries and/or corporations.

capitalism, if unchecked, descends into fascism.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I was obviously trying to bully people in this thread. :rolleyes

I treat you as I do WC because you are actually not very insightful, wise or intelligent.

[Wild Cobra]

a true free market does not hand out special treatment to certain industries and/or corporations.

capitalism, if unchecked, descends into fascism.
Yes, it's a sad truth that we need some regulations.

[Ignignokt]

a true free market does not hand out special treatment to certain industries and/or corporations.

capitalism, if unchecked, descends into fascism.

this doesn't make sense. In fascism, the state and economy are interconnected.

Germany and Italy weren't laissez faire before they're descent into fascism.

Infact, i don't think you know what fascist means.

[Winehole23]

The way that I see it is that I have pedantic perspective having read on this particular subject and my preconceived notions of what he was talking about were getting in the way of my understanding what he was getting at..true. you are pedantic and your preconceived notions do get in the way. unfortunately, much the same goes for your efforts to clarify.

[Winehole23]

this doesn't make sense. In fascism, the state and economy are interconnected.

Germany and Italy weren't laissez faire before they're descent into fascism.

Infact, i don't think you know what fascist means.what happens when airy abstractions and inflexible theories collide?

[Winehole23]

By “capitalism” most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by “capitalism” is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term “capitalism” as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.
Similarly for socialism, Long writes. He thinks most people mean nothing more specific than “the opposite of capitalism.”
Then if “capitalism” is a package-deal term, so is “socialism” — it conveys opposition to the free market, and opposition to neomercantilism, as though these were one and the same.

And that, I suggest, is the function of these terms: to blur the distinction between the free market and neomercantilism. Such confusion prevails because it works to the advantage of the statist establishment: those who want to defend the free market can more easily be seduced into defending neomercantilism, and those who want to combat neomercantilism can more easily be seduced into combating the free market. Either way, the state remains secure.
In sum, the system that most immediately threatens individual liberty is corporatism (with its militarist component) and the word capitalism is too closely associated with corporatism in people’s minds to be useful to advocates of the freed market (http://bookstore.autonomedia.org/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=672).

[Winehole23]

The managerial state has assumed responsibility for looking after everything from the incomes of the middle class to the profitability of large corporations to industrial advancement. This system . . . is . . . an economic order that harks back to Bismarck in the late nineteenth century and Mussolini in the twentieth: corporatism. in this account, the managerial state and corporatism arise together and walk hand in hand. authentic capitalism ("freed markets"), like ideal socialism, has never been tried.

Richman construes the theraputic/managerial state as the antagonist of free capital, hence to him -- as well as Ig upstream -- the imputation of statism is dissonant, but it seems to me Fuzzy was making simple reference to a symptom (I believe) Ig and Fuzzy both agree upon: the mingling of the affairs of state and big business, with the state offering more and more direction.

[Winehole23]

By “capitalism” most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by “capitalism” is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term “capitalism” as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.I take this, roughly, to be your gloss, Fuzzy

[Winehole23]

the odd thing is that Fuzzy and Ig share a common enemy, an increasingly oligarchic state that arrogates to itself responsibility for the economy and coordinates with country's grand (TBTF) enterprises.

Since for Fuzzy, capitalism (or "the free market") means the existing embrace of big business and big government boosterism and nothing more, hence, the "free market, more and more, resembles"fascism.

a superficially plausible hypothesis, but repugnant to Ig since he sees the reigning oligarchy as a perversion of the utopian and abstracted "free market" yearned for by capitalists in an unfree world.

because of how they gloss labels like "capitalism" and "free market," Fuzzy and Ig -- who essentially agree on the problem -- end up talking past one another...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

true. you are pedantic and your preconceived notions do get in the way. unfortunately, much the same goes for your efforts to clarify.

:sleep

It might have an effect if it wasn't for you being the exact same way, teleology.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Since for Fuzzy, capitalism (or "the free market") means the existing embrace of big business and big government boosterism and nothing more, hence, the "free market, more and more, resembles"fascism.

a superficially plausible hypothesis, but repugnant to Ig since he sees the reigning oligarchy as a perversion of the utopian and abstracted "free market" yearned for by capitalists in an unfree world.

because of how they gloss labels like "capitalism" and "free market," Fuzzy and Ig -- who essentially agree on the problem -- end up talking past one another...

Are you drunk? I never made the comment about facism. The disagreement between Ig an myself was from the basis of objective morality. I never really talked to him about economics

Facism is political theory more than it is economic would be my position. That it has economic implications is just a sidecar.

You drink too much. Try and keep up.

[Winehole23]

appreciate the clarification. it was long enough coming.

[Winehole23]

sorry for losing the thread,one incoherent jackass very much resembles another.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are going to have to do better than that. If you want to make me feel bad about being incoherent then you at least need to point to where that is. there is a difference between me trying to anticipate what ig is saying on the basis of previous reading on epistemology and saying what my position is. The former is not expressed; the latter is.

The contrary seems to be the case. I think other than your inability to read author tags, you understand what I write quite clearly and it makes you mad. That's why you have been most spiteful. I think that something i said hurt you so you lash out like a child. It does seem that you start bitching whenever I explain my agnosticism.

Seriously, you calling me incoherent, dismissive or the like holds about as much weight as WC calling me stupid.

