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

[John W.]

I just have to say that the collective intelligence and erudition displayed
on this list is truly awe-inspiring.

At the end of the day, though, a Libertarian/libertarian still exhibits
classic, easily identifiable symptomology, just as do people with Down's
Syndrome or Parkinson's Disease.  Can we all at least agree on THAT?


On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 8:59 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>wrote:

>  >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
> 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<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<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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081213/959a7278/attachment-0001.html