Is Socialism OK with Mormons now?


WhatMeWorry
 Share

Recommended Posts

Inasmuch as politics is the manner whereby normative economics are implemented, there can be no distinction. This is the same for religion and politics. When establishments of religion are respected by the state, their formulation and upkeep are a function of the state. This is the reason why church and state are best kept apart. If they are not, religious freedom must be impaired. The same is true for any economic entity.

It must be understood that economics is not simply the production, distribution, and consumption of "secular" material wealth among a society of men. Making a commitment to have family home evening is no less an economic decision than buying a house. Many of us would even go so far as to say that such a commitment is more important and should require more thought than buying a house. Economics deals with ALL value judgments. Reading the Book of Mormon rather than watching TV is an economic decision.

Classical Liberalism is embodied in the notion of individual freedom. Inasmuch as the individual is prevented from making his/her own choices, we depart from liberalism. Compulsary state socialism is an absolute departure from liberalism. It simply holds that the state should make decisions for the individual rather than the individual making decisions for him/herself. Compulsary state socialism therefore cannot be confined to "secular material wealth".

Compulsary state socialism is not a form of government, but an ideal. Capitalism also is not a form of government, but an ideal. A monarch could take up the ideal of either. But inasmuch as a government, regardless of its form, take up compulsary state socialism, individual freedom is supplanted by definition.

To the capitalist, the purpose of government is to maximize individual freedom. The true capitalist has no desire to use government to guarantee his/her own well being material or otherwise. Government's only purpose is to protect individual freedom. The capitalist understands that all well being can only come from liberty.

The state socialist believes the purpose of government is to provide the well being of the people at the cost of individual freedom. What they do not see is that well being is a subjective valuation which each individual defines. Therefore, government is powerless to provide the well being of all. It is thus limited to provide only the well being of those who most control government while destroying the well being of all others.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Inasmuch as politics is the manner whereby normative economics are implemented, there can be no distinction. This is the same for religion and politics. When establishments of religion are respected by the state, their formulation and upkeep are a function of the state. This is the reason why church and state are best kept apart. If they are not, religious freedom must be impaired. The same is true for any economic entity.

-a-train

I think the only reason they are kept apart is because governments wouldn't work with the Church and how it is established. Our governments are corrupt and so therefor the Prophet or more so the Lord wouldn't allow it to be run together. This is the only reason to me. The Church needs to be protected from the evil designs of the world leaders and not be infiltrated unto destruction.

This is proven when Christ will establish the Millenium, and he will be in charge of a world government. The Church and government will be righteous, however the Church can't get involved in government as such at the moment because it would cause lynch mobs on us again. You would have perfect economics, governance, laws, politics and equality, which couldn't exist if the Church got involved with politics at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom is a unit. It matters not whether it is our economic freedom, our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion, or any other division of freedom that is in peril, all freedom is good and all captivity is evil. Any bondage wherein man is brought is an injury to his freedom.

-a-train

I would humbly disagree, A-train. "How many freedoms do we need to be free?"

Are compulsory seatbelt laws evil? What about laws that require parents to put seatbelts on their childseats? Couldn't the child choose not to be confined?

People have shouted the battlecry 'Tyranny!' when governments have implemented public smoking bans, while others have stated that public smoking endangers the health of those around the smoker.

Under laissez-faire capitalism, there were we can look at this quote: "In a comprehensive piece on what led to the mortgage crisis and the subsequent financial meltdown, the New York Times shows how the Bush administration's devotion to unregulated markets was a primary cause of our economy to ruin. But the otherwise fascinating piece puts too much focus on the "mistakes" the Bush team made by not paying attention to the warning signs popping up all around them. "

and the New York Times had this to say about lack of regulation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

I'm not asking for you to agree with these speakers, A-train. I know you have a solid grasping of economics. I also honestly believe that true laissez-faire economics has never existed to give it a fair try(The same could be said of socialism, truthfully). What I'm looking to do is to give evidence that others passionately disagree with you that true hands-off non-interventionist thinking in the economy will harm far more than help.

Economic Anarchy(Which is what true government non-interventionism would be), I believe, would result in tyranny. We have seen it where massive companies such as Walmart will move in to a place, drop prices below cost to drive their competitors out of business and then jack up the prices after the companies go out of business. Since they have deeper pockets, this is not just accepted, it's inevitable without regulation.

