Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

[henry quirk]

"But via some as yet unannounced logic you are willing to abandon those principles to punish companies for moving jobs abroad, even though those companies are property of persons and you shouldn't be interfering."

You're right, it's dicey & gray. My justification (such as it is): I'm interested in America, look to see America furthered and leaned out. At heart: it's no different than my choosing to do business with independents instead of chain stores (except I have my blunt instrument [Trump] do it for me, on a much larger scale).

It's swiss cheese, I know, but there you have it.

-----

And I keep forgettin' to mention this...

Most of the businesses affected by my 'hypocrisy' operate outside of what I consider the principled sphere. I'm no fan of 'corporation' as 'person'. Seems to me: the paper person allows a whole whack of real ones to avoid consequence (the Deepwater Horizon bein' a good example of responsible folks not bearin' any consquence for bad choices...11 died and not a soul saw a day of jail or -- at least -- got a seat full of rock salt...money got shifted around and that was about all). So: since they're mostly operating outside of what I consider principled I don't get particularly conscience-striken about treatin' 'em as foreign agents.

[FlashDangerpants]

Those reasons have more in common with Sculptor's socialism-lite answer than I anticipated. But that's cool, the specific reasons were going to be a side issue. What's more important is that you started out with a little set of inviolable principles, and then you found a reason to suspend them rather than follow them to a conclusion you didn't enjoy. It makes them a fair weather set of friends really.

The basis of your rules doesn't seem unreasonable, at heart it is a set of prescriptions to prevent the individual - a natural entity - from being subsumed by artifical entities - society, corporation, country, family, tribe, race, and so on. On the whole that shouldn't be very controversial, but it seems it cannot be the whole of the story.

Your suspension of the rule places the society and the country ahead of the individual who owns the company, abrogating his right to deploy the capital he owns in the way that benefits himself rather than society. That's what all of the regulations I advocate are for.

So when push comes to shove, we both seem to think that there are trade offs in this sort of thing.

[Arising_uk]

...
Atheism alone is, as we have already agreed, nothing but a gelding, a nothing, a void, a negation. It always needs a supplement to be liveable.

Once more for the hard of though theist. What you are describing is the ex-theist. The is no negation or void or gelding in an Atheists life we just don't have or need your concept of a 'God'.

[henry quirk]

"you started out with a little set of inviolable principles, and then you found a reason to suspend them rather than follow them to a conclusion you didn't enjoy. It makes them a fair weather set of friends really."

You're right, & I am shamed.

#

"Your suspension of the rule places the society and the country ahead of the individual who owns the company, abrogating his right to deploy the capital he owns in the way that benefits himself rather than society.

Not exactly, but close enough (to the flames) to set my pants on fire.

#

"So when push comes to shove, we both seem to think that there are trade offs in this sort of thing."

No. You've made clear the error in my thinkin' (that perhaps I wasn't thinkin).

If the principle -- a man owns himself and has a right to his life, liberty, and property -- is intrinsic to the man and not subject to the whims, no matter how benign, of his neighbors then it applies to all men, including the rat bastard un-American dog fuckers who'll damn well sell to Americans but won't employ them. As I can, I will avoid his products & services, and advocate for his competitors who choose to do business 'here', but I must abandon a call to force --by way of law -- the rat bastard un-American dog fucker to align himself as I like.

Ya know, Flash, if you intended on bringin' us closer together, you failed. By harpin' on my hypocrisy, you gave me reason to self-interrogate.

We're further apart than we ever were.

Thanks, you done me a solid.

#

"The basis of your rules doesn't seem unreasonable, at heart it is a set of prescriptions to prevent the individual - a natural entity - from being subsumed by [other natural entities, and] artifical entities - society, corporation, country, family, tribe, race, and so on. On the whole that shouldn't be very controversial"

Self-ownership & the right to one's life, liberty, & property is to me as plain and real as the nose on my face, and -- to me -- equally uncontroversial, and yet, it seems to me, the recognition of no other fact is more strongly discouraged 'round the world, across all populations than 'self-ownership'.

