The hypocrisy of the US Republican Party

@rep Re: your only TRUE middle eastern ally.
I didn't respond to this earlier (criticism of Obama over his policy on Israel) as I wasn't entirely sure which middle eastern ally you were referring to (I figured Israel).

Europeans are generally quite glad of Obama's renewed insistence of a return to the 1967 borders. We're generally a lot cooler in our support for Israel as we lack the lobbying from the fringe who think that the creation of a stable Israel is a sign of the 'end times'. All we see is a land-grab based on a text written over 2,500 years ago.

I don't want to shift the emphasis of this topic though. I just thought it important to highlight the difference in opinion of Obama here in Europe. He remains much more popular here, than in the States.

Also, skip the anti-Semitic charge (I'm not expecting it from any of you guys who've taken part so far - consider this a pre-emptive strike against any trolls who pass through this thread). I'm opposed to the foreign policy of a nation-state, not the religion.

If you have time, give this a read: The Obama Tonic, a blog entry from The Economist (economically liberal magazine from UK). I quite like the last paragraph, "The EU's oft-derided "soft power" could yet prove useful; a recent Gallup poll found that the EU is more popular (or, at least, less unpopular) among Arabs than America or major European states."

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Another example for you - one policy of the British government that made the Irish Potato Famine (1845-52) even more catastrophic was its refusal to intervene in the free market. A previous famine in 1782-3 had been dealt with, in part, by closing the ports so that food grown in Ireland was used to feed the Irish.

No such restrictions were imposed during the Potato Famine and, peversely, exports of calves, most livestock, bacon and ham actually increased. Also, don't forget that the same potato blight affected crops across much of Europe - this was not peculiar to Ireland. The attitude of the British at the time was that the free market would provide and correct the imbalance. Unfortunately, when people have no income due to crop failure (or unemployment due to an international banking crisis), it's pretty difficult to turn a profit selling them the food they need. Ergo, it was more profitable to export food to richer countries. The market did provide, but only in the form of profit.<!-/Quote-!>

Well, there are three approaches to this. First, I don't think that a situation of this type of severity - Irish famine - would occur in a purely capitalist state. Not to say that a potato blight wouldn't occur, but the situation that resulted in the million deaths was created by the legacy of oppression against the Irish for a long time beforehand. Capitalism didn't create the situation of tenant farmers with tiny plots who were forced into monoculture. I'm not even sure that at the time of the famine they had the same rights as the English or Protestants there (I could be wrong). If they did, it couldn't have been for very long. The fact remains that other areas experienced the blight, but it had a much lesser effect.
It is a bit naive to think that the market would bring food to the Irish, and I don't think the invocation of free market was seriously under the impression that the food would go to the Irish. Of course, this is from a perspective of hindsight. However, the market did cause something - the emigration of the Irish out of Ireland. People moving to more prosperous areas where there is greater opportunity is a correction . . . like businesses and people who are fleeing California for Texas and other places right now.
In any case, the real question behind this is whether it is okay for the government to restrict property rights of some for the livelihood of others: clearly, I would answer no. Yeah, it's food here - then it is education, healthcare, social security, work, etc. In other words, I think people own there food completely even if other people don't have food. They could have made the personal choice to sell in Ireland and taken a loss for the good of the starving just like people can make the personal choice of contributing to charities. One person's need does not entitle them to another person's property.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I assume, given our earlier discussions that this would exclude some issues regarding regulation, like accurate, honest and open accounting which must be legally enforced.

Even then, regulation can fail. Construction of our rail network resulted in an stock price bubble ("Railway Mania") as a result of poor scrutiny of bills placed before Parliament for the construction of new lines. This resulted in inflated costs associated with the construction of the network, a big recession when the bubble burst (this was prior to our social security safety-net, so no protection from the poor house), and a whole heap of duplicated and unprofitable routes, many of which were eventually closed in the 1960s (the Beeching Axe). In contrast to your earlier assertions that the free market wouldn't result in unnecessary duplication, we ended up with four routes between London and Birmingham (now down to two after the nationalised British Rail closed two).<!-/Quote-!>

