Portrait of an American Hero

[Impenitent]

abolish private property...

your body belongs to the group

-Imp

I guess the problem is solved, then. Impenitent thinks we should abolish private property.

I did not say that

but I am glad you are willing to sacrifice your family to the collective

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

abolish private property...

your body belongs to the group

-Imp

I guess the problem is solved, then. Impenitent thinks we should abolish private property.

I did not say that

but I am glad you are willing to sacrifice your family to the collective

-Imp

I'm simply quoting you. You said, "abolish private property". Go back and look at your post.

[Sculptor]

I'll take that as disagreement with Marx. And I concur. Marx was an old fuddy-duddy and probably no fun to be around.

On the contrary. Marx loved a good time.
You'd never understand him unless you can place yourself in his historical shoes. He was a Prussian Jew to become stateless and was active politically over 160 years ago at a time when children were working in coal mines. Much of his work was done from tolerant London, though he was plagued with spies from Europe watching his moves. It was quite a different world.

I guess it would depend on who he was with, as to whether they had a good time around him or not. He was certainly hell on the "capitalists". And he didn't seem too keen on the "lumpenproletariat" and "petite bourgeoisie" either. But I think his vision of a classless society was pie in the sky, unfortunately. There will always be differences in wealth and it will always translate into political power and influence. Economics seems, by nature, like a zero-sum game to me. One person's wealth is, by definition, another person's poverty. Therefore to fight for economic equality (perhaps Justice as well) seems like a Sisyphean task--like a punishment from a god.

One man's vision is another man's deliberate misconception.

[Immanuel Can]

I said nothing about "stealing" or how the wealth is attained. That is your assumption jumping into the mix.

Well, what you said, Gary, was...

Economics seems, by nature, like a zero-sum game to me. One person's wealth is, by definition, another person's poverty.

If it's a "zero sum" game, then it means if somebody wins, somebody loses. And if the losing is legitimate, then it's not a problem that it's a zero sum game, because the loser deserves to lose, then. Only if the win is illegitimate would we need a procedure to restore equity or justice. So the word "stealing" may not be the right one, but it sure is something like it. It's "taking illegitimately," at the very least.

Fortunately, it's not a zero sum game, so it's not the case that when somebody wins, somebody loses...at least not in many economic situations.

I'm talking about"wealth" in terms of what one person has compared to another who is "poor".

That's no problem at all. It's not the mere fact that one has more and one has less that is needed to justify redistribution: it's that the "more" has to be illegitimate, and the "less" less than deserved. Otherwise, inequality is not a problem at all; we would normally expect undeserving people to have less, and deserving ones to have more, and that does seem perfectly just.

But you're still arguing that people should be "economically equal." For you write:

The only other option I see is for everyone to be economically equal.

However, there's obviously no legitimacy to the demand that they SHOULD be equal. Why should people who add and create economic value get no more than those who do not? That seems obviously unjust: you're making some people work, be ingenious, invent, create, generate and innovate, and then you're wanting to take their money to "equalize" with those who do nothing at all.

Why?

I don't think there is ever going to be economic equality because people have different abilities, opportunities, and/or fortune. The only way to change that is either for the wealthier to willingly give to the poorer or else be forced to give to the poorer, OR if private property is abolished altogether or something.

This is the point: why should we aim at equality? It's not just that people have different "opportunities" or "fortune," (whatever that means), but that they should be allowed to use their abilities to get themselves value. In fact, if we don't let them, then how do we as a society get value out of them? If Bill Gates hadn't invented, because he knew we would just take away his money when he did, then how would we have gotten the computers he created?

So what really happens in a Socialist or Marxist scheme, is that the skills, abilities, creativity, ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the courageous is stolen, and its value transferred to people who are doing none of that. Now, that's theft.

Meanwhile, initiative and invention are disincentivized. Economic progress is made impossible. People stop trying. The market has no growth. So the government prints money, in order to paper over its own failures and keep itself in power. Hyperinflation ensues. And the economy collapses -- which is exactly what has happened in every actual case of Socialism, as you can see in Venezuela or Cuba right now.

