RoR: Forum

Whatever you want to call Krugman, take a look at the problem he has staying consistent: Paul Krugman: The Self-Contradicting Economist

Post 61

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 7:19am

Eva:

Not everyone appreciates my humor. That is why I, too, am not an economist.

You are doing fine here, and will do well in life, as long as you get out of your mandrel of instruction intact.

There is for sure no requirement to 'get me right' on my politics. Especially, my politics.

My political filter is very simple: my fundamental ethical axiom is based on the concept of free vs. forced association. To me, it's clear. I can cleanly separate models of human interaction, including, justifiable actions of any state using force, into two piles: those based on free association, and those based on forced association.

In one pile are things like slavery, rape, gang rape, and totalitarianism, and in the other pile are not. I find those advocating forced association 'disrespectful' --, which is why I don't respect my 'political' opponents. The relationship between rape victims and rapists, slave owners and slaves, etc., is not that of peers living in freedom; the defining ethical issue is 'free association' or the lack thereof in human interaction, including, justified actions of the state.

The justifiable use of force by government to inhibit forced association is not really a paradox(although in regards to violence it has literally been called 'The Paradox of Violence.') It really isn't that hard to understand at all, unless the point of the misunderstanding is to try and justify forced association for other reasons.

Some instances of forced association are trivial to understand. Murder, rape, extortion, theft, etc. clearly are not instances of free association. Victims do not freely choose to be murdered, raped, extorted, or stolen from. Others, like clean air and water laws, might be less obvious, but when the results of private commerce is fouled public air or public water, that is an instance of forced association(with the commerce of others)that readily(in my mind, using my filter)justifies state action. Yes, using state force-- in response to the unjust projection of forced association.

It is clearer that state force(armed cops, heated jails, the military for external actions)is justified when used in response to the first use of force by force initiators.

Because I believe that necessary government is necessary, I believe necessary government must be paid for, and so, taxation is justified...for the purpose of paying for necessary government. Receiving the benefit without paying for it is a form of theft, of forced association, and so, enforcement of taxation by force is justified...when the form of that taxation itself is not an example of forced association. (An example would be, deliberately using the tax code to implement our favorite pet Soc. grad school theory of redistributive justice, by allowing some pinheads to run amok in state and implement their government of pure will based on either their theocratic notions of Scott Nearing Progressivism or similar to justify unleashing Pure Democracy on a once free nation.)

It is clear(to me)that state force is sometimes justified. But it is also clear that state force must be fettered by an idea, by a concept, by a principle, and so far, I have seen no failure of the principle 'free vs. forced' association to accurately and clearly identify issues(for me.)

Pure Democracy/majority rule is itself an instance of forced association-- it is precisely what goes on at a gang rape-- the majority holds a vote, the victim can vote, too-- unless it is fettered by some ethical principle.

You don't need to know anything more about me, other than that filter, to 'get me right' on my politics.

DOMA? An abomination; a travesty of forced association by a state run amok. The GOP has totally lost its mind and soul, with some irony, caving in to theocrats in order to try and carve a 50.1% bare majority, just so they can run the CronyFest on the Potomac. There is no more personally pressing matter of free association than choosing our life partner. America has churches, plural, not 'the' church.

ACA? Ditto. Forced association on a national scale. The Democrats have totally lost their mind, but yet hold on to their soul, with the same goal of pure will as the GOP.

There -should- be extremely rare issues that require forced alignment on a national scale in a free nation. Otherwise, every aspect of life is turned into a steel cage death match struggle for domination, winner take all over the latest 49% minority. (That is the difference between mixed economies socialism and 'national' socialism.) This tendency in modern American politics to turn -every- conceivable issue into a national win or lose referendum is tribal totalitarianism once again, just like in Europe in the last century, rearing its human devouring head. It is precisely why the nation is seething, why politics has become so 'divided.' The phrase is "United We Stand" not "United It Stands" and the 'It' is slowely devouring the 'We' because 'We' are blindly encouraging 'It.'

I'm a supporter of Hayek's concept of a 'Safety Net.' I'm opposed to the current concept of a Welfare Trampoline. This is where the advocates of forced association lose me. They claim they need the resources of others to implement their view of social justice, and that is their justification for forced association--with their ideas of social justice. They are afraid that others who they claim they depend on will not provide 'enough' and so, use that as their forced association excuse to eliminate charity and benevolence by those whose resources they claim they need and replace that with state force, expropriation in the service of ... painlessly implementing the worldview of others uninvolved with creating the required resources. Who died and made any of our peers living in freedom the Emperors of Enough?

