[Peace-discuss] socializing an industry -- good but also bad
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Wed Dec 10 14:28:18 CST 2008
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
> If pure unadulterated capitalism were so good; why is it that the
> corporate establishment all support corporate welfare and corporate
> socialism, seek government contracts and subsidies including
> immunities, uses and relies public educational and research facilities
> and money to train employees and do basic and advanced research and
> technical development for them for them, or supply their owners and
> executives with incorporation protections from personal liability for
> the corporation's actions where it is not the case for the owners and
> executives of unincorporated businesses or individuals.
Agreed that corporate welfare and corporate socialism and government
immunities, etc. you mention are all evil. These are the not the fruits
of liberty and free enterprise but are rather the fruits of plunder,
perversion of the rule of law-- harming the many for the benefit of
few. You forget that one of the tenets of the libertarianism is
adherence to the rule of law.
I can't understand your disdain for the idea of liberty and "small (l)
libertarian" ideas, because libertarianism does not lead to
interventionalist war. It treats all humans as equals with equal rights
under the rule of law. It does not lead to racism or any other
maltreatment or advantages for individuals or aggregates because they
belong to some category.
Many of the problems you attribute to liberty are not measured on the
liberty/authoritarianism axis but on the good/evil axis. Two different
axes, which are should admit are may not be strictly orthogonal but they
are certainly not parallel either.
So I don't agree at all that any of the evils you mention will be cured
by transition of private enterprises to the public sector. Further most
of the evils you mention are public policy evils. You can be a
Capitalist or a Socialist and be noxiously Xenophobic.
"Impartial though the Way may be, it always favors good men". - Lao Zi
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> To put it plain and simple, that is libertarian bullshit. You don't'
> have to go to Chinese history to find a genuine disaster and
> widespread starvation; you just need to look to the US during the
> "dust bowl" period or check out Appalachia or the poor black
> communities in Mississippi even today. But we know that libertarians
> and capitalist promoters will be reluctant to attribute the US
> examples to the lack of government control leading to these genuine
> disasters and widespread starvations as they are willing to attribute
> the Chinese experience to "the heavy hand of government control." It
> seems to me that a wonderful job of cherry picking is being engaged in
> here. Interestingly, in cases like China, we are very fast to
> attribute the problems to government control rather than to a specific
> style of government control or to the specific leadership style
> employed during that period by officials of the government; but when
> it comes to instances of problems that take place in capitalist
> societies, we excuse it as being an aberration, the fault of specific
> leaders or leadership styles, chance. or mother nature.
>
>
>
> We know how good live was for the American Indian, the Afro-American,
> the Mexican-American, and the Asian-Americans under Amerikan
> capitalism , free enterprise, and WASP liberty during the history of
> the country. Ask the Japanese-Americans about American liberty under
> capitalism during the 1940s when they were put into concentration
> camps and the white man stole their private property after they were
> put into those camps and retain ownership to this day. What about the
> Native Americans or Blacks whose properties were taken from them by
> the white population or white owned companies with the help of the
> state, local, and federal governments and officials under the free
> enterprise capitalist system of individualism and liberty you tout so
> readily.
>
>
>
> One may just as well argue that Socialism has never been truly
> implemented in any pure form so as to be tested just as it has been
> argued when capitalism fails that it was not truly capitalism but some
> impure variant of it that failed. Those who view it to be discredited
> tend to be those who are true believers in the establishment values
> and perspectives as well as the assumptions that the establishment
> culture is based on. If pure unadulterated capitalism were so good;
> why is it that the corporate establishment all support corporate
> welfare and corporate socialism, seek government contracts and
> subsidies including immunities, uses and relies public educational and
> research facilities and money to train employees and do basic and
> advanced research and technical development for them for them, or
> supply their owners and executives with incorporation protections from
> personal liability for the corporation's actions where it is not the
> case for the owners and executives of unincorporated businesses or
> individuals.
