![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
weswilsonI posted this as a reply in another forum after I had been called a liberal. I'd like some opinions, here.
I'm a die-hard center-of-the-road moderate.
I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also believe in that "well-regulated" part. I believe that weapons of indescriminate destruction are not covered in that right. A barrel of toxic sludge could be considered "arms" in the right hands, but that does not give you the right to store it in your basement next door.
I believe in capitalism and free enterprise. But I also believe that the keystone to capitalism is competition. Competition is what makes capitalism into the ideal tool to distribute limited resources to the public. The removal of competition is not capitalism... it is (edited:) a form of command economy. I believe the military budget is a command economy. I believe it is communist.
I believe that humanity should have a safety net for its citizens. We produce enough in this country to provide for those who fall between the cracks. The Phillips Curve insists that some people MUST fall through the cracks for our dollar to keep its value. If we had 100% employment, our dollar would inflate infinitely and lose its value. It is a moral and just thing to take care of those who help the economy by staying poor. Period.
I believe that it is in corporations best interest to remove competition. Thus, corporate self-interest is not inherantly tied to a good capitalistic economy. The obvious tool to turn loose on these enemies of free trade is the goverment. With the might of the masses at the throats of the oligarchical economists, we have natural preditors feeding on one another... and the public is served. Remember, no matter what Mises tells you, competition = capitalism.
I believe that certain things are the inevitable job of the goverment. I propose reducing government if all possible, but the moment that the potency of the "will of the people" is reduced, we have one ravenous predator who is unchecked by the other. It is always in our best interest to have an organized force of unionized americans, but we should never get them wet and we should never feed them after midnight.
Do I sound like a liberal to you?
I'm a die-hard center-of-the-road moderate.
I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also believe in that "well-regulated" part. I believe that weapons of indescriminate destruction are not covered in that right. A barrel of toxic sludge could be considered "arms" in the right hands, but that does not give you the right to store it in your basement next door.
I believe in capitalism and free enterprise. But I also believe that the keystone to capitalism is competition. Competition is what makes capitalism into the ideal tool to distribute limited resources to the public. The removal of competition is not capitalism... it is (edited:) a form of command economy. I believe the military budget is a command economy. I believe it is communist.
I believe that humanity should have a safety net for its citizens. We produce enough in this country to provide for those who fall between the cracks. The Phillips Curve insists that some people MUST fall through the cracks for our dollar to keep its value. If we had 100% employment, our dollar would inflate infinitely and lose its value. It is a moral and just thing to take care of those who help the economy by staying poor. Period.
I believe that it is in corporations best interest to remove competition. Thus, corporate self-interest is not inherantly tied to a good capitalistic economy. The obvious tool to turn loose on these enemies of free trade is the goverment. With the might of the masses at the throats of the oligarchical economists, we have natural preditors feeding on one another... and the public is served. Remember, no matter what Mises tells you, competition = capitalism.
I believe that certain things are the inevitable job of the goverment. I propose reducing government if all possible, but the moment that the potency of the "will of the people" is reduced, we have one ravenous predator who is unchecked by the other. It is always in our best interest to have an organized force of unionized americans, but we should never get them wet and we should never feed them after midnight.
Do I sound like a liberal to you?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:50 am (UTC)I typically get called a liberal. Usually it's because I think the neo-conservatives are a dastardly and un-American lot. After that, it's because I don't see progressive taxes and social programs as inherently evil. When dealing with the sheltered and misguided christians, it's because I think people should commit sodomy with one another whenever they desire it. (Don't forget, Baptists... fellatio qualifies as sodomy! Don't look back or you're salt!)
I commented elsewhere that I get called liberal so frequently that I often get insulted when people voice a negative trait regarding them. If everyone calls me one, I should be insulted by the insults they heap on that label, right?
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:30 am (UTC)No, you don't.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 06:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 06:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:49 am (UTC)Liberal is a shit term used to label anyone who's beliefs sit a little or a lot more to the left of the scale than yours.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 02:16 pm (UTC)That being said...I do think our core values are being erroded in this country. This country was founded by a group of men wishing to escape religous persecution. Now religion and God are being removed from everything at a alarming rate.