Actually, I might even be arguing against a stance that you probably don't carry. You obviously agree that it shouldn't be legal to advertise your skills as an assassin to handle problems, or make bidding wars for protection rackets. What limitations do you think should be placed on monopolies or 'for gain' activities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st. Anything that one does which imposes costs on others without their consent is against the precept of liberalism. Laissez-faire economic policy does not allow people to injure one another, the "hands off" concept of it is that government does not make economic decisions for the individual without their consent. But it also means that individuals cannot make economic decisions for other individuals without their consent.

The example of a person who is somehow compelled to take on second hand smoke, the courts would protect them in a liberal society. However, in a private business (like a bar), the bar owner should be allowed to decide whether he will allow smoking therein. Each visitor is then allowed to decide whether they will endure the smoke or not. Government should not be employed to give anyone the power to force the business owner and his smoking customers to provide a smoke-free environment. The liberal government would not make the decision for the bar-owner or any of his smoking clients or any non-smokers.

However, a public property (like a courthouse) because it is not privately owned and is for the purpose of facilitating public activities would need some regulation to accomodate a smoke-free environment for individuals who have business to conduct there but do not wish to take on second hand smoke. This is especially true for those required by law to be present in the courthouse (such as those on trial).

Since the 60's, the distinction between private and public property has been obscured in the United States. Businesses are more and more considered as public property.

A perfect example of just how bad this very issue is in my own town is the fact that the national casinos (Harrahs, Ameristar, Argosy) pushed for the smoking ban here. Meanwhile, they were the only businesses with an exemption to the rule. The ban passed, now there are just a few non-locally owned bars in the casinos wherein drinkers can also smoke at the bar while the local bar owners will suffer fines and the threat of revocation of license for allowing smoking. The casinos are betting this will give them a further edge in the market.

Trace the effects of any government intervention such as this, and you will see that it is designed to benefit certain groups at the expense of others. In this case, the casinos benefit at the expense of the other bars.

Parents are obligated to care for their children. They should not impose undue costs on their children or on others. Thus, they should pay reparations if their neglect results in such costs.

The accusations that the Bush administration's laissez-faire approach caused the credit bubble that burst last year is laughable. Bush only posed as a laissez-faire type while intervention and cronyism went Richter scale. The political impetus to make this argument is the agenda of the left. They hope to convince folks that their normative policies which they have proposed for decades would have saved us this recent misfortune and will do so in the future if implemented.

The reality is that the current administration is doing little different. The bailouts and stimulus packages didn't begin last January, Bush and his homies were experts at that stuff. Alan Greenspan put the prime rate at 1% after the dot-com bust. The current tactics are far from new or different.

The truth about monopolies is that they come from government intervention, not the lack thereof. Name a single monopoly that wasn't government created. A case in point is the casino monopoly on smoking bars in Kansas City.

Take also the argument laid against (insert the name of the big company that laid off your brother or put your grandma's general store out of business here). These arguments have been around for ever.

Suppose big bad Walmart puts out ma's and pa's with "killer" low prices and then hikes them once ma and pa close. What will be the effect? The new higher prices will allow a competitor to open right back up. Think that is wishful thinking? I own a small business and we have competitors open and close every few months (although I admit that nobody has opened recently with the economic fears keeping people from doing so).

Go to any small town in Arkansas (my wife is from Camden). Of course, there is a big Walmart. Look around. All the other thriving businesses are where? Stacked right on top of that Walmart. In fact, the Walmart draws consumers from all over the county helping the many other businesses there.

Walmart in my neighborhood here is surrounded by the following: Target, Best Buy, JC Penney, Kohls, TJ Maxx, Marshalls, Dillard's, Victoria's Secret, Hot Topic, Ambercrombe, American Eagle, Petsmart, K Mart, Lowe's, Home Depot, Barnes & Noble, Border's, a Christian bookstore, Chipotle, Taco Bell, McDonald's, Long John Silvers, Wendy's Winstead's, Subway (two), Planet Sub, Chuck E. Cheese's, dealerships for Ford, Toyota, Lexus, Honda, Nissan, and Saturn, several grocery stores, several gas stations, over 30 more restaurants, video rentals, a hospital, library, and large outdoor a mall with a lot of shops (including mine) and much more.

The Walmart was here FIRST.

Anarchy would allow whoever is the toughest to have his/her way with whoever they would. Liberal government would not. Liberal government upholds the rule of law. However, the purpose of the law is not to make decisions for economic entities (be they individuals or groups) but to prevent entities from imposing costs on others.

