kruker wrote:As for Crash, what's the issue with winning elections? If the people of Sweden, or any country for that matter, prefer a free market candidate, what's wrong with that? Aren't the citizenry allowed to decide how they want their country run?

Elections are based on misinformation. As I mentioned before, Bush got re-elected because he lied about Saddam Hussein's ties to 9/11 and he swiftboated John Kerry. Just because a nation elects a leader doesn't mean they did so based on the correct information. Just because Swedes want to go capitalist doesn't mean that it's right for Sweden to go capitalist. It's very possible that Swedes are just as dumb and misinformed as Americans.

Additionally, just because most people want something does not make that something right or justified. That is an argumentum ad populum.

Also, you were saying that Sweden was becoming more privatized because their government-regulated industries were faltering, which is not true. Sweden is going private so Reinfeldt can win an election. It's akin to Bush increasing military presence in the Middle East and releasing more terror alerts.

Nitpicking here, but I call into question the validity of the research done by The Heritage Foundation. I am not familiar with the organization, so you may be able to enlighten me more on them, but their tagline is "Conservative Policy Research and Analysis." That speaks of a definitive economic libertarian bias to me. I could be wrong. Is the analysis done on there independent, or what? I'm not trying to quickly lay waste to any of your counter-examples, it's just a legitimate concern I have because I don't see any independence or lack of bias.

CrashburnAlley wrote:That is an argumentum ad populum.

Sig worthy

CrashburnAlley wrote:

kruker wrote:As for Crash, what's the issue with winning elections? If the people of Sweden, or any country for that matter, prefer a free market candidate, what's wrong with that? Aren't the citizenry allowed to decide how they want their country run?

Elections are based on misinformation. As I mentioned before, Bush got re-elected because he lied about Saddam Hussein's ties to 9/11 and he swiftboated John Kerry. Just because a nation elects a leader doesn't mean they did so based on the correct information. Just because Swedes want to go capitalist doesn't mean that it's right for Sweden to go capitalist. It's very possible that Swedes are just as dumb and misinformed as Americans.

Additionally, just because most people want something does not make that something right or justified. That is an argumentum ad populum.

Also, you were saying that Sweden was becoming more privatized because their government-regulated industries were faltering, which is not true. Sweden is going private so Reinfeldt can win an election. It's akin to Bush increasing military presence in the Middle East and releasing more terror alerts.

Nitpicking here, but I call into question the validity of the research done by The Heritage Foundation. I am not familiar with the organization, so you may be able to enlighten me more on them, but their tagline is "Conservative Policy Research and Analysis." That speaks of a definitive economic libertarian bias to me. I could be wrong. Is the analysis done on there independent, or what? I'm not trying to quickly lay waste to any of your counter-examples, it's just a legitimate concern I have because I don't see any independence or lack of bias.

Sweden was always capitalist, with a significant number of large corporations for a nation of its population. It simply believes in a very strong social safety net. That has frayed a bit with Europe's penchant for taking in a lot of poor political refugees, as it has in much of Europe. Europe is able to avoid very good social services, as is much of western Europe, largely because they spend far less than we do on defense. Rather than say elections based on misinformation, it is important to realize that a) incumbents have a big advantage, but also b) no country is left and keeps tending left or is right and keeps tending right in free elections, there is a pendulum swing around whatever is the middle for that particular nation. Sweden's middle is farther left than ours is, but it still has its political gyrations. If things are not going so well at the moment, likely whatever direction the nation was moving in politically will reverse.

CrashburnAlley wrote:Additionally, just because most people want something does not make that something right or justified. That is an argumentum ad populum.

In a representative democracy, it kinda does though. The guiding principle of democracy is that, given the impossibility of reaching an objective understanding about what's "right or justified," the majority gets to make the call.

I was devastated by the 2004 election. But in one way it was easier to take than 2000, because I was pretty sure that Bush had received more votes. Four years earlier, whatever your take on Florida specifically, Gore got a half-million more votes nationally. Even if Bush and Ken Blackwell "stole" Ohio in '04, the bigger deal to me was that I couldn't see how that three million vote national margin could have been faked.

I have my doubts about representative democracy, particularly when it comes to issues like health care where we're seeing every day how easily willful ignorance can shove aside ambivalent knowledge. But on the whole I think Churchill had it right: it's "the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

dajafi wrote:

CrashburnAlley wrote:Additionally, just because most people want something does not make that something right or justified. That is an argumentum ad populum.

In a representative democracy, it kinda does though. The guiding principle of democracy is that, given the impossibility of reaching an objective understanding about what's "right or justified," the majority gets to make the call.