And, look at the objective results after now 50 years of Great Society goodness: Washington DC Redskins 99, Detroit Lions 0. Is it going to take another 50 years of this grinding tribal insanity to figure this one out?

The alternate model is, -after- private charity and subsidy and benevolence directed by those whose resources we claim we need, there is a minimum state Hayek like 'Safety Net' that is bare compassionate subsistence-- not a guaranteed Trampoline that is forever being 'extended' on its way from cradle to grave.

The False Hope For Freedom GOP is no answer to the No Hope For Freedom Democrats.

regards,
Fred

Post 62

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 7:36am

Fred, that was extremely well said!

I would only differ on the issue of a forced association funding of a safety net. Private charity (the only kind) would, IMO, prove to be adequate. I say that because I think very few people grasp how massively wealthy this nation would be once the economy was really freed.

And even if there were some people who suffered and weren't helped by private charity, it would still be a moral violation of the rights of those whose wealth was taken to fund a safety net.

Post 63

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 7:59am

Steve:

Hayek was advocating that from the context of WWII UK; 'the dole.' A very minimal level of state sustenance below which no citizen would be allowed to readily fall(or would long want to remain in that state; safety net, not welfare state trampoline.)

But, in some ideal world you and I are unlikely to ever see, but are free to advocate for, I could readily see that as being an interim kind of default private charity/benevolent fund-- like, for whatever reason -- its just too complicated otherwise -- here is a voluntary contribution to this state fund, an anonymous form of charitable giving. And, even, let that be managed by the state. I think your objection is, making that a part of Congress budget and forcing that overhead on everyone. (Well hell; what budget? We could only wish to live in that fettered nation again.)

This is a useful thought experiment. The criticism to the voluntary fund would be that those we depend on to provide the necessary resources would not give 'enough' where 'enough' is really only ever defined as 'more.'

Well, in a nation of peers living in freedom, the ethical response to that lament is "Well then, slacker, get busy and kick in."

Not "Somebody really needs to find a gun, knock these people over the head, and make them cough up enough to implement my worldview of 'enough' on my behalf, because after all, I can't provide enough, and so, that makes me the Emperor of Enough."

Or its equivalent Scott Nearing Progressive equivalent, "Jesus told me so, and I am damned impatient with the slow 'Progress' of Jesus' mission here on earth, so screw the 1st Amendment, this once free nation is all about implementing my theocratic visions for me so I can sleep at night, and that means, someone else needs to get busy and cough up more of what I say I need to do that."

regards,
Fred

Post 64

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 8:19am

Steve:

Eva accused me of disrespecting my 'political' opponents.

I thought about that, and Eva is absolutely right. I do.

My 'political' opponents are those who advocate forced association. I do disrespect them. Proudly.

When they disavow themselves of the ethics of gang rapists, I will respect them. After all, gang rapists want what they want, too. Is that enough to justify or respect their embrace of forced association?

Why should those who avail themselves of the ethics of gang rapists be respected? It is not at all clear to me.

Perhaps there is an argument that those who disavow rape are also attempting a kind of 'forced association' with that worldview. As if, a world filled with rape was 'vanilla' and one without rape was 'chocolate' and the ethical choice between them was a simple matter of personal choice, and nobody should be 'forced' to live in a world without forced association.

Perhaps. That is why there are chiropractors. Bending over backwards to make a moral equivalence between free and forced association is hard on the back.

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 1/10, 8:26am)

Post 65

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 8:27am

Fred,

My objection to a voluntary fund managed by the state is minor.... only that it would act to crowd out private funding for the same function while being less efficient.

Before the progressives got their hands on government here in the states, there were trade union kinds of things (can't remember the name for them now) that people joined while working, and paid in a tiny amount as dues, and then if hard times came, they could draw on that. Some of them, strangely enough, were based upon race.

Privately funded means of ensuring that in good times you will be able to get past bad times would sprout like weeds in the absence of state welfare systems. The expectation, and the reality, of needing to take care of oneself is one of the first casualties of state safety nets.

Post 66

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 8:45am

Fred,

My 'political' opponents are those who advocate forced association. I do disrespect them. Proudly.

That's one of the things I like about Objectivism as it is usually practiced.

We can always make distinctions between the kind of political opponents. There are those who innocently believe it is okay to have a large government because of all the loud cries of all the needy (and special interests) and think that money grows on government trees, versus those who understand clearly that they are advocating a system what puts a yoke around the neck of producers and feels no remorse about it, versus those who don't just argue for forced association in an abstract way but actually work to implement it - actively attempting to violate individual rights. And within those categories there are degrees of guilt based upon the level of their knowledge and/or the degree to which they lie to themselves or blank out reality. And within motivation, there is the degree of malice.