Liberal government would protect no one from competition in the free-market. This would be true for both small and large. Consider Sears and their size and market-share when Sam Walton was running a single store. To say that his gaining market-share was impossible would have been flat wrong. This all said, Walmart deserves no more protection than Sears. If in the next decade a smart group puts the pain to Walmart, so be it.

Standard Oil was the Walmart of a century ago against which authors dramatized the great evils of the dreaded giant. The claim was that it was "cutting to kill" on its way to monopoly. It never got full market share and never raised prices. In fact, it radically reduced the cost of oil in the United States. It was simple competition that caused its decline, not Uncle Sam.

Let us suppose though that a "deep-pocket" company actually posts a loss in order to drive out competition. What this means is that this company is actually disbursing its wealth to the consumers! Somehow we are supposed to think that is bad. The reality is that companies don't usually do this because it is a losing strategy. They end up putting themselves out of business. (I don't know why people find it difficult to understand that giving out products at a loss is unsustainable).

I know first hand about that strategy. I had a competitor (with presumably more money than I) try to do it to me. He was selling product at wholesale prices. Long story short: he is out of business and I am doing well.

In fact, many businesses have tried this strategy and I've never seen one succeed. Walmart does NOT do it. If they have a store in the red they either turn it around quick or close it. They know all too well it is a losing endeavor.

What Walmart does is take advantage of economies of scale (they buy and ship in bulk). They also own their own distribution. This is a good thing. We want products and services to be the most efficiently produced and distributed in our economy.

The people who made candles were thrown out of the candle business by Thomas Edison. The wagon makers were thrown out by Henry Ford. The USPS is being thrown out by Fred Smith, Jim Casey, and Bill Gates.

This is a good thing. We can either fight to preserve stone-age tasks, or put people to work at modern jobs. We don't need as many candle makers, we need electrical engineers. We don't need a guy on a horse, we need FedEx pilots.

The basics of economics is that we use scarce resources to the most economical benefit. Labor is among the factors of production. We NEED labor to be freed up for more economical activities. We NEED those GM workers elsewhere.

The trouble is that government too often delays the reallocation of resources which the market calls for. This only prolongs the pains and deepens the costs of misallocated resources.

Suppose, being on an island, I volunteer to collect firewood for us. Others volunteer to build shelter, to make beds, and to purify water. Who is catching food? Someone will have to stop doing whatever they are doing to fish or hunt. In a large economy like ours, the needed allocations of labor are often more difficult to see. Worse, the continued stacking of firewood to the sky is less obvious. Regardless, government needs to allow these reallocations, but intervention actually slows that process.

More later. Hope that answers some of your questions. Read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson for a quick, easy, but thorough discussion on the subject.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument goes too far when in reality is quite simple. Laws exist to protect property rights. Anything else is an intrusion of the government into private property and encroaching in our liberty and freedom.

We have become fat and complacent and allowed the bureaucracy to do the same. Now we have the best paid but poorly qualified and unmotivated bureaucrats entrenched in government which the people are almost powerless to change. Arbitrary and dictatorial laws (and taxes) continue to be enacted by "executive order" with total and complete disregard for the voice of the people.

Remember the story about frogs cooked alive by bring the water slowly to a boil? Sounds familiar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument goes too far when in reality is quite simple. Laws exist to protect property rights. Anything else is an intrusion of the government into private property and encroaching in our liberty and freedom.

What about the protection of personal liberties? Do you include those in property rights?

I, for one, am fascinated by this discussion. Keep it up guys. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the protection of personal liberties? Do you include those in property rights?

I, for one, am fascinated by this discussion. Keep it up guys. :cool:

Yes, it is a right in the constitution; to feel secure in your property and your person. Personal liberty relates to what you can do as a human being in the space that is yours by right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I am coming into this late...

Anybody who believe Ezra Taft Benson was a prophet of God should have a problem with socialism.

If you haven't yet reviewed earlier pages, Ezra Taft Benson was discussed in depth. It was posited by those who appreciate governments with broad powers that President Benson was speaking more from his personal views than from a prophetic standpoint.

Look back on the earlier conversation, if you are inclined.

Cheers,

Kawazu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you haven't yet reviewed earlier pages, Ezra Taft Benson was discussed in depth. It was posited by those who appreciate governments with broad powers that President Benson was speaking more from his personal views than from a prophetic standpoint.

Look back on the earlier conversation, if you are inclined.