One of my key beefs living in Texas right now is the illegal immigrants. In the past 10 years the population of my town has had a huge surge in hispanic population. Almost none of them are legal. Why aren't we kicking their asses back over the border? Instead we give them free medical care which has nearly bankrupted the local hospital district and raised the cost to the point I meet my insurance deductible the first time I step through the door. They are getting social security checks. If they squat out a kid on American soil the kid is a citizen. That is complete crap. There were here illegally and should not have been here to have that kid.
The school district in which I work spends outrageous money each year on free and reduced lunch. We have schools were 90% of the student population gets a free lunch. Don't get me wrong...I don't think we should let these kids go hungry. The issue is that their parent's don't show enough income. Why? Because they are illegal and most of their income is unreported. And its unreported because they are illegal. So why is the kid even there?
My district is also spending incredible amounts of money to recruit bilingual teachers because the vast part of the hispanic population does not speak english.
Try jumping over our north or south border illegally and demand free health care, free money, free food, and that everybody address you in your native language.
End rant.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:52 am (UTC)p.s.
The Military is not communist or an economy, it's a Hirearchy. One King makes a decision, then delegates the work to authritative heads of branches, which are further delegated down the lin until the job gets done...
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:54 am (UTC)I am a Fiscal Conservative and a Social Liberal, which is why I pretty much don't agree with anyone, or I agree with everyone...
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 02:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 06:01 am (UTC)The military is not the defense industry. The truth of the matter is that most defense dollars go into those industrial parks you see taking up huge tracks of prime land and producing vaporware for top dollar. The defense industry is a command economy that does not utilize competition to eliminate bad product. The government will continue to fund any defense program that has the right connections and makes the right promises... whether or not it produces a final product.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 06:17 am (UTC)There is plenty of competition for military money, I know because I was a shop chief for a Radio repair shop and we did plenty of evaluations of different products. The part that makes it seem like there is no competition is that there are a lot of secrets involved. We can't just let any fly-by-night company know what our military capabilities are.
Believe it or not, I still have secrets in my head that I can't divulge...
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 06:25 am (UTC)I had a security clearance several times. It always makes me laugh when I try to explain what EXACTLY was so secret about what I knew. For instance, I could talk all day long about the war games I ran at the Carlisle War College... but the moment I said what foreign nations were red, I was crossing into clearance materials.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 06:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 02:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:53 am (UTC)As I'm reading through your points, there are some points that i myself would consider a bit more liberal than I believe, but does that mean you're a liberal? yes and no. Your points can give one the impression of having a liberal opinion, but to someone else it could be considered moderate, and even right winged...so it's really the perception people have of you and your beliefs than actually being part of one broad group.
*hope this makes some sort of sense*
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 06:11 am (UTC)Lately, the term liberal has been placed on the precipice of a very slippery slope. One push into liberal, and you are considered to be in a deep, dark hole of america-hating venom. Traditionally, the opinions I've listed here are considered very moderate and often border on conservative, and yet I find myself unfairly catagorized based on a small portion of my beliefs. For instance, I would not consider someone who was pro-iraq war to be a right-wing, bible-wielding, gay-bashing, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty idealogue with a deep desire to turn the Middle East into a solid sheet of glass. And yet, you bring up one issue about habeus corpus... you bring up one claim that the public was mislead about the ties between 9/11 and Iraq, and suddenly you're one foot out of a Greenpeace ship. The modern political stereotypes are hurting debate... they are hurting our nation.
You know why I think so many conservatives are willing to vote for Barak Obama? Because he's the first semi-conservative in a long time who hasn't tried to demonize half of america as the enemy.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 08:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 08:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 09:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 10:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 02:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 03:45 pm (UTC)(At least according to the conservative base, it is.)
I’d say you lean to the liberal side of moderate.
To someone who conservative everything not falling into their views is liberal.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 04:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 04:35 pm (UTC)As to the regulation of corporations, that is much too involved a topic for online discussion. Will you be at Frolicon?