[henry quirk]

"subsidize coal miners"

Not gov's place to support or penalize industry...no bail outs & no regulatin' out of existance.

#

"punish companies that move their supply chain across borders"

While I think little of these profiteers: they can do with their businesses as they like...and I, as I can, can deny them my money.

#

"remove unskilled migrant workers from the local economy"

Only the ones who climb in through the bathroom window at 3am.

#

"impose import substitution tarrifs"

Bad to impose them on others; equally bad to allow them to be imposed on you.

#

"cancel multilateral trade deals"

Bad deals ought be laid waste to. What constitues a bad deal is the question.

[FlashDangerpants]

"So when push comes to shove, we both seem to think that there are trade offs in this sort of thing."

No. You've made clear the error in my thinkin' (that perhaps I wasn't thinkin).

If the principle -- a man owns himself and has a right to his life, liberty, and property -- is intrinsic to the man and not subject to the whims, no matter how benign, of his neighbors then it applies to all men, including the rat bastard un-American dog fuckers who'll damn well sell to Americans but won't employ them. As I can, I will avoid his products & services, and advocate for his competitors who choose to do business 'here', but I must abandon a call to force --by way of law -- the rat bastard un-American dog fucker to align himself as I like.

Ya know, Flash, if you intended on bringin' us closer together, you failed. By harpin' on my hypocrisy, you gave me reason to self-interrogate.

We're further apart than we ever were.

Thanks, you done me a solid.

Lol, fair enough. I sort of knew I was reaching beyond my grasp.

"cancel multilateral trade deals"

Bad deals ought be laid waste to. What constitues a bad deal is the question.

Indeed. But think of it this way, if some guy in Brazil wants to sell some beef to some guy in Maryland who wants to buy it, should it not be the job of both governments to get the hell out of their way? Or should the American government do something to influence the guy in Maryland to buy from some other guy in Texas at a slightly higher price?

By my reckoning, a trade deal where the governments get out of the way as much as possible is good, and one where they find yet more ways to not obstruct transactions is even gooder. Yet somehow, both European Socialists and American Trump voters are now using the same set of arguments to complain about this sort of thing and spike those deals.

[henry quirk]

"think of it this way, if some guy in Brazil wants to sell some beef to some guy in Maryland who wants to buy it, should it not be the job of both governments to get the hell out of their way?"

Yep. But that's not what we got 'now', is it?

No, what we got is two govs decidin' what can & can't pass between the two countries, and -- more than likely -- in the 'spirit of compromise' the beef supplier & and potential buyer are both hobbled by the govs 'contracts' & 'trade deals'. So: if beef producer & potential buyer both wanna pressure officials (employees) to end -- what is for them -- a bad deal, then they need to go to town & raise a lil hell.

#

"Or should the American government do something to influence the guy in Maryland to buy from some other guy in Texas at a slightly higher price?"

If American gov is gonna overstep (and it does) and negotiate on behalf of the fella in Maryland, then negotiate on his behalf & get the damned best deal, not the 'compromise' or the half-measure.

#

By my reckoning, a trade deal where the governments get out of the way as much as possible is good, and one where they find yet more ways to not obstruct transactions is even gooder. Yet somehow, both European Socialists and American Trump voters are now using the same set of arguments to complain about this sort of thing and spike those deals."

I agree. As I told Nick in another thread: it's damn easy to get side-tracked, to compromise one's principles. I got myself side-tracked (*and I'm no dumb, inexperienced, bunny) so when you actually 'trust' your employees to be good reps and they lead you astray, it's no surprise that you may find yourself supportin' crap you normally wouldn't.

Anyway, as I say: 'Bad deals ought be laid waste to. What constitues a bad deal is the question.'

Mebbe, you & me, agree on what constitutes a bad deal, though mebbe we don't agree on how to end such a thing.

#

"Lol, fair enough. I sort of knew I was reaching beyond my grasp."

You gave it a good shot: got me to align policy to philosophy, so, that's sumthin'.