Cheers,

Kawazu

If you were a Prophet of God, would you have one view as the Prophet, and another view personally on the same subject?????? Think about it, c'mon. Nephi and Joseph Smith must have been crack pots too speaking of conspiracies and secret combinations and communism/socialism!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were a Prophet of God, would you have one view as the Prophet, and another view personally on the same subject?????? Think about it, c'mon. Nephi and Joseph Smith must have been crack pots too speaking of conspiracies and secret combinations and communism/socialism!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairlds.org%2FFAIR_Brochures%2FWhat_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf&ei=cSz-SdiaHJy6tAOliKXYAQ&usg=AFQjCNGhW7Um9rboSauJDmNrfXm4CIe7-g&sig2=_I_upveo8ZTuLjadiiuyuQ

A PDF link by FAIRlds which explains what is official doctrine of the Church.

Edited by Kawazu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm not leaving to go anywhere. I love my country, and will do whatever I can, and want, to remain politically active, because of my love for my country.

I will never buy into people's nonsense that because I don't agree with them politically, then I don't deserve to be here.

Additionally, people who truly believe one should "Love It or Leave It," don't understand why this country was founded in the first place.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm not leaving to go anywhere. I love my country, and will do whatever I can, and want, to remain politically active, because of my love for my country.

I will never buy into people's nonsense that because I don't agree with them politically, then I don't deserve to be here.

Additionally, people who truly believe one should "Love It or Leave It," don't understand why this country was founded in the first place.

Elphaba

People that believe that government should control all aspects of our lives and steal money from hardworking people to pay for those who are not, don't understand why this country was founded either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if it is official doctrine of the church or not, my point is, you have a view on a certain subject right? Would that change if all of a sudden you became the Prophet? How could it, unless you had inner conflicts, or split personalities, or chronic schizophrenia.

The Prophet is not Obama Hussein, or any other politician, say one thing but do the opposite. His views as a Prophet were the same as his personal views. What he said may not have been what your views are or what you deem as scripture, however much it was scripture or not. Besides not everybody agrees the same with anything in the standard works either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eldridge Cleaver, a prominent leader of the Black Panthers, moved to Cuba. He rejected the materialistic and terrible ways of capitalism. After bouncing around in socialist circles in Cuba and Europe, he came home even in the face of criminal charges. He said that he would rather be a prisoner in capitalist America than a guest of a socialist regime. He later became Mormon.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mix a cup of ignorance, with a tablespoon of hyperbole, stick it in the oven until it's half-baked, and this is what you come up:

People that believe that government should control all aspects of our lives and steal money from hardworking people to pay for those who are not, don't understand why this country was founded either.

I've never met, nor am I aware of, one single person who thinks our government should control all aspects of our lives and steal money from hardworking people to pay for those who are not.

I know a few fanatic people, like you, who believe people think that. But they, and you, are wrong.

Elphaba

Edited by Elphaba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mix a cup of ignorance, with a tablespoon of hyperbole, stick it in the oven until it's half-baked, and this is what you come up:

I've never met, nor am I aware of, one single person who thinks our government should control all aspects of our lives and steal money from hardworking people to pay for those who are not.

I know a few fanatic people, like you, who believe people think that. But they, and you, are wrong.

Elphaba

Of course you are right Elphaba. No one wants the government to control ALL aspects of our lives. That being said, the direction of the government is concerning to many.......perhaps not you. But honestly, taxation in our country is oppressive. I am not one of those who believe we should not be taxed, but I do think that we are over taxed and our money is OFTEN, not always , but often wasted.

Maybe a better statement would have been that if one thinks that the government should care for you from the cradle to the grave through costly entitlement programs, funded by the most successful of our population then they do not understand why our country was founded or the ultimate detriment that it causes to the future economic prosperity of this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st. Anything that one does which imposes costs on others without their consent is against the precept of liberalism. Laissez-faire economic policy does not allow people to injure one another, the "hands off" concept of it is that government does not make economic decisions for the individual without their consent. But it also means that individuals cannot make economic decisions for other individuals without their consent.

The example of a person who is somehow compelled to take on second hand smoke, the courts would protect them in a liberal society. However, in a private business (like a bar), the bar owner should be allowed to decide whether he will allow smoking therein. Each visitor is then allowed to decide whether they will endure the smoke or not. Government should not be employed to give anyone the power to force the business owner and his smoking customers to provide a smoke-free environment. The liberal government would not make the decision for the bar-owner or any of his smoking clients or any non-smokers.