[Immanuel Can]

I am opposed to the confiscation of any individual's wealth to fund aid to others and any agency that uses, "charity," as an excuse to do wrong.

Of course.

The, "humanitarian aid" industry is not just any charity, it is comprised of a well define system of agencies including the United Nations, "Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), "Inter-Agency Standing Committee, "United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)," "the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR)," "the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)," "World Food Programme (WFP) as well as associated NGOs including, "Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE)," "Oxfam International," "International Committee of the Red Cross," "International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)," "Action Against Hunger (AAH)," "International Medical Corps," and "Refugees International." These agencies are not only financially, politically, and criminally corrupt but are mostly marxist collectivist propaganda machines as well.

Even, "Doctors Without Borders," and "World Vision," have been involved in both political and other questionable activities. (Doctors Without Borders is especially disappointing because it is mostly doctors who provide their service voluntarily. The doctors I know personally who did that were very disappointed in their experience being thwarted politically from helping those that needed it and being forced to follow a socialist political agenda.)

Yeah, that's all true. But there are still good aid agencies out there, and we ought not to let them get pulled down in the muck with that sad lot, right?

[Gary Childress]

But you're still arguing that people should be "economically equal." For you write:

The only other option I see is for everyone to be economically equal.

I'm not arguing that people should be anything. I am simply stating a truism. If everyone were the same economically, then there would be no rich or poor. But if people aren't the same economically then there are relatively rich people and relatively poor people. It's a zero-sum game in a sense. I can't be a wealthy person unless there is someone to compare to who is less wealthy. If I am equal to someone else then I'm not a wealthy person in comparative terms.

[Gary Childress]

On the contrary. Marx loved a good time.
You'd never understand him unless you can place yourself in his historical shoes. He was a Prussian Jew to become stateless and was active politically over 160 years ago at a time when children were working in coal mines. Much of his work was done from tolerant London, though he was plagued with spies from Europe watching his moves. It was quite a different world.

I guess it would depend on who he was with, as to whether they had a good time around him or not. He was certainly hell on the "capitalists". And he didn't seem too keen on the "lumpenproletariat" and "petite bourgeoisie" either. But I think his vision of a classless society was pie in the sky, unfortunately. There will always be differences in wealth and it will always translate into political power and influence. Economics seems, by nature, like a zero-sum game to me. One person's wealth is, by definition, another person's poverty. Therefore to fight for economic equality (perhaps Justice as well) seems like a Sisyphean task--like a punishment from a god.

One man's vision is another man's deliberate misconception.

Can you unpack a little of what you mean by that? I don't follow.

[Immanuel Can]

It's a zero-sum game in a sense. I can't be a wealthy person unless there is someone to compare to who is less wealthy.

Whoa. That's not how a "zero sum" game works, Gary.

In a zero sum game, there's a finite amount of wealth, not an increasing stock of it for all. Thus, in a zero sum economy, it's not just that some have more than others...it's that the "more" they have comes directly from the person who has less. Being rich would then be a synonym for "taking from the poor." That's not how things are at all.

What I'm saying is that the world has been getting steadily wealthier. In fact, people in today's "Third World" have an infant mortality rate that's the same as North America in the earliest part of the last century. Their food, medical care and so on has improved, relative to earlier generations. It's just not as high as it is in the "First World." Today's rich are much richer than rich people before, but today's poor are also much richer than yesterday's poor. In other words, everybody's winning -- just some people are winning faster than others.

And that's not a "zero-sum" game. In a zero sum game, there is only X amount of wealth in the world, and there can be no more. That's simply not true, though.

[Gary Childress]

It's a zero-sum game in a sense. I can't be a wealthy person unless there is someone to compare to who is less wealthy.

Whoa. That's not how a "zero sum" game works, Gary.

In a zero sum game, there's a finite amount of wealth, not an increasing stock of it for all. Thus, in a zero sum economy, it's not just that some have more than others...it's that the "more" they have comes directly from the person who has less. Being rich would then be a synonym for "taking from the poor." That's not how things are at all.