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:21 pm (UTC)I might be at Frolicon, but the odds are no with a baby on the way.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 07:23 pm (UTC)When is the child due? This is your first, right?
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 07:53 pm (UTC)March 20th, but we've been gettign to go to the hospital almost every week due to contractions. So we won't be surprised if he's early.
Yes... our first.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 08:02 pm (UTC)Here is the best kept secret out there about being a parent: It's a hoot. Ours are 4 and 1 now, and I never guessed they would be so much fun.
(links to pics if you have any interest)
Here is gangster girl:
http://www.keslers.net/images/oct2006/2006_10_15_00105-1-0.html
Bunch more at:
http://www.keslers.net/images/oct2006/
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:05 pm (UTC)You claim to believe in capitalism, and that's certainly a good thing to my libertarian ears. However, do you support minimum wage laws? Price controls? Maximum hours? Mandatory benefits? Anti-discrimination laws binding private employers? Tariffs? Anti-trust laws? Those are all anti-capitalist positions.
A social safety net? Private, tax-funded or both? A government social safety net (i.e., social welfare spending) is a socialist proposition, which began in its modern incarnation with the cradle-to-grave socialism espoused by the late, brilliant (if evil) Otto von Bismarck. Supporting such a thing is certainly the mark of a liberal. Incidentally, the dollar inflates because it is a fiat currency, backed by absolutely nothing (unemployment is an entirely separate phenomenon, though also a result of government intervention in the economy). Had we kept our real money (which finally died after Nixon closed the gold window, breaking Bretton-Woods back in 1971), there wouldn't be any artificial price inflation. If you are advocating assisting the poor solely through private, voluntary efforts, more power to you; that is indeed a moral and praiseworthy activity. Advocating doing so through taxation is not moral. I do charity when I reach into my pocket to help someone else, not when I reach into yours (that activity has a different name).
Whether corporate self-interest and action is as much a part of a good capitalist economy as any other component therein depends rather heavily on the laws defining and protecting corporations. Generally, we laissez-faire types oppose corporate welfare spending as much as we oppose social welfare spending, and corporate welfare includes special governmental protections. However, government is, and has always been, a far more ferocious and dangerous enemy of free trade than the worst criminal enterprise, let alone large public corporations. Look at the respective balance sheets, and remember that all of the government's income - every single cent - comes from the coercive extraction of dollars known as taxation. Look at war, and ask yourself if you trust the "will of the people," more than half of the ones who voted put the warmongering spendthrift back into office. Capitalism means one thing, and one thing only: freedom from coercion. In the realm of economic (i.e., non-coercive) activity, it means that all interactions are done voluntarily, and not that everyone should have the same economic influence. Free competition simply means that there is no coercive apparatus preventing competition from occurring. It does not mean that the government must guarantee a certain minimum number of business enterprises in any particular field or geographical location, or keep prices from being "too high" or "too low," nor does it mean that a business must ease up on competitors because they have some right to stay in business.
So yes, Wes, you sound like a liberal to me. And I, of course, sound exactly like what I am: a radical libertarian, laissez-faire capitalist, radical individualist, and mammophile. :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 05:49 pm (UTC)That depends. Do we function in a perfect capitalistic society where instantaneous adjustements to market are possible? No? Then we don't have a true capitalistic model, and we have to make subtle adjustments to compensate. Do we function in a perfect capitalistic society where there is enough competition to employ a given skill set that the pay scale for that skill set will fluxuate in a natural manner? No? Then we don't have a true capitalistic model.
I believe in capitalism, but we do not have true capitalism. Even if every bit of governmental regulation were dropped, we would not have true capitalism. Capitalism is the ideal we should shoot for, but markets do not shift quickly enough to compensate for people lives. And that's exactly what we are talking about: People's LIVES. I do not support letting people die on the streets.. I do not support child labor.. I do not support laissez-faire. We've seen how it works, and it is detremental to the well-being of society.