However, a public property (like a courthouse) because it is not privately owned and is for the purpose of facilitating public activities would need some regulation to accomodate a smoke-free environment for individuals who have business to conduct there but do not wish to take on second hand smoke. This is especially true for those required by law to be present in the courthouse (such as those on trial).

Since the 60's, the distinction between private and public property has been obscured in the United States. Businesses are more and more considered as public property.

A perfect example of just how bad this very issue is in my own town is the fact that the national casinos (Harrahs, Ameristar, Argosy) pushed for the smoking ban here. Meanwhile, they were the only businesses with an exemption to the rule. The ban passed, now there are just a few non-locally owned bars in the casinos wherein drinkers can also smoke at the bar while the local bar owners will suffer fines and the threat of revocation of license for allowing smoking. The casinos are betting this will give them a further edge in the market.

Trace the effects of any government intervention such as this, and you will see that it is designed to benefit certain groups at the expense of others. In this case, the casinos benefit at the expense of the other bars.

Parents are obligated to care for their children. They should not impose undue costs on their children or on others. Thus, they should pay reparations if their neglect results in such costs.

The accusations that the Bush administration's laissez-faire approach caused the credit bubble that burst last year is laughable. Bush only posed as a laissez-faire type while intervention and cronyism went Richter scale. The political impetus to make this argument is the agenda of the left. They hope to convince folks that their normative policies which they have proposed for decades would have saved us this recent misfortune and will do so in the future if implemented.

The reality is that the current administration is doing little different. The bailouts and stimulus packages didn't begin last January, Bush and his homies were experts at that stuff. Alan Greenspan put the prime rate at 1% after the dot-com bust. The current tactics are far from new or different.

The truth about monopolies is that they come from government intervention, not the lack thereof. Name a single monopoly that wasn't government created. A case in point is the casino monopoly on smoking bars in Kansas City.

Take also the argument laid against (insert the name of the big company that laid off your brother or put your grandma's general store out of business here). These arguments have been around for ever.

Suppose big bad Walmart puts out ma's and pa's with "killer" low prices and then hikes them once ma and pa close. What will be the effect? The new higher prices will allow a competitor to open right back up. Think that is wishful thinking? I own a small business and we have competitors open and close every few months (although I admit that nobody has opened recently with the economic fears keeping people from doing so).

Go to any small town in Arkansas (my wife is from Camden). Of course, there is a big Walmart. Look around. All the other thriving businesses are where? Stacked right on top of that Walmart. In fact, the Walmart draws consumers from all over the county helping the many other businesses there.

Walmart in my neighborhood here is surrounded by the following: Target, Best Buy, JC Penney, Kohls, TJ Maxx, Marshalls, Dillard's, Victoria's Secret, Hot Topic, Ambercrombe, American Eagle, Petsmart, K Mart, Lowe's, Home Depot, Barnes & Noble, Border's, a Christian bookstore, Chipotle, Taco Bell, McDonald's, Long John Silvers, Wendy's Winstead's, Subway (two), Planet Sub, Chuck E. Cheese's, dealerships for Ford, Toyota, Lexus, Honda, Nissan, and Saturn, several grocery stores, several gas stations, over 30 more restaurants, video rentals, a hospital, library, and large outdoor a mall with a lot of shops (including mine) and much more.

The Walmart was here FIRST.

Anarchy would allow whoever is the toughest to have his/her way with whoever they would. Liberal government would not. Liberal government upholds the rule of law. However, the purpose of the law is not to make decisions for economic entities (be they individuals or groups) but to prevent entities from imposing costs on others.

Liberal government would protect no one from competition in the free-market. This would be true for both small and large. Consider Sears and their size and market-share when Sam Walton was running a single store. To say that his gaining market-share was impossible would have been flat wrong. This all said, Walmart deserves no more protection than Sears. If in the next decade a smart group puts the pain to Walmart, so be it.

Standard Oil was the Walmart of a century ago against which authors dramatized the great evils of the dreaded giant. The claim was that it was "cutting to kill" on its way to monopoly. It never got full market share and never raised prices. In fact, it radically reduced the cost of oil in the United States. It was simple competition that caused its decline, not Uncle Sam.

Let us suppose though that a "deep-pocket" company actually posts a loss in order to drive out competition. What this means is that this company is actually disbursing its wealth to the consumers! Somehow we are supposed to think that is bad. The reality is that companies don't usually do this because it is a losing strategy. They end up putting themselves out of business. (I don't know why people find it difficult to understand that giving out products at a loss is unsustainable).