I was devastated by the 2004 election. But in one way it was easier to take than 2000, because I was pretty sure that Bush had received more votes. Four years earlier, whatever your take on Florida specifically, Gore got a half-million more votes nationally. Even if Bush and Ken Blackwell "stole" Ohio in '04, the bigger deal to me was that I couldn't see how that three million vote national margin could have been faked.

I have my doubts about representative democracy, particularly when it comes to issues like health care where we're seeing every day how easily willful ignorance can shove aside ambivalent knowledge. But on the whole I think Churchill had it right: it's "the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Bill of Rights protections to the minority must be respected. The Constittution must be observed -- can't have Chavez style democracy where the majority says screw the constitution, let's just make him President for life. In a democracy there are other common sense rules, though. Major, intrusive changes should required more than a 50.1% majority. The least controversial example here is prohibition. Can't enforce a law if 45% of the populace feels it's nuts. Significant fines for not buying health care and outlawing abortion are more controversial examples of this principle.

allentown wrote:

dajafi wrote:

CrashburnAlley wrote:Additionally, just because most people want something does not make that something right or justified. That is an argumentum ad populum.

In a representative democracy, it kinda does though. The guiding principle of democracy is that, given the impossibility of reaching an objective understanding about what's "right or justified," the majority gets to make the call.

I was devastated by the 2004 election. But in one way it was easier to take than 2000, because I was pretty sure that Bush had received more votes. Four years earlier, whatever your take on Florida specifically, Gore got a half-million more votes nationally. Even if Bush and Ken Blackwell "stole" Ohio in '04, the bigger deal to me was that I couldn't see how that three million vote national margin could have been faked.

I have my doubts about representative democracy, particularly when it comes to issues like health care where we're seeing every day how easily willful ignorance can shove aside ambivalent knowledge. But on the whole I think Churchill had it right: it's "the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Bill of Rights protections to the minority must be respected. The Constittution must be observed -- can't have Chavez style democracy where the majority says screw the constitution, let's just make him President for life. In a democracy there are other common sense rules, though. Major, intrusive changes should required more than a 50.1% majority. The least controversial example here is prohibition. Can't enforce a law if 45% of the populace feels it's nuts. Significant fines for not buying health care and outlawing abortion are more controversial examples of this principle.

Hence "kinda"

dajafi wrote:

allentown wrote:

dajafi wrote:

CrashburnAlley wrote:Additionally, just because most people want something does not make that something right or justified. That is an argumentum ad populum.

In a representative democracy, it kinda does though. The guiding principle of democracy is that, given the impossibility of reaching an objective understanding about what's "right or justified," the majority gets to make the call.

I was devastated by the 2004 election. But in one way it was easier to take than 2000, because I was pretty sure that Bush had received more votes. Four years earlier, whatever your take on Florida specifically, Gore got a half-million more votes nationally. Even if Bush and Ken Blackwell "stole" Ohio in '04, the bigger deal to me was that I couldn't see how that three million vote national margin could have been faked.

I have my doubts about representative democracy, particularly when it comes to issues like health care where we're seeing every day how easily willful ignorance can shove aside ambivalent knowledge. But on the whole I think Churchill had it right: it's "the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Bill of Rights protections to the minority must be respected. The Constittution must be observed -- can't have Chavez style democracy where the majority says screw the constitution, let's just make him President for life. In a democracy there are other common sense rules, though. Major, intrusive changes should required more than a 50.1% majority. The least controversial example here is prohibition. Can't enforce a law if 45% of the populace feels it's nuts. Significant fines for not buying health care and outlawing abortion are more controversial examples of this principle.

Hence "kinda"

Unless there is broad support for the principles of constitutional democracy, they won't work.

I was reading an old political science book from the 1950s, and the world then looked very different. At that time, the Supreme Court had never overturned a national law on the basis of protecting civil liberties.

TenuredVulture wrote:Unless there is broad (20%+ of the governed?) support for key principles of a constitutional democracy, it won't work.

I amended your assertion a bit to give it a fighting chance of achieving consensus

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Unless there is broad (20%+ of the governed?) support for key principles of a constitutional democracy, it won't work.

I amended your assertion a bit to give it a fighting chance of achieving consensus

Seriously--the record of the Supreme court over the course of US history is that it really has not been a bulwark of counter-majoritarian sentiment. Sometimes, it will protect minority exercise of rights that generally have wide support--poll after poll shows support for freedom of speech, religion and so forth in the 90% plus range. The problem emerge when these rights are granted to unpopular groups like Nazis and flag burners.

