About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Saturday, August 6, 2011 - 7:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A while ago, I was arguing for minarchy and using a Gilligan's Island analogy. My interlocuter complained that you cannot use a group of 8 people to prove a political point, because dynamics change with scale.

I wish I could find the thread. I think it was Mike Marotta, but am unsure. Anyway, Art Laffer doesn't believe in such scaling effects.

Ed

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Sunday, August 7, 2011 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This quote comes from an Intelligence Squared debate. The entire debate is available here:
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/big-govt/

All past debates are available here:
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/

From the NPR page on this debate:
******************************************
Before the Oxford-style debate at New York University's Skirball Center for the Performing Arts, the audience voted 29 percent in favor of the motion and 44 percent against. Twenty-seven percent were undecided. After the debate, however, 43 percent disagreed that "Big Government is Stifling the American Spirit," 49 percent supported the motion and 8 percent were still unsure.
******************************************
--http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130895894

Recap:
Before the debate, the audience -- possibly representative of the American public -- was 29% in favor of the motion that Big Gov't stifles the American Spirit (i.e., that Big Gov't is wrong). That's about a third of folks who, without special education, begin by thinking that socialism is wrong. 44% of the audience -- possibly representative of the American public -- began by thinking that socialism is either right, or at least okay, or at the very least, tolerable (i.e., that it's not stifling the American Spirit).

After proper education, however, the portion of Americans who think socialism is wrong exceeds the portion of Americans who don't think socialism is wrong (i.e., the portion who think it is at least tolerable). While starting out with depressing numbers -- which we can blame on bad philosophy, culture, and education -- that turns out to be a win for the American Spirit. The bottom line is that, after proper education: More Americans ultimately side against socialism than those siding for it. Or, to put the point in positive terms, after proper education: More Americans ultimately side with capitalism than against it.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/07, 8:00am)


Post 2

Sunday, August 7, 2011 - 3:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey Ed,

When I first began to learn of economics, I had often wondered if a centrally planned economy could be moderately successful (however not preferable) in small towns (100 people or less). What I mean by "moderately successful" is that the whole town could continue to function indefinitely without stripping its citizens of most of the products of their labor. I do not know if its possible, but I think the common man on the street would believe it to be.

If the people polled did side against socialism it doesn't necessarily mean they for capitalism. I've known many who don't agree with either and, thus, choose "Democratic Socialism".

If the poll numbers are correct and representative, and the people are against socialism its a good start, but socialism can be championed in many forms which, at first, don't appear to be socialist in nature.

I really hope you are a correct in saying that these people support capitalism.
(Edited by Kyle Jacob Biodrowski on 8/07, 3:48pm)


Post 3

Sunday, August 7, 2011 - 5:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I found the thread! It was Jim Henshaw, not Mike Marotta:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Quotes/1768_1.shtml#26

Ed

Post 4

Sunday, August 7, 2011 - 5:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kyle,

***************************************
When I first began to learn of economics, I had often wondered if a centrally planned economy could be moderately successful (however not preferable) in small towns (100 people or less). What I mean by "moderately successful" is that the whole town could continue to function indefinitely without stripping its citizens of most of the products of their labor. I do not know if its possible, but I think the common man on the street would believe it to be.
***************************************

What you're describing is communitarianism. It's communism, but always on a small scale (up to a 100-person commune). One of my gurus (Alasdair MacIntyre) is thought to have advocated communitarianism.

Link:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/


***************************************
If the people polled did side against socialism it doesn't necessarily mean they for capitalism. I've known many who don't agree with either and, thus, choose "Democratic Socialism".
***************************************

I think in terms of a spectrum spanning from total individualism (laissez-faire capitalism) to collectivism/statism (communism). On this spectrum, socialism is just communism-with-a-vote. It may not be one-party-rule like communism is or aspired to be, but it is rule by one political philosophy (collectivism). Democratic Socialism is "political pluralism" in name only -- i.e., it's a meaningless or superficial political pluralism.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/07, 5:39pm)


Post 5

Sunday, August 7, 2011 - 6:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am a big fan of Crusoe Concepts in economics.  Can the problem be reduced to one person?  For instance, as Ayn Rand pointed out, alone on an island, you need morality: the basis of morality is not social interaction.  I believe that Crusoe could use money.  He certainly needed language.  He also would benefit from division of labor. 

(I did not participate in the Gilligan's Island debate, as you noted.  For one thing, I am not an anarchist.  I know that you think I am; but I am not.  It is an easy gloss and we lack good vocabulary, as with selfishness, greed, egoism versus egotism, and even capitalism.  (Capitalism is the rule of society by those who own the means of production. But:: 1. No one should rule society. 2. We all own the means of production in our own intelligence.  Rand defined capitalism as an economic system based on individual rights.  So, we got a new definition that is not commonly shared, as with egoism and selfishness.)  My assertion is that "anarcho-capitalism" so-called is not how things should be, but how the world actually does work, just as praxeology is not what economics "should be" but what economics really is.)