I know first hand about that strategy. I had a competitor (with presumably more money than I) try to do it to me. He was selling product at wholesale prices. Long story short: he is out of business and I am doing well.

In fact, many businesses have tried this strategy and I've never seen one succeed. Walmart does NOT do it. If they have a store in the red they either turn it around quick or close it. They know all too well it is a losing endeavor.

What Walmart does is take advantage of economies of scale (they buy and ship in bulk). They also own their own distribution. This is a good thing. We want products and services to be the most efficiently produced and distributed in our economy.

The people who made candles were thrown out of the candle business by Thomas Edison. The wagon makers were thrown out by Henry Ford. The USPS is being thrown out by Fred Smith, Jim Casey, and Bill Gates.

This is a good thing. We can either fight to preserve stone-age tasks, or put people to work at modern jobs. We don't need as many candle makers, we need electrical engineers. We don't need a guy on a horse, we need FedEx pilots.

The basics of economics is that we use scarce resources to the most economical benefit. Labor is among the factors of production. We NEED labor to be freed up for more economical activities. We NEED those GM workers elsewhere.

The trouble is that government too often delays the reallocation of resources which the market calls for. This only prolongs the pains and deepens the costs of misallocated resources.

Suppose, being on an island, I volunteer to collect firewood for us. Others volunteer to build shelter, to make beds, and to purify water. Who is catching food? Someone will have to stop doing whatever they are doing to fish or hunt. In a large economy like ours, the needed allocations of labor are often more difficult to see. Worse, the continued stacking of firewood to the sky is less obvious. Regardless, government needs to allow these reallocations, but intervention actually slows that process.

More later. Hope that answers some of your questions. Read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson for a quick, easy, but thorough discussion on the subject.

-a-train

Thank you, A-train. I appreciate the input here. I still need to read more up on how laissez-faire capitalism can actually work without promoting Tyranny and I still have a vague uneasy feeling, since I have seen interventionist governments do well and have fewer examples of poverty in their nation.

I suppose, what I need to do, is see some concrete examples of Laissez-faire capitalism working versus interventionist policies moderated by a government kept in check by its people. What are the advantages vs disadvantages? How can we minimize the disadvantages of both? Is there a way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st. Anything that one does which imposes costs on others without their consent is against the precept of liberalism. Laissez-faire economic policy does not allow people to injure one another, the "hands off" concept of it is that government does not make economic decisions for the individual without their consent. But it also means that individuals cannot make economic decisions for other individuals without their consent.

The example of a person who is somehow compelled to take on second hand smoke, the courts would protect them in a liberal society. However, in a private business (like a bar), the bar owner should be allowed to decide whether he will allow smoking therein. Each visitor is then allowed to decide whether they will endure the smoke or not. Government should not be employed to give anyone the power to force the business owner and his smoking customers to provide a smoke-free environment. The liberal government would not make the decision for the bar-owner or any of his smoking clients or any non-smokers.

However, a public property (like a courthouse) because it is not privately owned and is for the purpose of facilitating public activities would need some regulation to accomodate a smoke-free environment for individuals who have business to conduct there but do not wish to take on second hand smoke. This is especially true for those required by law to be present in the courthouse (such as those on trial).

Since the 60's, the distinction between private and public property has been obscured in the United States. Businesses are more and more considered as public property.

A perfect example of just how bad this very issue is in my own town is the fact that the national casinos (Harrahs, Ameristar, Argosy) pushed for the smoking ban here. Meanwhile, they were the only businesses with an exemption to the rule. The ban passed, now there are just a few non-locally owned bars in the casinos wherein drinkers can also smoke at the bar while the local bar owners will suffer fines and the threat of revocation of license for allowing smoking. The casinos are betting this will give them a further edge in the market.

Trace the effects of any government intervention such as this, and you will see that it is designed to benefit certain groups at the expense of others. In this case, the casinos benefit at the expense of the other bars.

Parents are obligated to care for their children. They should not impose undue costs on their children or on others. Thus, they should pay reparations if their neglect results in such costs.

The accusations that the Bush administration's laissez-faire approach caused the credit bubble that burst last year is laughable. Bush only posed as a laissez-faire type while intervention and cronyism went Richter scale. The political impetus to make this argument is the agenda of the left. They hope to convince folks that their normative policies which they have proposed for decades would have saved us this recent misfortune and will do so in the future if implemented.