I disrespect the political position, rather than the person, if I think there is reason to give the person some benefit of the doubt. But if they persist, if they can't give up a position after seeing good reasons to do so, then I begin disrespecting the person. Seems like simple common sense to me. Especially since the alternative is, as you clearly put it, is to treat the rapist and his victim as moral equals.

Remember that in the academy, moral relativism is kind of a requirement so that they can each spout off in their particular area with the least repercussions.... it is a kind of employment benefit to have not just political freedom of speech (within the ever-narrowing brackets of PC), but also to only be held accountable for not attacking your colleagues on the moral level (you are permitted to have fierce cat fights on theoretical, non-moral levels as long as you don't impugn your opponent's respectability). This is about the rice bowl, like tenure, and takes precedence over all other considerations!

Post 67

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 8:49am

Without naming who is doing the robbing, many people would say it is immoral to "rob Peter to pay Paul." However, many of those same people think it is moral for Uncle Sam to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Post 68

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 8:57am

Steve:

We just ended the season of the Salvation Army.

I personally celebrate the concept of the Salvation Army, as one of the last remaining bulwarks of freedom in this nation: the lost art of polite peers asking, not telling.

Everytime I see the red pot and hear that bell, I dig deep, and not only that, I thank them for doing what they are doing, and I mean it, which is, politely asking, peer to peer not telling. Often, not only walking into a store, but walking out as well, with usually a yearly check to boot. Because I am personally lifted by the concept everytime I see it; freedom in action. We must reward freedom if we want more of it; we must celebrate excellence of all kinds, whenever it manages to rear its head in this sinking tribal mess.

The SA, to me, is one of the last signs of freedom in a once free nation, of polite peers living in freedom. To me, as a libertarian, I can't do anything but celebrate their existence in this nation. They represent, to me, that concept above of 'anonymous charity/benevolence.' I celebrate their -polite asking- in this day and age.

My other favorites are Special Olympics, the Red Cross, and my parochial favorite, the Williams Syndrome Association. Because they politely ask, they don't tell. My choice, exactly because it is my choice, and there is a kind of celebration of freedom in so choosing.

That is human nature. And it is also human nature to resent being told(by whom, in this nation of peers?), to have one's ability to provide charity and benevolence literally stolen from you at the point of a state gun, to try and make it past a gauntlet of greed and corrupt political payoffs to crony friends to maybe bleed past the extended welfare system which is the heartless bureaucracy itself and finally make it to someone actually in need of help-- all painlessly advocated by others who have no sweat in that equity, who fool themselves into sleeping well at night because they've done -nothing- but tell others to point guns at others still who come up with the necessary resources, instead of getting off their slacker butts and kicking in 'more' of their own.

The world brought to us by forced association is a drab, grey, shabby heartless mess, and is not helping those intended, for sure. It is human nature to help when asked for help; it is also human nature to turn your back on petulant demands backed by force; That is human nature, too.

regards,
Fred

Post 69

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 9:04am

Steve:

If I'm not mistaken, I think those things were called 'Relief Funds' -- usually with a local name.

Like "LSSCo Relief Fund" -- funded by the workers of a steel fab plant, for instance.

regards,
Fred

Post 70

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 9:38am

Steve,

I'll comment quickly on #1; otherwise, I'm in a hurry & don't have time to go thru the list.
A quick glance downwards seem to indicate that the pararoxes revolve around context-driven and general states as such:

*** "Bad Banks"

Advising India to practice triage is nothing more than what the US govt permitted JP Morgan to to to solve the crisis of 1904, I believe.

It's moreover obvious that developing countries have the problem of a huge # of small, inefficient banks, that cannot & should not be helped.

OTH, saying that Lehman's failure brought the entire system down because of its hugeness is a garden-variety statemment of scale.

*** okay, 1 more....Social Security..

Privitization 'not necessarity' a bad thing.... on what terms?

Present proposals: clearly laced with 'set up to fail' stipulations created by those who publically advocate its demise.

'Not necessarily' is a common rhetorical strategy used by everyone. It says, "You're way, specifically, is wrong and/or is driven by evil intent."

Eva

Post 71

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 1:31pm

Fred, (Guessing you already know what I'm going to say but ah well...)

I am not so certain that we cannot find a way to fund government through voluntary means. Given that government expenditure would be small, it might be better to not have all of the income/trade reporting requirements and the government surveillance and enforcement that is necessary to be able to collect taxes. Having some or even a vast majority of people freeload on defense might be preferable to having the surveillance state.