Hippies/yuppies endorse independent candidate who has no chance to win. Hopefully the might of the Sierra Club is enough to get the tree hugger vote away from Corzine.

jerseyhoya wrote:Hippies/yuppies endorse independent candidate who has no chance to win. Hopefully the might of the Sierra Club is enough to get the tree hugger vote away from Corzine.

Comments are awesome on that site! Sierra Club wouldn't endorse Daggett if he didn't have a chance! Brilliant. My political insight is so puny compared to this genius, I feel like I should just turn in my poli sci PhD right now.

It does look like Daggett has just enough heft to be a spoiler in the election. I do wonder if he won't pull some votes from Christie though, and it would not shock me if he broke over 10% in the general.

TenuredVulture wrote:Seriously--....poll after poll shows support for freedom of speech, religion and so forth in the 90% plus range.....

My amendments to your assertion get at this. When it comes down to cases - literally, tho I had not been thinking specifically of Sup Ct cases - considerably less than 90% are inclined to support "principles of constitutional democracy". My feeling is because they don't really give a lot of thought as to what those "principles" are or should be.

I'm not saying they should be expected do that, just saying they don't.

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Seriously--....poll after poll shows support for freedom of speech, religion and so forth in the 90% plus range.....

My amendments to your assertion get at this. When it comes down to cases - literally, tho I had not been thinking specifically of Sup Ct cases - considerably less than 90% are inclined to support "principles of constitutional democracy". My feeling is because they don't really give a lot of thought as to what those "principles" are or should be.

I'm not saying they should be expected do that, just saying they don't.

The question is whether the degree of support is based on agreement with the general principle, or willingness to support those rights given to an especially loathsome group.

In fact, it turns out that toleration for the intolerant is a tough philosophical problem that hasn't really been solved. There are always going to be limits regarding toleration, the question is where do those lines get drawn.

So, yeah, as an intellectual exercise, I can support freedom of assembly rights for Nazis who want to hold a rally in Skoki, IL. But would I support such rights if it looked like the Nazis were in the process of becoming something other than a fringe group? Would the Weimar government have been justified in locking up Nazi leaders, or engaging in other tactics that violated their civil liberties?

There are always conflicts built into the structure of constitutional governments--non-establishment of religion conflicts with free exercise of religion.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Hippies/yuppies endorse independent candidate who has no chance to win. Hopefully the might of the Sierra Club is enough to get the tree hugger vote away from Corzine.

Comments are awesome on that site! Sierra Club wouldn't endorse Daggett if he didn't have a chance! Brilliant. My political insight is so puny compared to this genius, I feel like I should just turn in my poli sci PhD right now.

It does look like Daggett has just enough heft to be a spoiler in the election. I do wonder if he won't pull some votes from Christie though, and it would not shock me if he broke over 10% in the general.

I always defer to the two of you when it comes to New Jersey politics. But it does seem like an independent with the right set of characteristics should be able to compete in New Jersey, just because voters there seem to so detest both major parties.

That said, whether Daggett has those characteristics--personal charisma, enough money to go on air in two very expensive markets, a good back story, cred as someone who's serious about governing but not beholden to interest groups, etc--I have no idea.

CrashburnAlley wrote:I don't get why government control is so universally-loathed. Both governments and businesses are run by people. Fallible, biased, greedy, callous people. Both are doomed to fail from the beginning simply because human beings are controlling it. But at least a greedily-run government entity can still benefit the community, whereas a greedily-run private enterprise benefits only those who have some sort of stock in it.

Despising government control in economics makes no logical sense unless you're already wealthy or otherwise have some sort of stock in big business; you want the status quo. I'll never get why the middle class has so many staunch economic libertarians, it's against their own interest!

(I presume this is more fitting for the economic thread, but this runs on some sort of wavelength to Dajafi's post)

Where do profits come from, if not from a valuable service or good that is provided?

The founders of Google, WalMart, IBM may or may not be greedy, but they sure as hell created a ton of wealth in this country. I think it's amusing that you seem to think that running a profitable business is really easy to do, and we can simply popularly elect people to do it well based on what they promise in 10 second sound bites.

Perhaps you've read somewhere that 90% of private businesses fail within 5 years (or some other high number). This seems to lead you to believe that people are fallable, callous, greedy, and biased, THUS we should have government run things. You seem to want to entrust these same flawed people with the power to forcibly take your money and provide you with services, which seems like a strictly worse scenario. I'd rather vote with my money for what company supplies me with food, and retain the freedom to boycott terrible companies.