The reality is that the current administration is doing little different. The bailouts and stimulus packages didn't begin last January, Bush and his homies were experts at that stuff. Alan Greenspan put the prime rate at 1% after the dot-com bust. The current tactics are far from new or different.

The truth about monopolies is that they come from government intervention, not the lack thereof. Name a single monopoly that wasn't government created. A case in point is the casino monopoly on smoking bars in Kansas City.

Take also the argument laid against (insert the name of the big company that laid off your brother or put your grandma's general store out of business here). These arguments have been around for ever.

Suppose big bad Walmart puts out ma's and pa's with "killer" low prices and then hikes them once ma and pa close. What will be the effect? The new higher prices will allow a competitor to open right back up. Think that is wishful thinking? I own a small business and we have competitors open and close every few months (although I admit that nobody has opened recently with the economic fears keeping people from doing so).

Go to any small town in Arkansas (my wife is from Camden). Of course, there is a big Walmart. Look around. All the other thriving businesses are where? Stacked right on top of that Walmart. In fact, the Walmart draws consumers from all over the county helping the many other businesses there.

Walmart in my neighborhood here is surrounded by the following: Target, Best Buy, JC Penney, Kohls, TJ Maxx, Marshalls, Dillard's, Victoria's Secret, Hot Topic, Ambercrombe, American Eagle, Petsmart, K Mart, Lowe's, Home Depot, Barnes & Noble, Border's, a Christian bookstore, Chipotle, Taco Bell, McDonald's, Long John Silvers, Wendy's Winstead's, Subway (two), Planet Sub, Chuck E. Cheese's, dealerships for Ford, Toyota, Lexus, Honda, Nissan, and Saturn, several grocery stores, several gas stations, over 30 more restaurants, video rentals, a hospital, library, and large outdoor a mall with a lot of shops (including mine) and much more.

The Walmart was here FIRST.

Anarchy would allow whoever is the toughest to have his/her way with whoever they would. Liberal government would not. Liberal government upholds the rule of law. However, the purpose of the law is not to make decisions for economic entities (be they individuals or groups) but to prevent entities from imposing costs on others.

Liberal government would protect no one from competition in the free-market. This would be true for both small and large. Consider Sears and their size and market-share when Sam Walton was running a single store. To say that his gaining market-share was impossible would have been flat wrong. This all said, Walmart deserves no more protection than Sears. If in the next decade a smart group puts the pain to Walmart, so be it.

Standard Oil was the Walmart of a century ago against which authors dramatized the great evils of the dreaded giant. The claim was that it was "cutting to kill" on its way to monopoly. It never got full market share and never raised prices. In fact, it radically reduced the cost of oil in the United States. It was simple competition that caused its decline, not Uncle Sam.

Let us suppose though that a "deep-pocket" company actually posts a loss in order to drive out competition. What this means is that this company is actually disbursing its wealth to the consumers! Somehow we are supposed to think that is bad. The reality is that companies don't usually do this because it is a losing strategy. They end up putting themselves out of business. (I don't know why people find it difficult to understand that giving out products at a loss is unsustainable).

I know first hand about that strategy. I had a competitor (with presumably more money than I) try to do it to me. He was selling product at wholesale prices. Long story short: he is out of business and I am doing well.

In fact, many businesses have tried this strategy and I've never seen one succeed. Walmart does NOT do it. If they have a store in the red they either turn it around quick or close it. They know all too well it is a losing endeavor.

What Walmart does is take advantage of economies of scale (they buy and ship in bulk). They also own their own distribution. This is a good thing. We want products and services to be the most efficiently produced and distributed in our economy.

The people who made candles were thrown out of the candle business by Thomas Edison. The wagon makers were thrown out by Henry Ford. The USPS is being thrown out by Fred Smith, Jim Casey, and Bill Gates.

This is a good thing. We can either fight to preserve stone-age tasks, or put people to work at modern jobs. We don't need as many candle makers, we need electrical engineers. We don't need a guy on a horse, we need FedEx pilots.

The basics of economics is that we use scarce resources to the most economical benefit. Labor is among the factors of production. We NEED labor to be freed up for more economical activities. We NEED those GM workers elsewhere.

The trouble is that government too often delays the reallocation of resources which the market calls for. This only prolongs the pains and deepens the costs of misallocated resources.