Potentially it might be preferable for government to be exclusively voluntarily funded and have defense freeloaders. For one thing I think this would result in more distributed defense (because people would only want to pay for defense around their own land) instead of having a standing national army. Creating a voting system where votes are weighted by its citizen's shares of ownership of the government's "stocks" could be one means for voluntarily funding the government.

But first we have to be successful in trimming government down to only its rightful purpose (defense of innocent citizens) before we can even think about making it voluntarily funded.

Cheers,
Dean

Post 72

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 2:53pm

Fred,

>>>>>My 'political' opponents are those who advocate forced association. I do disrespect them. Proudly<<<<<

Forced association exists as a fact of social life. Therefore, 'advocacy' begs the point.

So better said would be that we both disrespsect forced associations which are not necessary and/or untimately beneficial.

But then again, who doesn't, except a fascist who likes authority for its own sake?

So for those of good will, the problem is really 'what' , and 'to what extent'--not yes vs no.

Eva

Post 73

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 2:59pm

Fred,

>>>>I'm a supporter of Hayek's concept of a 'Safety Net.' I'm opposed to the current concept of a Welfare Trampoline<<<

Okay, fine, here's where we agree in a formal sense.

Kindly. please explain your standards for 'bare criteria vs 'trampoline'.

For example, the recent food-stamp cutback.

Also, how would your definition of bare-ness not oblige wealth-transfer? Or rather, are you simply saying that 'bare-subsistence, by definition, is that done without any transfer whatsoever?

Ciao, Eva

Post 74

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 3:47pm

Eva:

I thought I made that clear-ish: force by the state/forced association is justified(in my view) when fettered by a principle: to suppress forced association(including, forced dis-association), and by doing so, to defend free-association. That is the only eithical use of forced association in a free state I can imagine.

The use of forced association in an unfettered state is anyone's whim, fettered by no principles.

Saying 'forced association is a fact of social life' is some pretty squishy non-argument; it is a naked assertion, without qualification, and hardly a justification for forced association in any carte blanch fashion. Besides: I thought it was you optimistic youth who were dissatisfied with the stale status quo????? You sound like an 80 yr old woman, resigned herself to impenetrable 'facts of life.'

Surely you got more energetic juice left than that?

So if you want to be convincing, be at least as specific as I was(with the clean air/water laws and the justification for the application of force, in a free nation fettered by a constitution of individual liberty) to justify specific instances of state forced association. Your carte blance argument would justify gang rape, because 'forced association is a fact of social life....'

Forced dis-association: a kind of negative forced-association. What some southern states in the 50s were doing in response to the law of the land in the arena of public education. Segregation by the states was a form of government forced dis-assocaition in the context of public education -- what should have been neutrally applied to all peers living in freedom. (Independent of the argument over whether there should be 'public education.')

Our laws do not compel/force attendance at public schools. As well, our funding of public education is overwhelmingly local. (For all the talk on the national level, federal funding of public education is in the low single digits in most school districts.)

Our laws compel attendence at some form of educational process(which is a far cry from compelling 'education,' since education is primarily taken, not given, at most, well offered), and includes both private and home schooled alternatives. So public schooling attended by peers living in freedom is not an example of 'forced association,' any more than is driving on public interstates with national peers.

Our public behaviour and rights and obligations to each other(I believe; not everyone here will agree with that)are unique from our private behavior and rights and obligations to each other.

The firm libertarian standpoint, I think, is that to acknowledge/accept any difference in public vs. private obligations to each other is to accept a slippery slope in terms of individual rights. I just view it as being polite to peers living in freedom.

A firm libertarian/anarcho capitalist standpoint is that there should be no such animal as 'the public commons.' Everything should be privately owned. Roads, streets, all property, institutions, all rivers, lakes, etc.

I don't imagine that happening anytime soon; we are moving quickly to a condition where the boundary between public and private is blurring(which is, I think, exactly the strong libertarian's point about slippery slope.) I, OTOH, view the acknowledgment of the public commons as realpolitik, and a place to at least finally -establish- the beachhead of the boundary between public and private, and what that entails.

So if I shelve the discussion of 'public commons: should it be?' for a moment, and accept that fact that it exists today, then what is ethical behavior on the public commons, as peers living in freedom?