What I'm saying is that the world has been getting steadily wealthier. In fact, people in today's "Third World" have an infant mortality rate that's the same as North America in the earliest part of the last century. Their food, medical care and so on has improved, relative to earlier generations. It's just not as high as it is in the "First World." Today's rich are much richer than rich people before, but today's poor are also much richer than yesterday's poor. In other words, everybody's winning -- just some people are winning faster than others.

And that's not a "zero-sum" game. In a zero sum game, there is only X amount of wealth in the world, and there can be no more. That's simply not true, though.

I see. I'm wrong then. TIL

[Immanuel Can]

I see. I'm wrong then. TIL

I'm not trying to make a point at your expense, Gary. But as I'm sure you know, the idea that wealth is zero-sum is used by Socialists to argue for redistribution.

Now, their argument MIGHT make sense IF it were true that a) there is a finite amount of wealth in the world, and at present, human beings have it all, so can discover or produce no more, and b) if we had reason to say that all people are morally and productively equal, and so that in principle, every person was deserving equally of the same wealth. But neither of these things is true, clearly.

And without those two mistaken ideas, redistribution becomes no longer a matter of "social justice," but rather of political injustice, or theft, levied against those who are most productive and successful. We're punishing good economic behaviour and rewarding bad economic behaviour, if we do that.

My point: Socialism is a really bad, really unjust idea, cloaked as a concern for justice.

[Gary Childress]

I see. I'm wrong then. TIL

I'm not trying to make a point at your expense, Gary. But as I'm sure you know, the idea that wealth is zero-sum is used by Socialists to argue for redistribution.

Now, their argument MIGHT make sense IF it were true that a) there is a finite amount of wealth in the world, and at present, human beings have it all, so can discover or produce no more, and b) if we had reason to say that all people are morally and productively equal, and so that in principle, every person was deserving equally of the same wealth. But neither of these things is true, clearly.

And without those two mistaken ideas, redistribution becomes no longer a matter of "social justice," but rather of political injustice, or theft, levied against those who are most productive and successful. We're punishing good economic behaviour and rewarding bad economic behaviour, if we do that.

My point: Socialism is a really bad, really unjust idea, cloaked as a concern for justice.

It certainly seems that way. I suppose Milton Friedman is right and Noam Chomsky is wrong. They had quite a dispute going back in the day, at least Chomsky did. I'm not sure Friedman ever directly addressed Chomsky but Chomsky mentioned him quite a bit.

[Gary Childress]

My point: Socialism is a really bad, really unjust idea, cloaked as a concern for justice.

I'm curious, though. What about Social Security retirement or disability programs? Are they based on free enterprise? And if not, aren't they, nevertheless, a good thing for society overall? Or what is your take on Social Security?

[Immanuel Can]

It certainly seems that way. I suppose Milton Friedman is right and Noam Chomsky is wrong. They had quite a dispute going back in the day, at least Chomsky did. I'm not sure Friedman ever directly addressed Chomsky but Chomsky mentioned him quite a bit.

I think it's really true that Noam Chomsky was certainly brilliant in some things. For example, his analysis of linguistics was really, really clever. But in terms of political thought, he was just a completely ideologically-possessed person. He could not get his head past a few simple but very, very wrong ideas.

That's not unusual -- for a person to be superb in one area and a fair bit of a dunce in another. Areas of academic thought are so big these days that nobody's a true expert in more than one subcompartment of one discipline. And the danger comes when a man who is smart in his own area feels liberty to range into gratuitous statements of certainty in another of which he has limited grasp. That's Chomsky. It's also the sort of thing one sees in Dawkins, whenever he leaves biology and ranges into ethics or comparative religions. In those areas, he's nearly completely ignorant, but still talks with all the doctrinaire authority of somebody who knows something.

[Immanuel Can]

My point: Socialism is a really bad, really unjust idea, cloaked as a concern for justice.

I'm curious, though. What about Social Security retirement or disability programs? Are they based on free enterprise? And if not, aren't they, nevertheless, a good thing for society overall? Or what is your take on Social Security?