[Marcus Bryant]

in this account, the managerial state and corporatism arise together and walk hand in hand. authentic capitalism ("freed markets"), like ideal socialism, has never been tried.

Richman construes the theraputic/managerial state as the antagonist of free capital, hence to him -- as well as Ig upstream -- the imputation of statism is dissonant, but it seems to me Fuzzy was making simple reference to a symptom (I believe) Ig and Fuzzy both agree upon: the mingling of the affairs of state and big business, with the state offering more and more direction.

Direction and support. Moving forward the Chinese model is much preferable to the Western one with its quaint notions of personal liberty and political rights, to the managerial class. This century will have Western states continuing to accumulate real political power at the expense of the people while the Chinese will learn to put on the show of participatory democracy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

China is not exactly a pluralist state. Do they even allow other parties than the communist one or advocacy groups? I realize there are pitfalls to that road but i don't see totalitarianism as the solution.

[Marcus Bryant]

They will eventually, for show. It'll be cleaner than in the West. Of course, we continue to pretend every election day that there's a dime's worth of difference between the jokers on the ballot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No doubt. I think we are a poor example of pluralism as you point out there is virtually no difference but window dressing on half of a dozen social issues. When it comes down to policy, there is little difference especially fiscally for all the obstructionism of the past 3.5 years.

So what do you propose? I think that Germany with its parliamentary system and myriad of political parties is a much better model than either the US or China.

I would love to see political party affiliation removed from ballots. Voting straight along party lines is an abomination.

[Winehole23]

MB catches the thread: Fuzzy Lumpkins catches at his coattails.

[Ignignokt]

No doubt. I think we are a poor example of pluralism as you point out there is virtually no difference but window dressing on half of a dozen social issues. When it comes down to policy, there is little difference especially fiscally for all the obstructionism of the past 3.5 years.

So what do you propose? I think that Germany with its parliamentary system and myriad of political parties is a much better model than either the US or China.

I would love to see political party affiliation removed from ballots. Voting straight along party lines is an abomination.


As long as we still have rep republic and not democracy, i'm fine with it. But ideas change society, not politicians. Politicians are always the last one to go with the flow. You want an example, look at the politicians stance on marijuana compared to the public.

[Ignignokt]

Are you drunk? I never made the comment about facism. The disagreement between Ig an myself was from the basis of objective morality. I never really talked to him about economics

Facism is political theory more than it is economic would be my position. That it has economic implications is just a sidecar.

You drink too much. Try and keep up.

U LIE!!


You completely avoid the salient point in the issue: the notion of good and bad. You can create you own ethic as can any other man. Thus the term subjective. The issue is when you apply your subjective basis of morality to others. Its bullshit.

Some people like being fat. Some beavers don't build dams. That does not make that person or beaver immoral. It just means they made a choice. Just becuase a bunch of people agree that its 'immoral' does not make that an inherent virtue.

There is zero basis for external rational construct that is irrefutable or absolutely certain. That should be obvious with the use of correlation coefficients. Modern physics just adds more fuel to that fire from a different frame of reference.

No one is going to argue that elite privilege in this country is a major issue. The solution is not to give them free reign. Again there is zero evidence empirically that it works.

Quite the contrary. When it comes down to it. Given free reign elites worm their way into government anyway. Thats the entire point of this article and really what history should have taught you. Look at the behavior of the food, mining, railroad, steel and banking industries of the 19th century.

I have long held that the Constitution of the country is fundamentally flawed as it does not even consider the oh so fundamental reality of corporate culture. The solution is not to do the same shit that we have tried before. Neither the status quo or the 19th century.

This is patently false anyway. Before the industrial revolution you had subsistence farming where ppl would live day to day in constant threat of the elemantals and famine. But when 19th century capitalism came in, the standard of living erupted exponentially across the US and Europe that it was the largest expansion of birthrates ever, not only that, but it was the largest movement of poor to middle class that the US has ever seen. The rich to middle class shift kept rising up until the present progressive era to where it flatlined.

When evaluating the merits of capitalism, you must compare it to what came before it.

Before the industrial revolution you had the majority of the ppl live in squalor and poverty. the birthrate was abysmal, and children worked from sun up to sundown. Child labor was not an issue then because the issue was survival. It became an issue later in the capitalist era because living conditions improved, which affected ideas, and thus policy. People were making enough to support the family unit and consider sending their children to school as an investment.

But what Howard Zinn and other historians do is compare capitalism to what we have now. And that is an unfair comparison, because what we have now are direct result of the industrial revolution. The mass production, assembly line, etc, came out of the ideology of the industrial revolution. The progressive era is living off the back of the industrial revolution and is reaping of whatever is left of voluntary exchange.

You want to see what happens when you implement statism to a society which didn't experience much if any and industrial revolution? Look no further than the soviets. The soviets required capitalist financing from the west and infrastructure to implement their system. They wanted the product of capitalism, the milk of the productive cows to distribute it becuase their ideology wasn't fit to allow such an advancement to exist without outside investment.

When we had the closest thing to capitalism, we had the largest expansion of the middle class, explosive birthrate, and largest advancement of human life. Capitalism does work. The market would have solved the problem of child labor, and was already doing so.

Today, employers would have no incentive to hire children to do such things as carpentry, or assembly line work since there would be no state or economic conditions to force such a thing. Along with that you have immigrant labor which is cheaper and more durable than child labor, there would be no incentive for that in a free market where there would be no immigration law.