[Peace-discuss] socializing an industry -- good but also bad
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Fri Dec 12 15:34:51 CST 2008
There is a lot of stuff here. I will work on it in small bites.
> Making up our own scales and axis are we?
There is no problem with that, and indeed it may have some utility in
improving our understanding. There is a field of Multivariate
statistics dedicated to it,
it is called principle components analysis (PCA) /factor analysis.
The concept behind it is that given a set of data, a new set of axes and
scales can
be developed that describes the variation in the data and makes it easy
to understand.
PCA generally is the branch that insists on perpendicular axes. Factor
Analysis does
not insist on that degree of uncorrelation but seeks to discover useful
ways to describe variation.
Left and Right don't seem to cut it except in a HumptyDumpty sort of way
(the words mean exactly what I want them to.) If the notion of words finds
its utility in communication then it is reasonable enough to arrive at
least somewhat
standardized definitions of terms. Left and right implies that there is
only one factor
and that this one factor describes all of the philosophic variation in
the way we perceive the world.
So we have left/right, conservative/liberal, conservative/progressive,
libertarian-authoritarian.
Authoritarian is sometimes called "statist". Classical liberal is used
as a variant of libertarian.
The ideologic axis progressive-conservative is likely not the same
definition as the liberal-conservative one.
Then we have such as neo-liberal, neo-conservative, paleoconservative,
jurassiconservative etc.,
One has to add new axes to pull out such new definitions.
There are somewhat interesting quizzes that chart the quizzed ones (the
quizzees) on
a orthogonally biaxial plot. I would suggest that the motivation of
such quizzors is to encourage
the quizzees to get in touch with their inner libertarian. Big L
Libertarians tend to be members of
the Libertarian party, while little (l) libertarians affirm that they
have libertarian ideologies but
may not be members of the Libertarian Party or any other party for that
matter.
A couple of quizzes to help you find your biaxial categorization---
http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> >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.
>
The need for the rule of law arises from the recognition that there are
indee
>
>
> >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
> 18^th 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 18^th century Liberalsim that underlies our current notions of
> "Representative Democracy." It comprised the tradition that dominated
> English thought during the 18^th 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 Berlin
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin> formally framed the
> differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between
> two opposite concepts of liberty: positive liberty
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_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>
> [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/20081212/6ba47fb7/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list