Yes, Social Security cannot survive without capitalism. New wealth must be being generated in order for the social programs to have something to distribute, obviously. Without a continually expanding pool of revenue, the social programs drain the economy dry in short order. So while they seem good in the immediate, because they look like "free money," they are a disaster in the long run, if they are not moderated in their scope and provided with a continually-increasing revenue stream.

Social programs themselves are not Socialism. One can, say, provide employment insurance within a thriving capitalist economy, without crippling it. But that insurance must not be given to freeloaders or to everybody in the population who doesn't actually need it, because if that's what happens then again the system is drained and the economy collapses. The same is true of things like "a living wage," and even of "universal education," which is the second biggest drain on the economy, after the one I'll mention next.

Harder to do is socialized medicine. I live where we have that. And while I'm forever grateful that one surgery or medical crisis cannot financially destroy me, I'm a bit set aback by the fact that we are taxed to the hilt to pay for it, such that more than half of our years' taxes are being devoted to that one issue and still the system is not sustaining itself. Wait times are huge, even for critical procedures, and the technology is just not developing at the rate of that in the US. On top of that, we lose all our best doctors to the States, because they can make much more money there. That's all quite bad, actually, though I still am somewhat grateful for socialized medicine...I just don't know how much longer we can keep it going, though.

In short, I'm only in favour of sustainable social programs. We need to be able to fund them indefinitely. But money does not grow on trees...it grows from things like private enterprise. So it's a mistake to think of social programs and capitalism as an either/or, I would say: without successful capitalism, social programs all drive the economy into the ground. And that's not in the humanitarian interest of anyone, ultimately.

[Gary Childress]

My point: Socialism is a really bad, really unjust idea, cloaked as a concern for justice.

I'm curious, though. What about Social Security retirement or disability programs? Are they based on free enterprise? And if not, aren't they, nevertheless, a good thing for society overall? Or what is your take on Social Security?

Yes, Social Security cannot survive without capitalism. New wealth must be being generated in order for the social programs to have something to distribute, obviously. Without a continually expanding pool of revenue, the social programs drain the economy dry in short order. So while they seem good in the immediate, because they look like "free money," they are a disaster in the long run, if they are not moderated in their scope and provided with a continually-increasing revenue stream.

Social programs themselves are not Socialism. One can, say, provide employment insurance within a thriving capitalist economy, without crippling it. But that insurance must not be given to freeloaders or to everybody in the population who doesn't actually need it, because if that's what happens then again the system is drained and the economy collapses. The same is true of things like "a living wage," and even of "universal education," which is the second biggest drain on the economy, after the one I'll mention next.

Harder to do is socialized medicine. I live where we have that. And while I'm forever grateful that one surgery or medical crisis cannot financially destroy me, I'm a bit set aback by the fact that we are taxed to the hilt to pay for it, such that more than half of our years' taxes are being devoted to that one issue and still the system is not sustaining itself. Wait times are huge, even for critical procedures, and the technology is just not developing at the rate of that in the US. On top of that, we lose all our best doctors to the States, because they can make much more money there. That's all quite bad, actually, though I still am somewhat grateful for socialized medicine...I just don't know how much longer we can keep it going, though.

In short, I'm only in favour of sustainable social programs. We need to be able to fund them indefinitely. But money does not grow on trees...it grows from things like private enterprise. So it's a mistake to think of social programs and capitalism as an either/or, I would say: without successful capitalism, social programs all drive the economy into the ground. And that's not in the humanitarian interest of anyone, ultimately.

But isn't SS just one small step toward greater and greater injustice? Won't free enterprise eliminate all the injustices in the economy? I seem to recall Milton Friedman being against SS. He was also against medical licensing. And, I believe he once said that national borders are detrimental to the labor market. It seems pretty extremist but he does seem to have a point. Perhaps real justice is when the "invisible hand" of the market is allowed to act unencumbered by rules and regulations? If we allow some corruption of this market, doesn't that ultimately become a breeding ground for further corruption?