>
>
>
> But I have wasted too much time attempting to refute the myths of a
> secular religion when I know it is not going to change anything --
> especially your beliefs. After all that is what religion is all
> about- unchallengeable articles of faith, isn't it?
>
>
>
> *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *E.
> Wayne Johnson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:27 AM
> *To:* Brussel Morton K.
> *Cc:* Peace-discuss
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] socializing an industry -- good but
> also bad
>
>
>
> I really cant find anything good to say about the government bailout
> of industry. People have
> short memories and don't seem to do their history homework. The heavy
> hand of government
> control led to genuine disaster and widespread starvation in China in
> the 1960's and 1970's,
> and since adapting a more capitalist
> model they can truly say "Ming tian geng hao!" Tomorrow will be even
> better.
>
> Socialism and its closely allied doctrine have been very sadly
> discredited. Even
> sadder is the notion that it should be tried here since it has been
> already found
> to be a horrible idea with horrific consequences.
>
> Liberty has worked well for us here. We should go back to it.
>
> Suggested reading--- Bastiat, "The Law"
> http://www.fee.org/library/books/thelaw.asp
>
> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>
> Comment below.
>
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2008, at 3:05 AM, John W. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Karen Medina <kmedina at illinois.edu
> <mailto:kmedina at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>
> Peace-discuss,
>
> I would like to discuss the US taking over an industry.
>
> Let us take the postal service as an example. The postal service has
> always been
> tied to the federal government. And has done well.
>
> But as an institution, it was extremely sexist and racist clear into
> the 1980s. I
> blame this on the fact that it was tied to the federal government. For
> a very long
> time, the postal service did not have to abide by OSHA's safety
> guidelines, again
> because it was a government institution. The postal service used to be
> one of
> the highest stress occupations -- again because it was run by the
> government
> and was managed top-down and so very close to the way the military was run
> that many ex-military people were employed by the postal service.
>
> I am not saying that I think the postal service should be privatized,
> I am just
> saying that when the government runs an industry, it tends to overlook
> human
> dignity issues and is slow to change -- and it makes us all guilty for
> the human
> rights abuses done by the institution.
>
> It is good sometimes to be able to point to a CEO and say that person
> is bad,
> but it is really hard for the public to turn and look at the way the
> public is
> running an industry and say "we are bad".
>
> -karen medina
>
>
> I guess I'd like to take the opposite view.
>
> While I have heard about the stress involved in working for the post
> office (particularly at "the Plant"), I doubt that it's any worse than
> working for some private-sector corporation, most of which are also
> managed in a top-down style.
>
> Historically, government institutions like the military and the post
> office have been among the LEAST racist and sexist employers in
> America. In the black community of the 1940s and 1950s, having a job
> at the post office was about the best job that one could hope for.
> Teaching was also a viable and desirable option in the black
> community. The police and fire departments proved more difficult to
> integrate.
>
> An irony of history is that, because of the way the law has evolved,
> public-sector unions have been for the past 30 years FAR stronger than
> private-sector unions, providing public employees with far greater job
> protections. Of course, it also helps that government jobs can't be
> exported overseas.
>
> Again, due to the peculiar nature of our labor laws, the government is
> in a position to mandate things like affirmative action, a living
> wage, etc. not only in its own employment practices but in instances
> where it contracts with private-sector vendors. Legally, we have not
> seen fit to extend the same level of government-mandated worker
> protections to private-sector employers who do not do business with
> government.
>
> There are pros and cons both ways, of course. But on balance, I
> would MUCH prefer to work for the government, and I think that basic
> industries having to do with food, energy, and essential services
> should be nationalized for purposes of national security and the
> public good.
>
> John Wason
>
>
>
> Amen to all that!, and I'd add to the list "food, energy and essential
> services" health insurance, the railroads. The profit motive
> (capitalism) in "essential institutions or industries" is not one
> which can be trusted to lead to the best and most efficient services
> for /all/ the people, and which will lead to a sustainable society.
> --mkb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Peace-discuss mailing list
>
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081210/eb5fa54b/attachment.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list