[Peace-discuss] socializing an industry -- good but also bad

Fri Dec 12 14:03:41 CST 2008

>You forget that one of the tenets of the libertarianism is adherence to the
rule of law.  

I never knew or  remembered it so I could hardly forget it. Libertarianism
may have as one of its tenents adherence to the rule of law; but like
anarchists, they tend to want few laws to adhere to, there is an apparent
implicit believe in individualism over collectivism where somehow there is
an article of faith that a magic hand will produce the common good out of a
utilitarian calculus of individual interests, and there is the assumption of
a notion of freedom or liberty that recognized only one philosophical
tradition of the notion as being legitimate.

>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.  

First, I have no disdain for  the IDEAS of "liberty." I did not know there
was any libertarian ideas with a small "l" that were not also Libertarian
ideas with a capital "L."   If there were then they must have been stolen
from some other philosophical movement, which make one wonder why they are
call libertarian as opposed to the philosophies that they were stolen from
(i.e. Lockean and utilitarian 18th century liberalism, Hobbesian philosophy,
etc.).  I do have some disdain for the positions, dogmas, and movement of
Libertarianism as practiced and espoused by Libertarians.

Second, I see not intrinsic  necessary reason why libertarianism could not
lead to interventionist or any other kind of war, treat all humans as equals
with equal rights under the rule of unequal laws or laws that have unequal
impact and consequences, or could not lead to racism or the like.  That it
has not done so is merely a result of believers of libertarian ideas as a
body of ideas (not cherry picking of the ideas that serve their purposes)
have never held complete power and authority anywhere.  But I am not sure
that I believe in or support total and complete equality of everyone no
matter what; I am sure that I probably feel that all the pigs are equal; but
some are more equal than others - although I am certain that my selection of
who should be more equal than the others will depend on whether or not my ox
is being gored.  I am not sure that folks like Chaney and Bush, white
racists, etc. should be entitled to equal treatment under the law for the
same reason you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater based on notions of
freedom of speech.  Some people just may not deserve to be a part of
society.  Yes, I know discrimination in reverse; but if there is to be
discrimination, I would prefer to be the one that is discriminating.

Thirdly, as noted previously, there are at least two traditions of
philosophizing about the concept of "liberty" or "freedom" in Western
political philosophy. Libertarianism accepts only one of the traditions as
the only legitimate conception of liberty or freedom and treats the other as
authoritarianism denying it an equal philosophical status or merit as a
conception.  One tradition (the negative tradition of liberty or freedom
holds that liberty or freedom is liberty or freedom from interference,
obstruction, limitation by the State or the collective.  It is the one that
is assumed by Capitalism and by 18th century Liberalsim that underlies our
current notions of "Representative Democracy."  It comprised the tradition
that dominated English thought during the 18th century; the other tradition
was held to varying degrees and in varying forms by the Burkean
Conservatives in England. It was the positive tradition of liberty or
freedom, which dominated European thought which held that the  State or
collective had an obligation to take positive actions which not only removed
hindrances to individual self fulfillment and achieving the common good but
provided conditions, laws, and controls which promoted and forced
individuals to be free and obtain self-fulfillment and make for the common
good (i.e., make people be the best that they can be for their own good and
the general common good despite themselves). In his book, Two Concepts of
Liberty <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty> , Isaiah
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin>  Berlin formally framed the
differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between two
opposite concepts of liberty: positive
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty>  liberty and negative
liberty <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty> . The latter
designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from
tyranny <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny>  and the arbitrary
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary>  exercise of authority
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority> , while the former refers to having
the means or opportunity, rather than the lack of restraint, to do things.

>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.

Making up our own scales and axis are we?  I do not see liberty versus
authoritarianism as being two ends of the same continuum. First,
authoritarianism defines a form of government whereas liberty defines a
condition.  Since there are many forms of government, any portrayal of
definitional space for  forms of government would be a matrix and not a
single axis or dimension.  Liberty or freedom could be seen as a single
continuum with the end points being "Free" and "non-Free" where the meanings
of the two polar concepts would depend on what philosophical tradition one
was to use.  I am attributing nothing to liberty per se; I am suggesting
that many of these things can either be attributed to libertarian ideas and
values as implemented and associated with capitalism and Amerikan Democracy
and that what you call liberty in the US has caused as much evil as it has
caused good and in that respect is not different or better than  what you
seem to be of the opinion is better for people in China now that Capitalism
along with the provision of sets of options has made some inroads into that
country's economy and political system.  From what I have seen and heard,
there has been as many groups who have suffered a worse life with the
introduction of capitalism and the provision of sets of options as there
have been groups who have experienced a better life.  Obviously what is
called worse or better is a value judgment and a culturally relative
evelauation that is often colored by political, ideological, and
philosophical biases and prejudices.

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 2:28 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: 'Brussel Morton K.'; 'Peace-discuss'
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] socializing an industry -- good but also bad

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> 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

http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

  _____  

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
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/20081212/e34d23f7/attachment.html