*so: I got no real excuse...I don't trust 'em (includin' Trump), I know better than to take any of it without a handful of salt...I got lazy, in my thinkin' & my analysis...if I can get hoodwinked: anyone can

[FlashDangerpants]

"think of it this way, if some guy in Brazil wants to sell some beef to some guy in Maryland who wants to buy it, should it not be the job of both governments to get the hell out of their way?"

Yep. But that's not what we got 'now', is it?

No, what we got is two govs decidin' what can & can't pass between the two countries, and -- more than likely -- in the 'spirit of compromise' the beef supplier & and potential buyer are both hobbled by the govs 'contracts' & 'trade deals'. So: if beef producer & potential buyer both wanna pressure officials (employees) to end -- what is for them -- a bad deal, then they need to go to town & raise a lil hell.

What you have now is very low tarrifs, but very high subsidies to the American farmer to help him compete. Subsidies which may have been increased recently to help out during a trade war.

There's a reason why Iowa gets the first primary in your elections, it's so that farmers can get in there and force candidates to stay commited to subsidy regimes. It's all about preferring owners and suppliers to consumers in the market (which is why both left and right wing voters can be sold on this stuff so easily but free tradin' Liberals always object)

A good trade deal should force participants to drop these subsidy schemes, at least to lower values than they are used to or would otherwise pursue. The best ones help phase them out entirely. As a neo-classical-neo-libtard I obviously don't think all subsidy schemes are bad, but trade deals usually target the import-substitution regimes, which are usually mostly bad in outcome and intent.

Although, I gotta say, the whole world is horrified by what goes into American beef, if you wanna export it, maybe don't do that stuff with the hormones. You guys might get better trade deals more easily if you didn't try to force feed us that stuff.

[FlashDangerpants]

...
Atheism alone is, as we have already agreed, nothing but a gelding, a nothing, a void, a negation. It always needs a supplement to be liveable.

Once more for the hard of though theist. What you are describing is the ex-theist. The is no negation or void or gelding in an Atheists life we just don't have or need your concept of a 'God'.

It's a phsychological problem at this point. Mannie-who-is-without-sin has done this thing where he fills up his entire existence with his religion, it's hard to think of anything he does that isn't effectively an act of devotion. When Mannie farts, that is his bunghole trumpeting its thanfulness to God for the plate of beans he ate last night.

As a consequence of this complete sublimation of himself to his creed, he views the world entirely through that same same prism, and if he tries to imagine that world without it, the prism is gone and he sees very little. He has filled every hole in his being with so much God that he probably cannot shit right, he perceives only gaping emptiness when he tries to imagine anyone not doing the same.

The thought that we happen to not believe in God, and not think that's a big deal is therefore beyond his fanatical grasp, always will be. The notion that we don't define ourselves by our irreligion is even more beyond him. (Gotta say, there are plenty of atheists out there for whom this is perfectly valid criticism, some of those guys are fucking nuts and as far as I can tell they seem to be angry at god for not existing.)

One day perhaps, he could be persuaded that if he were telling the truth about all his moral precepts coming from his religion, he would be a lot less judgmental than he is. But persuading him that an entirely adequate moral life need not be founded on religion is impossible. He thinks that religion is the cure for all problems of moral objectivity and he absolutely believes that this problem is total and must be fixed, all of which feeds with delicious circularity into the religion he already believes.

[Immanuel Can]

Mannie-who-is-without-sin

I've never met him...but he sounds really nice. Can you introduce us?

the prism is gone and he sees very little.

It's not my "prism."

It's the Atheists who tell me their creed amounts to a one-sentence negation, and no more.

In fact, they insist upon it.

(Gotta say, there are plenty of atheists out there for whom this is perfectly valid criticism, some of those guys are fucking nuts and as far as I can tell they seem to be angry at god for not existing.)

As C.S. Lewis, the former Atheist put it...

“I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.”

[henry quirk]

"What you have now is very low tarrifs, but very high subsidies to the American farmer to help him compete. Subsidies which may have been increased recently to help out during a trade war."