Post 6

Sunday, August 7, 2011 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A quote from my "communitarianism" link:

******************************************
Libertarian solutions favored by the political right have contributed even more directly to the erosion of social responsibilities and valued forms of communal life, particularly in the UK and the US. Far from producing beneficial communal consequences, the invisible hand of unregulated free-market capitalism undermines the family (e.g., few corporations provide enough leave to parents of newborn children), disrupts local communities (e.g., following plant closings or the shifting of corporate headquarters), and corrupts the political process (e.g., US politicians are often dependent on economic interest groups for their political survival, with the consequence that they no longer represent the community at large). Moreover, the valorization of greed in the Thatcher/Reagan era justified the extension of instrumental considerations governing relationships in the marketplace into spheres previously informed by a sense of uncalculated reciprocity and civil obligation. This trend has been reinforced by increasing globalization, which pressures states into conforming to the dictates of the international marketplace.

More specifically in the American context, communitarian thinkers such as Mary Ann Glendon indict a new version of rights discourse that has achieved dominance of late (Glendon 1991). Whereas the assertion of rights was once confined to matters of essential human interest, a strident rights rhetoric has colonized contemporary political discourse, thus leaving little room for reasoned discussion and compromise, justifying the neglect of social responsibilities without which a society could not function, and ultimately weakening all appeals to rights by devaluing the really important ones.

To remedy this imbalance between rights and responsibilities in the US, political communitarians propose a moratorium on the manufacture of new rights and changes to our ‘habits of the heart’ away from exclusive focus on personal fulfillment and towards concern with bolstering families, schools, neighborhoods, and national political life, changes to be supported by certain public policies. Notice that this proposal takes for granted basic civil and political liberties already in place, thus alleviating the concern that communitarians are embarking on a slippery slope to authoritarianism. Still, there may be a concern that marginalized groups demanding new rights, e.g., homosexual couples seeking the right to legally sanctioned marriage, will be paying the price for the excesses of others if the communitarian proposal to declare a moratorium on the minting of new rights is put into effect.
******************************************

I will respond to this soon, but invite others to beat me to the punch.

Ed

Post 7

Sunday, August 7, 2011 - 6:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
KJB: "I had often wondered if a centrally planned economy could be moderately successful...  in small towns (100 people or less). ...  If the people polled did side against socialism it doesn't necessarily mean they for capitalism. I've known many who don't agree with either and, thus, choose "Democratic Socialism".
... but socialism can be championed in many forms which, at first, don't appear to be socialist in nature.

Well, it probably would not be Stalinism, but essentially, you know, the time would come in one generation or three when that one person has to be different.  That is the defining moment.  At that point, the 100 do without fire or writing or metal oxide semiconductors or a 13-note musical scale or something. 

Much depends on who controls the vocabulary of debate.  You offer "democratic socialism" and it sounds nice.  But "democratic capitalism" is redundant.  Socialists have to deal with Stalin, talk around him or over him.  Capitalists do not have an analogous problem. 

Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were a couple of mean old men, but what can you lay on their doorstep?  Even Ford's support of Hitler is touted to drown out the Ford Motor Company works in Russia at the same time. Stalin excuted and imprisoned those UAW Americans who stayed in Russia to build his automobile factories.  But they were there at all because Henry Ford was as much a "socialist" (so-called) as he was a "capitalist."  Ford would deal with the Devil Himself .. and did.


(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/07, 6:24pm)


Post 8

Sunday, August 7, 2011 - 6:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

In saying, though not in so few terms, that you are an individualist 'mugged-by-reality' (an anarcho-capitalist and a praxeologist by "necessity"), you're essentially describing yourself as a pragmatist:

********************************************
[The Pragmatists] declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consists of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth—that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences ...
********************************************

********************************************
If there is no such thing as an objective reality, men’s metaphysical choice is whether the selfish, dictatorial whims of an individual or the democratic whims of a collective are to shape that plastic goo which the ignorant call “reality,” therefore this school decided that objectivity consists of collective subjectivism—that knowledge is to be gained by means of public polls among special elites of “competent investigators” who can “predict and control” reality ...
********************************************

********************************************
To give you an example: if a building were threatened with collapse and you declared that the crumbling foundation has to be rebuilt, a pragmatist would answer that your solution is too abstract, extreme, unprovable, and that immediate priority must be given to the need of putting ornaments on the balcony railings, because it would make the tenants feel better. ...
********************************************

********************************************
Today, Pragmatism has not merely given him permission to do it and liberated him from the necessity of thought, but has elevated his mental default into an intellectual virtue, has given him the right to dismiss thinkers (or construction engineers) as naive, and has endowed him with that typically modern quality: the arrogance of the concrete-bound, who takes pride in not seeing the forest fire, or the forest, or the trees, while he is studying one inch of bark on a rotted tree stump.
********************************************

********************************************
By itself, as a distinctive theory, the pragmatist ethics is contentless. It urges men to pursue “practicality,” but refrains from specifying any “rigid” set of values that could serve to define the concept.
********************************************

********************************************
Most important of all, the Americans wanted ideas to be good for something on earth, to have tangible, practical significance; and, insistently, the pragmatists stress “practicality,” which, according to their teachings, consists in action divorced from thought and reality.
********************************************

********************************************
The pragmatists stress the “cash value” of ideas. But the Americans did not know the “cash value” of the pragmatist ideas they were buying. They did not know that pragmatism could not deliver on its promise of this-worldly success because, at root, it is a philosophy which does not believe in this, or any, world.
********************************************

--Ayn Rand Lexicon; "Pragmatism"

Ed

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.