Let's be realistic. We do not live in a world where someone who comes up with a good idea is guaranteed a chance to market and sell that product. We have no guarantee that solid market models won't be undercut by a competitor at the expense of a more profitable devision. Barriers to entry in markets are creating a world where we are dealing with more oligarchical market models, and the ability to compete requires SIGNIFICANT investment... investment capital that is only at the disposal of those who have no desire for competition. I WORSHIP capitalism... but it cannot be separated from competition. There are parts where the system breaks down. It is not perfect. Do we scrap the whole project? HELL NO, but we compensate for the areas where it breaks down.
Freedom from coercion is a great ideal... I shoot for that as well. But that goes more than one way. Suppose all the avenues of production are controlled by a small group of individuals. In an ideal market, unfair business models at that point will be challenged by a new company with better standards. This is probably not what will actually happen. There has to be a counterbalance to the power of organized money. That is one of the points of government, to be that voice. The willing sacrifice of competition in markets is what breaks down these models. I really wish the libertarians would stop buying into that Mises smoke screen that monopolies are acceptable market trends. People's lives don't have the ability to compensate for these issues.
I respect where you are coming from, and lived in that zone for quite a while, but I am also accepting that coercion by the dollars is coercion none the less. It's not always willing trades in our market. Sometimes people don't have any choices. I am always willing to debate these issues with you, but I can't subscribe to the belief in the John Galt world. I wish it WAS that black and white, though... I'd be on your side in a heartbeat.
blah... I rambled.. sorry.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-02 12:40 am (UTC)I know that we neither have nor need a perfect world, with frictionless markets, instantaneous information, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth, and none of those conditions - not one! - is necessary or sufficient for perfect capitalism. Perfect capitalism means solely no coercion when transacting. It does not mean, and never has meant, that we can all negotiate from the same position of influence.
We are talking about real world economics, and not artificial econometric models. The latter require all sorts of ludicrous simplifying assumptions (much like environmental models, by the way, which try to approximate the Navier-Stokes equations) because the equations are otherwise too hard to solve. Non-homogenous partial differential equations are nasty when they're modeling a scenario precisely; introduce substantial discontinuities and it's like chewing glass. But that's their problem (and mine, when I'm doing exotic option pricing), and has nothing to do with the incredibly simple nature of laissez-faire capitalism. I offer something, and you accept or decline. The end.
I am always realistic, by the way. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that a great product (in your eyes and mine, perhaps) may be crowded out of customers and financing by a mediocre one that's good enough for most consumers. And so what? There is no Great Holy Objective standard of quality in products. Indeed, though you've criticized Mises twice (and speciously, I believe), arguing that there are objective standards of value is patently foolish, because it's demonstrably false. Consumers have many reasons for buying what they do, and that's as it should be. That's why Apple's iPod has huge market share, and their PCs barely scratch 6%, beaten out by Wintel abominations (one of which I'm typing on at this moment). A non-coercive monopoly is fine. It's the coercive ones (cable companies given exclusive access to certain areas, government school systems, utilities, etc.) that worry me.
The other major flawed assumption is in your "accepting" that there is such a thing as coercion by dollars. Only government (or criminals, for those who distinguish them) can coerce; dollars - however many - can only attempt to influence. In the marketplace, trading is always done willingly by both sides, unless government coerces one or the other. Perhaps people have great needs, and wish they didn't have to spend as much to satisfy them, but that's not coercion. If the money they hand over were worth more to them than the item or services they're purchasing, they wouldn't engage in the transaction unless they were coerced (e.g., mandatory insurance purchases, union dues, etc.).
As you may know, Ayn Rand wasn't crazy about we libertarians (though I did love Francisco d'Anconia's wonderful speech about money in Atlas Shrugged). I prefer Murray Rothbard's ideal world to John Galt's; Miss Rand and I had serious disagreements, but not on laissez-faire. It really is that black and white, Wes. All we have to do is negotiate freely, and use our own free will. The fact that many people allow themselves to be influenced by the cheap, the trite, and short term gain, is simply indicative of their particular time preferences for consumption versus savings. Neither you nor I can tell them that they're wrong; there is no right or wrong on such matters. At best we can advise them that we believe they're likely to regret their lack of discernment and forethought. It is no reason to disparage the principle of laissez-faire, particularly in our rather imperfect world.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-01 07:15 pm (UTC)