Here, in south louisiana, farm subsidies are a way of life and have been for years. I can count on one hand the farmers of my acquaintance who don't take 'em. Under the current system finite subsides may have a place, but not for years on end. Time for a phase out.

#

"There's a reason why Iowa gets the first primary in your elections, it's so that farmers can get in there and force candidates to stay commited to subsidy regimes. It's all about preferring owners and suppliers to consumers in the market (which is why both left and right wing voters can be sold on this stuff so easily but free tradin' Liberals always object)"

If the EC were reformed as I want: Iowa would just be one of fifty. And, as I say, gov ought not be favorin' one over the other. Let the natural interplay between transactors (and the natural tension between supply & demand) happen.

#

"A good trade deal should force participants to drop these subsidy schemes, at least to lower values than they are used to or would otherwise pursue. The best ones help phase them out entirely. As a neo-classical-neo-libtard I obviously don't think all subsidy schemes are bad, but trade deals usually target the import-substitution regimes, which are usually mostly bad in outcome and intent."

I think they're awful ('cept mebbe to rebalance scales that got tilted by sumthin' other than an unrestrained market).

#

"Although, I gotta say, the whole world is horrified by what goes into American beef, if you wanna export it, maybe don't do that stuff with the hormones. You guys might get better trade deals more easily if you didn't try to force feed us that stuff.

Yer nuts: American Cow is Grade A stuff! It'll put hair on your chest (and everyehere else [or turn you into a girl]).

#

Gotta say: I don't get the bile directed at Mannie. Not a one of you is obligated to communicate with him or defend yourselves against him. Me: I find him pleasant, intelligent, and just a tad bit 'superior' from time to time. We agree on little, him & me (and I'm not 'walk in the park under sunny skies' nice), but we get along. Why is that? And why isn't that with the rest of you?

[henry quirk]

Mostly gonna leave this one be. Here, lots of folks get hoodwinked into thinkin' they must live in or near X and so a whole whack of folks, in increasing numbers, try to cram themselves into an obviously finite space (let's call it the 'Manhattan Problem '). The rest, content away from the lights of Broadway (and the tinsel of Hollywood [or any of the pale imitatiors sprinkled throughout the U.S.]), have a lot of reasonable housing choices on 'the worthless lands' (that's how you phrased it, yeah?) between east & west coasts (and outside 'must be in' hustle-bustle centers).

[FlashDangerpants]

Mostly gonna leave this one be. Here, lots of folks get hoodwinked into thinkin' they must live in or near X and so a whole whack of folks, in increasing numbers, try to cram themselves into an obviously finite space (let's call it the 'Manhattan Problem '). The rest, content away from the lights of Broadway (and the tinsel of Hollywood [or any of the pale imitatiors sprinkled throughout the U.S.]), have a lot of reasonable housing choices on 'the worthless lands' (that's how you phrased it, yeah?) between east & west coasts (and outside 'must be in' hustle-bustle centers).

"virtually worthless", strictly in reference to $ per square foot. I'm sure it's just as nice as any square foot of dirt can possibly be.

Some of those places are naturally bound such as Manhattan or hong Kong. Not much to be done there, supply and demand being what they are, prices will be what they are too. But most are merely legislatively encumbered. While I was referencing the specific way we do that in Britain in that post, the US has similar situations in many cities. Minneapolis has recently decided to quit assigning land for single family dwellings only which is addressing much the same problem.

[FlashDangerpants]

Mannie-who-is-without-sin

I've never met him...but he sounds really nice. Can you introduce us?

You'd throw a stone at him.

[henry quirk]

"virtually worthless", strictly in reference to $ per square foot. I'm sure it's just as nice as any square foot of dirt can possibly be.

Oh sure, I got that. Casa de Quirk is in a shit town in a shit state but me and the kid like it fine.

While I was referencing the specific way we do that in Britain in that post, the US has similar situations in many cities

Absolutely. They're the hustle-bustle centers and the pale imitators I mentioned, the place people gravitate to for any number of wacky (to me) reasons.