[Peace-discuss] socializing an industry -- good but also bad
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Sat Dec 13 13:14:06 CST 2008
> John W. wrote:
> a Libertarian/libertarian still exhibits classic, easily identifiable
> symptomology
The electrons and your keyboard patiently await your exposition of the
eleutherian pathology and of the
attributes of "classically Wasonian good mental health"...as do we all.
John W. wrote:
> 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, , 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
> <mailto: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 18^th
> 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 <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 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>
> [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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081213/c5fa9fad/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list