Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] the partial and limited view

Expand Messages
  • Exist List Moderator
    Anarchy as theory takes libertarian freedoms to the point they fail. People need order within a society; some people are born leaders or even dictators and we
    Message 1 of 5 , May 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Anarchy as theory takes libertarian freedoms to the point they fail.
      People need order within a society; some people are born leaders or
      even dictators and we need some rules to limit their pursuits of power
      and authority. A lot more people want to be led than want to lead -- so
      I worry that they will follow anyone promising easy answers.

      As a libertarian, I know I am far from the socialism of the people
      around me. I am neither a socialist nor a corporatist, which confuses
      people. I think the fact companies can and do manipulate government
      laws and regulations means the companies cease to be "capitalistic." If
      you seek laws to protect yourself from competition and free market, or
      seek special tax breaks, you are not really practicing capitalism.
      (Even Adam Smith suggested government must ensure a fair and open
      market, with honesty sustained by the courts and contracts.)

      Anarchy fails because many people are not honest. They will do anything
      for power and money. They will lie about what their product does, lie
      about how much effort they put into work, et cetera. Socialism fails
      for the same reasons -- people manipulate any system.

      It is sad, but we need just enough laws to protect us from each other,
      while avoiding having so many laws that freedom is lost. The balance is
      not easy. I suggest you let people buy and sell whatever they want, as
      long as they know the risks. I also think people should be free to try
      and fail at most anything at all. However, people should admit they
      might fail -- and government should not pick up the pieces every time.

      Because I am tired, I'm probably not explaining my distrust of anarchy
      very well. I am somewhere between philosophies, like most people. I
      want to be free to do what I want, but I also do not trust the rest of
      humanity to behave in the way I might consider ethical.

      Too many people think "capitalism" is devoid of ethics, when in fact
      Adam Smith and others did explain that ethical behavior was the only
      way for capitalism to work. This is true of any political system --
      which is why all system are weak and can fail. Even in a theocracy,
      people will manipulate and lie.

      So, I am a libertarian instead of an anarchist, and a capitalist
      instead of a corporatist. Unfortunately, too many Americans (and
      Europeans) think being a libertarian is the same as being a neo-liberal
      or neo-conservative. We don't educate our youth well enough to
      understand what it means to "believe" in any set of philosophies.

      As a result, young "anarchists" protest against "capitalism" without a
      clue as to what the terms mean.

      -- CSW


      I have been away for the last week, and off-list for a bit longer. I
      was presenting at a conference in Texas and many things that could go
      wrong did with both the presentation and the trip. Nothing like a
      tornado and severe storm warning to remind me why I like California.
      Quakes are a lot less destructive and you don't have to watch them
      approach on the local TV channels.
    • Trinidad Cruz
      ... wrote: I think the fact companies can and do manipulate government laws and regulations means the companies cease to be capitalistic.If
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
        <existlist1@...> wrote:

        "I think the fact companies can and do manipulate government laws and
        regulations means the companies cease to be "capitalistic.If you seek
        laws to protect yourself from competition and free market, or seek
        special tax breaks, you are not really practicing capitalism."

        I have always looked at this as a statistical anomaly. Though it
        should be "one man - one vote", with influence peddling and lobbying
        we have a democracy that is weighed out most often only in dollars,
        and one man can deliver thousands of votes. Companies are still
        practicing capitalism when seeking to buy government advantages.
        Bribery and pandering are capitalist activities. A capitalist is not
        compelled to moral or ethical claim and arguments to that effect are
        silly. There is a vast difference between Enron's Lay gang and say
        industrialists like Carnegie and Pullman. Capitalism slipped from any
        ethical postition a long time ago, but then so has every other naive
        view of social organization. I love the mixers. I loved Drexel back in
        the day, and I like Chavez and Citgo selling heating oil for
        forty-five percent of the market price to designated poor communities
        in the US. I think that capitalism is not a theory, not even in a
        mathematical sense. It's just the old need and greed paradigm,
        regardless of how some philosophers have tried to bandwagon it to the
        moral high ground as both the prerequisite and result of freedom.
        Neither is true. Capitalism is a human event in a representational
        view. In my opinion Deleuze has a strange poetic but poignantly
        concise turn on it.If we would really consider capitalism as a
        philosophical theory it would line up rather neatly with a lot of the
        anarchist view; but in the end capitalism is actually not a
        philosophy, actually not a way of life, or even a way of living, just
        a system of counting.

        Trinidad
      • Albert
        Now Trinidad, It is the least evil system. Besides, greed and counting are an essential components to progress, period, and without it there is no progress.
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Now Trinidad,

          It is the least evil system. Besides, greed and "counting" are an essential
          components to progress, period, and without it there is no progress.

          Albert.




          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
          To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:49 PM
          Subject: [existlist] Re: the partial and limited view


          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
          <existlist1@...> wrote:

          "I think the fact companies can and do manipulate government laws and
          regulations means the companies cease to be "capitalistic.If you seek
          laws to protect yourself from competition and free market, or seek
          special tax breaks, you are not really practicing capitalism."

