Epistles from the Apostles
Hi THR love your clip,thanks for posting it I haven't thought of that song for years.
No worries tal. Thanks for dropping by.
You write really well and and argue passionately,the fact that we don't see eye to eye is secondary.
I will be checking your site from time to time just to keep an eye on you 
Can't agree with Tal. You write like crap and this article is drivel. Didn't you say you had postgraduate studies in a social science or something? Seriously, what is the point of this article, other than to say you don't like libertarians or conservatives? Why should we think of power differently - because you said so? Do you have any evidence to suggest this is how things work? Why is your position correct? Answer: it isn't, it's just your illogical view of the world.
The Animals clip was especially relevant.
Idiot. Obviously you're a slow learner. Libertarians and conservatives take issue, quite rightly, with a range of things that are forms of state coercion. However, rather than try to do something about the coercion, they simply want it to be transferred to for-profit industries. Hence, power doesn't change iota, it just ends up in different hands. Pretty simple, really.
How's that whole Ayn Rand thing going?
Good thanks.
Libertarians also want to protect individual rights (the negative natural kind), in fact that's the only things a moral government should be doing. So I'm not really sure how these evil multinationals exploit all the poor folk like you say. If a 'for-profit' entity can't steal my property or force me to do anything I don't want to do I really can't see how you can justify asking for more. Oh yeah, sorry, we're working towards the left-wing utopia here. Unachievable and undefinable, but still a worthwhile goal.
Oh yeah, sorry, we're working towards the left-wing utopia here. Unachievable and undefinable, but still a worthwhile goal.
Well douchebag, it's too bad Atlas never Shagged, then the rest of us wouldn't have to put up with your tripe.
WTF does that mean?
You should be grateful I'm here, at least you've got someone on your site this week. This visit of mine will double your monthly tally and set a new record number of visitors for you. And I actually read an article and contained my laughter long enough to finish it! That must be another first.
Are you seriously that stupid, that you can only conceive of such a thing as power insofar as it in government hands? Do you really think that 'negative rights' and privatisation of everything will abolish coercion? My points are perfectly clear, my friend. It's up to you to show the counter-argument, if you have one.
Are they? I can't see any consitent logic behind your position. You might reference other philosophers with a larger vocabulary but your argument is just the standard, simplistic, mainstream 'government will fix it' one.
You know my position - government, by definition, is the use of force. There are only certain things that can be enforced with the moral use of violence. We should aim to do everything else with voluntary interaction if we are attempting to live in the most enlightened and civilised way we can.
What's your position? Big companies have power? Well, they do but it's not the same as government power. And big companies often got big because they were doing things other people liked. So why are they better when managed by government?
I'm trying to be patient with you. Nowhere here have I said that government is the answer, or that the government is not coercive. I'll only continue this patience for a short while.
We should aim to do everything else with voluntary interaction if we are attempting to live in the most enlightened and civilised way we can.
Yes. I agree absolutely. Consequently, we should minimise the level of government involvement in our lives. We should also minimise the level of capitalist involvement in our lives. Capitalism colludes with government at every level, and the two should be considered inseparable. There are 'small government' positions here that are nonetheless leftist. You simply haven't thought of them. Your only answer is to privatise coercion. My answer is to try and abolish it.
My experience of capitalism is that capitalists are asking the government to get out of their way most of the time. Government engages capitalism because it needs the money - which capitalists generally begrudge paying as taxes. This leads to some engagement but II would say the relationship is one of conflict, if anything. How does government collude with capitalism?
Do you agree with the view that capitalism is the voluntary engagement of people on their own terms to be productive?
Give me an example of a leftist small state solution.
My experience of capitalism is that capitalists are asking the government to get out of their way most of the time.
It's a little more than that. In practice, you have all kinds of protectionism at the behest of business, not to mention government activism. Take the union-busting legislaton of Workchoices, for instance.
Do you agree with the view that capitalism is the voluntary engagement of people on their own terms to be productive?
Not really. The situation for most people in most places is one of submit to capitalism or starve. In a narrow, technical sense this is voluntary, but there's no reason why we ought to applaud it, any more than we'd applaud 'voluntary' prostitution.
Give me an example of a leftist small state solution.
There are countless examples at a small, local level.
For a larger-scale example, there are the Zapatistas, for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Zap...onal_Liberation
They've attempted to circumvent both capital and the state when it comes to public service delivery:
The Zapatistas offer a grassroots example of prefigurative action. Health care in the indigenous communities of Chiapas has long been neglected by the Mexican government. During a session on health, the participating councils of Good Government ("Juntas de Buen Gobierno") discussed issues regarding a shortage of medical supplies and transportation, the loss of traditional medical knowledge, barriers to sexual education, and the hazards of dependence on foreign aid. After the discussion, the Zapatista communities organized their own health care network and called in help and resources from other organizations in solidarity throughout Mexico and the world. Resources from abroad boosted autonomous health projects. The Zapatista hospital (the hospital of Guadalupe in Oventic, Chiapas, Mexico built in 1991 by local Zapatista communities) runs with aid from foreign donors without any government support, and seeks to provide service to those suffering discrimination in state-run institutions.
The Zapatista health care system has been widely recognized both nationally and internationally as having brought treatment and medicine to more rural indigenous men, women, children, and elders than either the government or private sector ever did. By training local "health promoters" from the ranks of the communities the effort has excelled in preventative medicine, health education, and the preservation of herbal and other traditional forms of medicine. International solidarity has allowed the communities to construct clinics and purchase equipment and ambulances.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArt...ewArticle/
21916
For an example of worker self-management without government intervention, see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mon...ive_Corporation
Perhaps Michael thinks capitalists got to own the means of production by starting with nothing and working hard. They acquired land by ... ummm ... by other people being impressed and insisting they take it. That must have been it.