We all have our separate goals and means and desires and destinations. The most direct route is to sprint headlong to our destination/goal, without regard to the paths of others. But on a public commons, that is not only impolite, but chaos. So in my view, we have an obligation on the public commons to instead -navigate- to our destinations, mindful of the trajectories of others. As peers, living in freedom. We all get to our destinations in that manner. We see this principle every day on the Interstates, where large trucks and small cars each share the public commons and get to their respective destinations without either one telling the other where to go or what to drive or when to get there. (Aside: back to the commons question. Why can't Interstates be funded purely by use fees, like state turnpikes? Charge the vehicles by axle or weight. Those that use the resource 'more' pay 'more.' Why must or should they be paid for via taxes aimed willy nilly at the tribe and managed through a corrupt political pay to play crony bases bureaucracy, union payoff scheme to eventually 'trickle down' to concrete on roadbed serving those who benefit from it? And to those who benefit indirectly, they pay an indirect cost, in the cost of shipping. Now, this is partially accomplished today by gasoline taxes, but ... coarsely. Much of government -- as much as possible -- could be structured in this fashion. The smaller the discretionary pie, the less opportunity for corruption in the disinterested and undisciplined spending of OPM.)

In a free nation, we should be -minimizing- the need to project forced association, not caving in to it as an unavoidable 'fact of social life.'

In a non-free nation-- an unfettered state -- such as Germany or Russia in the last century, then no need to concern ourselves with freedom, and the unfettered tribe can start filling the body bags once again.

regards,
Fred

Post 75

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 5:44pm

Fred,

'Forced association' means if you don't obey the laws, you will be punished.

Thankfully, I've come to understand this particular some 60 years plus before my 80th birthday: perhaps my 7th grade civics class, at 12?

So it's far more advisable for libertatians to take the position that we need to 'de-legalize' particular things that to say that we don't need legality at all.

And yes, anarcho-capitalists, by definition, want to abolish the state-- but I don't believe in conflating the Libertarian position with that.

Otherwise, who would administer Hayek's safety net?

Lastly, I think it's simply bad philosophy to offer a deductive scheme from a hopelessly un-obtainable perspective, only to glossy it up by calling it an 'ideal'.

Gramma, at 70, is beginning to do that, and I'm worried. That's why she got 'Deleuze's 'Anti-Oedipus' for Xmas. Now all her emails are full of 'bodies without organs'...but I'm beginning to read "Overturn Plato!!! as well. Progress, at last.

Eva

(Edited by Matthews on 1/10, 5:45pm)

Post 76

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 7:54pm

Fred,

One nitpick: college level: Federal student loans and various research projects, professors etc that are funded by the Feds. I don't have statistics on the quantity of loans or portion of Fed spending for this purpose. Anyways there's no doubt college is now significantly Federally subsidized.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 1/10, 7:54pm)

Post 77

Monday, January 13, 2014 - 5:17am

Eva:

" 'Forced association' means if you don't obey the laws, you will be punished."

...to you.

In your view, is gang rape "forced association?" If so, then what law isn't being obeyed when the victim is being punished? (and if not, well then, is gang rape free association?)

I guess the discussion above of the Paradox of Violence and theft by receiving benefit was a bit too subtle. Let's try a different tack:

'One of the manifestations of forced association is, in the absence of a justifying principle other than the brute force of numbers, you will be forced to obey laws based on tribal whim.'

Not 'all laws' but rather, laws with the qualification above. There is no ethical obligation to follow -those- laws, only the threat of brute force of numbers. Just as, in exactly the same manner, there is no ethical obligation to concede to gang rape just because the perps held a vote among themselves. The clarifying(for me, clearly not for you)issue is free vs forced association. For you, free association is a hair shirt for some reason, as in the petulant 'nuh-uh, forced association means that the law is enforced.'

The point you are avoiding is, not unethically enforced when fettered by a principle. The ethical principle is not itself "the projection of forced association."

IMO, the opposite. But if you want to spend the next 80 productive years of your life advocating for forced association as your axiomatic ethical principle, then all I can say is, the instructiods who instructed the instructoids who instructed the instructiods who instructed the instructoids who instructed you really once did a number, and my argument is with them, not their self-replicating rote instruction repeating spawn.

regards
Fred

Post 78

Monday, January 13, 2014 - 5:28am

Dean:

Well sure; education, housing, medicine. The three areas of our economies most fat-fingered by government each have far out-stripped inflation.

Crisis, crisis, and crisis. Thank God, the instruction mills are pumping out more of these crisis mongering critters.

Our current body of tribal law is a hot mess of justifiable and not, no doubt, and long will be. On average, we're average. Can't fight that even with a constitution of liberty. Wishes on paper.

regards,
Fred

Post 79

Monday, January 13, 2014 - 6:03am