          I have always looked at this as a statistical anomaly. Though it
          should be "one man - one vote", with influence peddling and lobbying
          we have a democracy that is weighed out most often only in dollars,
          and one man can deliver thousands of votes. Companies are still
          practicing capitalism when seeking to buy government advantages.
          Bribery and pandering are capitalist activities. A capitalist is not
          compelled to moral or ethical claim and arguments to that effect are
          silly. There is a vast difference between Enron's Lay gang and say
          industrialists like Carnegie and Pullman. Capitalism slipped from any
          ethical postition a long time ago, but then so has every other naive
          view of social organization. I love the mixers. I loved Drexel back in
          the day, and I like Chavez and Citgo selling heating oil for
          forty-five percent of the market price to designated poor communities
          in the US. I think that capitalism is not a theory, not even in a
          mathematical sense. It's just the old need and greed paradigm,
          regardless of how some philosophers have tried to bandwagon it to the
          moral high ground as both the prerequisite and result of freedom.
          Neither is true. Capitalism is a human event in a representational
          view. In my opinion Deleuze has a strange poetic but poignantly
          concise turn on it.If we would really consider capitalism as a
          philosophical theory it would line up rather neatly with a lot of the
          anarchist view; but in the end capitalism is actually not a
          philosophy, actually not a way of life, or even a way of living, just
          a system of counting.

          Trinidad










          Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

          Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
          Yahoo! Groups Links









          --
          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG Free Edition.
          Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/353 - Release Date: 5/31/2006
        • Exist List Moderator
          ... Actually, it is not silly to call upon the moral imperatives Smith and others said were necessary for true capitalism to survive. Once you lose the moral
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 5, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Jun 01, 2006, at 8:49, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

            > and one man can deliver thousands of votes. Companies are still
            > practicing capitalism when seeking to buy government advantages.
            > Bribery and pandering are capitalist activities. A capitalist is not
            > compelled to moral or ethical claim and arguments to that effect are
            > silly.

            Actually, it is not "silly" to call upon the moral imperatives Smith
            and others said were necessary for true capitalism to survive. Once you
            lose the moral obligations to society and to whatever moral compass you
            have (admitted for Smith and his colleagues this was a Christian
            ethic), then anything becomes possible.

            The loss of morality / ethics is evident, as you admit, in all social
            systems. I certainly would not present any current world leader or
            government as a model of perfection. Ethics are stuck in some
            soft-n-chewy (not my quote) postmodern relativism that refuses to seek
            clarity but rather strives to show how no ethical system is valid
            because all are valid.

            Capitalism is not Enron, unless you consider the notion that Smith was
            correct when he suggested the courts might be the final solution when
            morality and social ethics fail. At least some stockholders are
            starting to use their ownership to challenge executive hubris.

            > I love the mixers. I loved Drexel back in
            > the day, and I like Chavez and Citgo selling heating oil for
            > forty-five percent of the market price to designated poor communities
            > in the US.

            I consider Chavez incredibly dangerous, and increasingly so do his
            neighbors. Unfortunately, generations of corruption supported by the
            Cold War have ruined the political systems of Latin America. The United
            States and Soviet Union did their best to dominate the puppet states,
            depriving the residents of self-determination.

            Now, anyone promising a better life can win for a cycle or two. That
            Caracas is the "most dangerous city in the hemisphere" (Amnesty
            International) doesn't seem to register with Chavez supporters. He will
            eventually use the high crime rate to justify some manner of
            power-grab. We've seen this in Chile, Columbia, and Brazil.

            > concise turn on it.If we would really consider capitalism as a
            > philosophical theory it would line up rather neatly with a lot of the
            > anarchist view; but in the end capitalism is actually not a
            > philosophy, actually not a way of life, or even a way of living, just
            > a system of counting.

            No philosophy works, under this strict notion that you can actually
            implement a pure version of the political or economic. Human nature
            will always interfere. This is why the libertarians and anarchists try
            to limit government -- it has the ultimate power, and the people in
            charge are just people. I don't trust people to do the right thing
            without some manner of public way to cause shame or even humiliation.
            In capitalism, competition is the balancing force, along with the
            notion of complete and honest contractual obligations.

            In "corporatism" (internationalism, or whatever you wish to call it),
            we approach the unholy alliance of government and industry, as was the
            case with fascism and Soviet-style "Communism" we see morphing under
            Putin. China is a more extreme example, but I'm not certain where it
            will evolve. When the government and industry are one, there are no
            checks on power. The leaders of one are the leaders of the other.

            This concerns me right now because when we allow power to become
            centralized, new ideas and even radical rejections of current ideas
            become nearly impossible. No "philosophy" except self-focused,
            inner-peace type solutions become viable when the individual is
            stripped of power.

            Then, you have the existentialism of Frankl or the absurdism of Camus.
            This is where I often turn for reading, and see no conflict with their
            notions and my dream of an individual-based society. I know it is a
            dream because most people... we know what they are like. They aren't
            about to go without handouts or leaders to follow.

            - C. S. Wyatt
            I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
            that I shall be.
            http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
            http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.