All those indigenous folk who retreated to the reservations did so purely voluntarily. Like the crofters in Scotland and the native Americans, coercion simply didn't enter into it.
Yes Ken, the theft, violence and shysterism that formed the basis of most wealth simply doesn't enter into the equation for some people.
Hi there, a quick note to say well done for your efforts in dealing with The Sentinel, FJ and Pagan trolls over at Renegade Eye.
It's a thankless task and one of the reasons I no longer visit Ren's blog.
Take care and all the best to you.
Thanks. That Sentinel fellow was spouting a bunch of BNP talking points. The inmates do seem to have taken over the asylum over there.
Interesting third paragraph.
"you would still have exploitation and domination in the workplace."
A Nietchzian or Darwinian view would perhaps be that power and exploitation are simply that natural human condition.
So what model would you think would be best for the most people? Distributism?
No problem and I agree with you, you look at each thread and the comments are dominated by three negatvie right-wing voices that Ren will do nothing about.
Oh well.
Good luck.
For me Darwin is a theorist of biology alone. I don't endorse any kind of 'social Darwinism', and I don't think that Darwin has much to tell us about hoe society is or ought to be.
I take the Nietzschean point, however, that power cannot be abolished. It's for this reason that privatisations that are pinned to a capitalist model will not, in my view, increase liberty or diminish power.
I'm not so sure about distributism, though I don't know much about it. As far as models go, I'd like to see something like a transition from the welfare state to autonomy for self-regulating communities, as much as this is possible.
A Nietchzian or Darwinian view would perhaps be that power and exploitation are simply that natural human condition.
I'd like to make a bit of a distinction here.
A Darwinian, and by that, I mean Darwinian, not social Darwinist, view, if it predicted exploitation as being natural would not seek to endorse it. Darwin himself postulated (with what little he had to work with) about possible evolved futures and he wasn't even remotely happy about them.
Proper Darwinism deals with the is and doesn't make commentary about the ought. It's why you see Dawinists like Dawkins and Singer only underpinning ethical arguments with science and not seeking to determine them with science.
(And for the record, Darwin rejected social Darwinism as a means of improvement on the grounds of being either ineffective, coercive or both.)
For me Darwin is a theorist of biology alone. I don't endorse any kind of 'social Darwinism', and I don't think that Darwin has much to tell us about hoe society is or ought to be.
While rejecting social Darwinism myself, and acknowledging the technical truth that Darwin doesn't himself have much to tell us (his Decent of Man, being prior to genetics and many other confounding empirical considerations, isn't usable), I'm curious about the prohibition of Darwinist ideas and their almost knee-jerk association with social Darwinism. Why?
If anything, Darwinist anthropology (which is only a very new thing, with very few researchers) is contradicting social Darwinist ideology in many ways in theoretical models and in observational studies. Indeed, with recent modelling, there are telling signs that social Darwinists approximations of human nature were just made up.
Recent evolutionary modelling only made possible with advances in computing power (which the social Darwinists never had) has been able to incorporate crucial variables (especially location/proximity relative to others). In the resulting thought experiments, the more precision these variables were modelled with, the worse off "Freeloaders" (aka the dog-eat-dog types) did in evolutionary terms. While these are just informed thought experiments and strong conclusions aren't being drawn, they do present a serious challenge to the rather strong yet less-informed assertions about human nature made by social Darwinists (or any of the other fanciful right-libertarian assertions about human nature made by dog-eat-dog types - see Ayn Rand.)
The metaphorical evolutionary arms-race between "Freeloaders" and altruists have some logical consequences that explain a lot more than this though (possible evolutionary basis for outgroup biases for example). I've oversimplified somewhat.
Personally I think evolutionary theory (as evolutionary theory, not a political ideology) is brimming with possibilities to explain things about human nature and culture.
Oh poop. Screwed up a tag. Sorry about that.
Back on the original topic...
I find it odd that when so many right-Libertarians talk about "Big Government", they don't include the size of corporations in their sums. In complete (wilful?) ignorance as to the nature of corporate charters / history of corporate law.
Hi Bruce,
You also get centralised planning in a lot of corporations, and a sham version of democracy for shareholders.
I agree that 'human nature' is a term much abused in some quarters.
You also get centralised planning in a lot of corporations, and a sham version of democracy for shareholders.
Tell me about it. As much as open accountability is still a large problem in best practice democracies (try a FOI from the treasury for example), the capacity for a shareholder to get answers is even worse unless they are a dominant shareholder (which are usually corporations themselves, thus the cycle repeats).
And the sharemarket equivalents of branch stacking! :O
Hey THR totally OT just wanted you to know I'm thinking about you and the family...hope all's well.Please let us know(if you are comfortable of course)when the baby is born.I have virtual cigars in my virtual pocket,your baby will have virtual aunties and uncles.Don't worry we will keep crazy 'ol uncle Graeme in the attic .Take care darl
PS thanks for the song last night it was really sweet
Thanks tal - that's very kind. You take care too, and I'll keep you updated.
Oh please do THR everyone likes news about babies.And I know everyone at the Cat wishes you well X (old auntieee kiss)
Hi THR haven't heard from you for ages hope everything's OK
Hi Tal - all is well, just busy!
Take care
Commenting by HaloScan