Oh, and I'm a middle class libertarian. And like most people, I would like to accumulate wealth to achieve personal security and freedom for myself and my family. And while I hope to be rich someday, and I support libertarian policies out of self-interest, but not in the way you believe. I want greedy private businessmen coming up with new cures for diseases, faster computers, safer cars, new technologies to save energy, a new flavor of Tang . I want uninhibited markets, quite simply, because I believe such a society will provide a better standard of living in the next 60 years of my life.

Werthless wrote: I want greedy private businessmen coming up with new cures for diseases, faster computers, safer cars, new technologies to save energy, a new flavor of Tang . I want uninhibited markets, quite simply, because I believe such a society will provide a better standard of living in the next 60 years of my life.

Profits don't come from innovation. They come from selling goods at a price higher than it costs to produce them.

Companies often don't do these things on their own. Car companies were forced by government regulation to make cars safer. They claimed (incorrectly) that people weren't willing to pay extra to have seat belts and air bags. They aren't going to come up with energy saving technologies until energy costs a lot more than it does now, by which time it will be too late. And cures for diseases depend on basic science that private industry has little incentive to develop, so it comes out of government research.

You still haven't read your Schumpeter yet of course, but you should alos know that big companies also work to prevent competitors from offering better products. They don't always succeed of course, but established companies fear capitalism. They fight tooth and nail to maintain market share, in part by crushing upstart competitors. As a consequence, there's no way that by itself unregulated businesses will produce the innovations theory indicates it should.

But you can probably get a new flavor of Tang.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote: I want greedy private businessmen coming up with new cures for diseases, faster computers, safer cars, new technologies to save energy, a new flavor of Tang . I want uninhibited markets, quite simply, because I believe such a society will provide a better standard of living in the next 60 years of my life.

Profits don't come from innovation. They come from selling goods at a price higher than it costs to produce them.

Foodie pasha, & libertarian, John Mackey (Whole Foods) seemed to understand the latter, but responses to his recent NYTimes op-ed on health reform suggests his adherents are not prepared to swallow (or even chew) his notions about the best path to take toward improvement.

You still haven't read your Schumpeter yet of course, but you should alos know that big companies also work to prevent competitors from offering better products. They don't always succeed of course, but established companies fear capitalism. They fight tooth and nail to maintain market share, in part by crushing upstart competitors. As a consequence, there's no way that by itself unregulated businesses will produce the innovations theory indicates it should.

People sometimes suggest government can serve effectively as a 'leveler'. One problem is gov't frequently crushes selectively, meaning the new boss is the same as (or worse than) the old boss.

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote: I want greedy private businessmen coming up with new cures for diseases, faster computers, safer cars, new technologies to save energy, a new flavor of Tang . I want uninhibited markets, quite simply, because I believe such a society will provide a better standard of living in the next 60 years of my life.

Profits don't come from innovation. They come from selling goods at a price higher than it costs to produce them.

Foodie pasha, & libertarian, John Mackey (Whole Foods) seemed to understand the latter, but responses to his recent NYTimes op-ed on health reform suggests his adherents are not prepared to swallow (or even chew) his notions about the best path to take toward improvement.

You still haven't read your Schumpeter yet of course, but you should alos know that big companies also work to prevent competitors from offering better products. They don't always succeed of course, but established companies fear capitalism. They fight tooth and nail to maintain market share, in part by crushing upstart competitors. As a consequence, there's no way that by itself unregulated businesses will produce the innovations theory indicates it should.

People sometimes suggest government can serve effectively as a 'leveler'. One problem is gov't frequently crushes selectively, meaning the new boss is the same as (or worse than) the old boss.

The problem is that government tends to serve large established corporations because of their ability to lobby and throw cash around.

I've always wondered about Whole Foods--the produce always looked suspiciously pretty to me. Quite unlike what you'd find at a farmer's market.

TenuredVulture wrote:The problem is that government tends to serve large established corporations because of their ability to lobby and throw cash around.

I've always wondered about Whole Foods--the produce always looked suspiciously pretty to me. Quite unlike what you'd find at a farmer's market.

Mackey's self-indulgent op-ed probably won't torch his business. It does highlight that his 'innovation' was basically to fashion a profitable aura around natural chow for that startlingly large slice of the population who live to eat, rather than eat to live.

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The problem is that government tends to serve large established corporations because of their ability to lobby and throw cash around.

I've always wondered about Whole Foods--the produce always looked suspiciously pretty to me. Quite unlike what you'd find at a farmer's market.

Mackey's self-indulgent op-ed probably won't torch his business. It does highlight that his 'innovation' was basically to fashion a profitable aura around natural chow for that startlingly large slice of the population who live to eat, rather than eat to live.

What I was getting at is the produce doesn't really look natural at all.