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

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

>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

 

 

I am familiar with factor analysis as a statistical technique that has been
often applied in methodologies to analyze statistical data, having worked
for a geographer many years ago who used it ( at the time the technique was
very new and not very developed, I am sure that it has become much more
sophisticated and developed since then).  Without going into the dirty
little details of methodological criticism, I will note that first it is
used  analyze empirical quantified data to determine correlations which
requires the existence of such data and second it furnishes an after the
fact ad hoc description of relationships between categories of quantified
empirical data which only have meaning when these relationships have been
predicted by a theory which the use of the techniques is used to test which
is also lacking in regards to the subject of out discussion.

 

It is true that you can label the various dimensions  or continuum anything
you want and use whatever polar concepts or terms you want to define them.
It is also true that you can assemble the various dimensions as components
or factors in some multivariate matrix so as to define some conceptual
space.  I have no problem with that.  I do have a problem with using  terms
and notions - many of which are value laden - that already have currency and
diverse theoretical/conceptual traditions attached to them and their
meanings when labeling the scales, axes, factors, dimensions, or whatever
without furnishing a theoretical context and framework within which those
terms and notions have theoretically and conceptually defined and specified
significance and meaning upon which operational definitions can be
constructed as indicators of the conceptualized phenomena described by those
notions and terms.

 

To the best of my knowledge, nowhere in this discussion have we designated,
collected, or compiled empirical quantified data set forth by a theory as
meaningful indicators of the concepts in that theory so as to be able to run
any sort of statistical tests on that data to see if the predicted factors
do indeed exist or to what extent they exist that would give supporting
evidence for the theory or any comparisons.  The evidence is not only
anecdotal and consequently  defies statistical analysis of any kind  at best
it might serve as illustrative examples); but its interpretation as to
theoretical/conceptual meaning, significance, and applicability or
appropriateness is at best arbitrary and capricious.

 

>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.)

 

With all due respect, I did not bring up the notions of "Left" and "Right"
anywhere in this discussion; it is you who have just brought them up now.
It is true that words can mean exactly what you want them to; but
communicating then to others is the rub.  This is especially true of if and
when those words carry with them baggage in the form of a diversity of
traditions, meanings, usages, and definitions.  J  Common intersubjective
standardized meanings of words in communications are typically developed
during and over the course of the interaction by the communicating actors,
do not last beyond the interaction of the parties, need to be renegotiated
on each occasion of their usage, and are not set forth by stipulation in the
form of literal definitions since such definitions themselves are open to
interpretation and merely gloss their specific contextually situated content
or referents.

 

>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.

 

Among other things, left and right imply two potential ends of a continuum
or factor; they do not imply that there is only one factor unless one
chooses to only use that continuum and ignore everything else.   Such a
choice is not a necessary one but a practical choice that is made by the
individual when they construct their description of the matrix of all the
varying  philosophical thought regarding how the world is to be seen ,
conceived, or perceived. 

 

 Again, it is interesting that you have even brought up this continuum since
I do not recall it ever having been brought up or referred to in the
previous discussion.  What was brought up was your axis of liberty versus
authoritarianism ( which I viewed as a sort of mixed metaphor) and not any
left-right axis.  You also introduced the good-evil or good-bad axis as a
second axis or factor in the equation but seemed to regard the two axes as
being separate and distinct independent axes, telling me that what I was
talking about was not measured on the liberty-authoritarian axis but on the
good-evil axis while suggesting although simultaneously denying that the two
dimensions were separate and independent of each other ( i.e., all that
stuff about not being orthogonal but being parallel axis).

 

>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.

 

Are you engaging in some sort of stream of consciousness expression or
merely gratuitously throwing out  labels here?  If there is a point behind
this, I have missed it completely.  To add to the confusion, you through in
such statements as "Authoritarian is sometimes called 'statist'" and
"Classical liberal is used as a variant of libertarian."  There are a lot of
things that have been called "statist" by some and not all have been
authoritarian - either by logical and analytical necessity or empirically.
Ironically, to be "statist," there must be a "State;" but there were many
communities prior to the Greek city-states or the more modern nation-states
that were authoritarian communities - such as tribal communities, kinship
clans, familial bands, etc. -  but not states in any but the most causal
sense of the term.  Of course there were others that were not authoritarian
in nature as well; but they were not necessarily "states." 

 

Moreover, it is questionable if Classical Liberalism of 18th century England
is a variant of Libertarianism or libertarianism or if the reverse is the
case and libertarianism and Libertarianism is a variant of Classical
Liberalism.  Classical Liberalism does have as one of its variants the
Utilitiarianism of James Mills and Jeremy Bentham.   Since the term, as far
as I can tell, of libertarian came into use long after that of " Liberalism"
which was what  "classical liberalism" was called before we started  having
"neo-liberalism," I can't figure out why "classical liberal" would be used
as a variant of libertarian since the sort of liberalism that it refers to
preceded  the notion and use of term libertarian.

 

>A couple of quizzes to help you find your biaxial categorization---

 

Apart from the oversimplification of the political spectrum, these quizzes
are a joke.  The questions are both biased and leading; the possible answers
are forced choice responses which eliminate any nuances and tailor answers
to fit stereotypical measurement criteria rather than to reflect the
subject's actual viewpoints.  These popularized quizzes test nothing.    "Do
you believe the military should be voluntary?"  "Agree/Maybe/Disagree"  What
if the respondent doesn't think there should be any military?  What if the
respondent thinks that the executive officers, board of directors, and the
stockholders of any corporation should be personally liable - economically
and criminally - for any and all actions of their corporations and the
personnel employed by that corporation?  



 

 

 

From: E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag] 
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:35 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: 'Brussel Morton K.'; 'Peace-discuss'
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] socializing an industry -- good but also bad

 


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 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/20081213/d448ac41/attachment-0001.html