Suppose, being on an island, I volunteer to collect firewood for us. Others volunteer to build shelter, to make beds, and to purify water. Who is catching food? Someone will have to stop doing whatever they are doing to fish or hunt. In a large economy like ours, the needed allocations of labor are often more difficult to see. Worse, the continued stacking of firewood to the sky is less obvious. Regardless, government needs to allow these reallocations, but intervention actually slows that process.

More later. Hope that answers some of your questions. Read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson for a quick, easy, but thorough discussion on the subject.

-a-train

This is just another opinion! It truly is sad what the education system is feeding the students these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, A-train. I appreciate the input here. I still need to read more up on how laissez-faire capitalism can actually work without promoting Tyranny and I still have a vague uneasy feeling, since I have seen interventionist governments do well and have fewer examples of poverty in their nation.

The most poverty stricken nations are precisely the most interventionist. The United States rose to the pinnacle of economic superiority through coming the closest to laissez-faire capitalism of all countries (albiet with many defects). The effect of which was the tremendous rise in the standard of living. Since United States policy has shifted toward interventionism, the U.S. has fallen backward and is on a strong trend away from that pinnacle. Hong Kong is more laissez-faire than the United States. Singapore has a heavily privatized medical services market, it also is ranked among the very highest in medical services.

Much of the African states suffering from tremendous poverty are so suffering not because of laissez-faire capitalism, but directly as a result of political strife including up to and especially war. Much of the most poverty stricken African nations do NOT have land property rights. Some of these countries do NOT even allow women to own property. Foreign investment is held at bay by fears of political nullification of any profitable activity. Government activity is the numero uno reason for economic stagnation there.

What is most unfortunate is that politically motivated interests in the west blame economic trouble on economic freedom. Further, they distort the definition of liberal economic policy (laissez-faire capitalism) to include government ignorance of crimes against the property rights of others. This is very frustrating for someone like myself. It would be akin to a claim that the main focus of Mormonism is Islam. RIDICULOUS! The main focus of laissez-faire capitalism is the PROTECTION of property rights for ALL.

A classic example of this distortion is the claim that capitalists support legislation benefiting fat cat investors, when the opposite is true. Another false claim is that capitalists would pass laws banning unions, again not true. In fact, that would be directly opposed to the basic philosophy of freedom in economics espoused by capitalists.

What has happened is that parties interested in manipulating the political process have divided the people by mutilating the basic definition of laissez-faire capitalism. People who are indeed laissez-faire capitalists in spirit are fighting it in name because they have a bad definition of it.

Laissez-faire capitalism stands AGAINST the fat cat's ability to buy legislation. When we think of seperation of church and state, we think of Congress's limitation whereby it may pass no law respecting any establishment of religion. Because of this seperation, one establishment of religion cannot receive any legislative benefit above any other. The same should be true of economic entities. The supplier should get no preferential treatment from government, nor should the consumer. The maker of clothing should get no preference over the maker of cars from government.

It is interventionism that is tyranny. The only way government can intervene is to make economic decisions for others against their will, that is tyranny. Government tells people: "You have to buy product X from company A at price Y." Interventionism has always been the effort of fat cats. They want government to protect them from their competitors. They devise any argument they can to gain public support. Further damaging is when interventionists (like Bush) pose as laissez-faire capitalists. This only further serves to destroy the public understanding of just what laissez-faire capitalism is.

The question is not how can laissez-faire capitalism exist without tyranny, it is how can anything but laissez-faire captialism exist without tyranny.

-a-train

Edited by a-train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is not how can laissez-faire capitalism exist without tyranny, it is how can anything but laissez-faire captialism exist without tyranny.

Hello,

So far as, "hands off" economic liberalism goes, this PBS video series, (now freely available online, here), is very informative--it is called Free to Choose. Key laissez-faire topics include:

Who protects the worker?

Who protects the consumer?

...and so on.

Overall, a good set of shows. Enjoy.

Sincerely,

Kawazu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

healthcare I beleive is a basic human right, not a privelige like worldly possessions, if there was a plasma tv tax which gave all the poor people plasma tvs then I would certainly be very outraged. but this is very basic and people cannot build wealth with public healthcare, if you're sick you're sick, its not like you walk out of the hospital with $5000 to spend.

You do if you have a baby in OZ! $10,000 for twins!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Well some people just don't like political stuff, and alot don't want to deal with the situation/problems that are arising in our government.

I love to go to tea parties and it was fun to go to them too, i just think maybe alot of people just don't care cause they are ignorant of what's going on.

"if it doesn't effect me then i don't care"

that's what alot of my friends say

but it does affect them in lots of ways they didn't even know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share