Okay, to be clear, I make a distinction between regulation and law. A law would be something that assumes innocence until proven guilty: as in, the commitment of the crime leads to jail time and an allegation must be made (or suspicion otherwise aroused) prior to investigation. A regulation would be something that applies simply because an offense might be committed. I hope that clears things up a little. The creation of laws - not regulations - to protect people's rights I would not consider to be intervention in the economy. Just like making murder or robbery illegal is not an intervention in someone's personal life.
Anyway, the railway mania bubble. Obviously, I'm not the best versed in the history of British railways. However, as I understand it (bringing out the argument used similarly against the FDA and SEC), the free market does in fact place a premium on reputable companies. I mean people are more likely to invest in companies that have worked at developing and maintaining a trustworthy reputation. Older companies would not be liable to risk an established good reputation for a momentary fraudulent scheme or promote a bad product - if they wanted to remain in business (as I said previously, this would be a crime with a punishment). Newcomers would need to work at developing a reputation so that people trusted them. Now, this was not the case with the railway mania. Why? The government acted as approver of all kinds of schemes here, everything was stamped with the seal of approval by the state which signals to potential investors that the government endorses such action. In a purely capitalist society, there is no such stamp of approval - thus, no false security gained by the government's seal of approval.
As far as the duplication of routes, I'm not saying that it can't happen, just that it is unlikely - at least with cautious investors. With the lack of regulator safeguards and government seals of approval, I think every investor is liable to be more cautious and less culpable to schemes.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

How do you ensure this does not happen without government legislation? If people are desperate for work, they may be tempted to take any job no matter how well-informed they are of bad working conditions. Health and Safety does impact on profits though, so there are incentives for private companies to cut corners, particularly when labour is cheap and readily available, such as during recessions.<!-/Quote-!>

First, I'm saying that the chaining is only required if people aren't there of there own free will. Chaining someone down would just be asking for a criminal investigation and what company in their right mind would chain people there willingly and be known as that place that chains people. If it were not required, then the chains are also an added expense. For working conditions in general, unions, strikes, and boycotts are all still applicable for these kinds of things. None of which require government intervention. Isn't the whole reason unions were formed to protect workers from the worst kinds of working conditions?

--------------------------------
On an earlier point about a natural monopoly being achieved, should a company start attempting to fleece their customers by charging higher rates, they increase the potential profit for start-ups - encouraging new competitors to enter. Even if they lower the prices in response, they have the past action of charging unreasonable prices in the minds of consumers. People aren't exactly forgiving in their role as consumers. If the start-up charges reasonable prices to start, they can force the competitor to charge reasonable prices, but the start-up will also gain business just from the old monopolies' past unscrupulous practices.

@Scarlet "I don't think the invocation of free market was seriously under the impression that the food would go to the Irish"
I think you're right on this. It wasn't the expectation that the free market would bring food to the Irish, but the ideology of the British elite at the time that intervening in the market to bring food to the Irish would be morally wrong.

Relying on charitable giving in such circumstances also tends not to provide enough resources, nor quickly enough. Charitable donations did help alleviate some of the suffering in Ireland, but there was a significant lag before they started, and they never reached a level sufficient to stem the flee from Ireland.

You are also right to point out that it wasn't just the free market that caused this. There were laws that restricted the rights of the Irish, although they had been largely abolished by the time of the famine (the 1829 Act of Emanicpation removed many of the restrictions on Roman Catholics which had applied equally across Great Britain and Ireland with disproportionate effects on Ireland due to the greater numbers of Catholics there). These had been introduced over the preceeding centuries, in part in response to the refusal of the Pope to recognise the right of the Houses of Tudor and Stuart as lawful rulers, this being a result of the protestant reformation.

The point so far is, all of this is still ideologically driven. Even the semi-legal (in the sense that laws were enacted to declare it legal) process of dispossessing Catholic landholders was done with the dual aim of ensuring the protestant reformation in the UK AND improving the economy by enabling landholders to replace tenant farmers with more profitable sheep-rearing, etc. (free-marketeering). I suspect even your ideal "purely capitalist state", without the benefit of hindsight would have acted similarly - don't forget that an aspect of this was to secure the UK from potential Catholic aggression during the series of reformations and counter-reformations. War tends to make the stock market volatile due to uncertainty of supply and access to foreign markets and Europe had been in an almost perpetual state of war since the reformation started.

This brings me on to my next criticism of your position - the philosophical aspect. I get a sense that your unswerving support for the morality of pure capitalism arises from familiarity with the philosophy and politics of Ayn Rand. In my opinion, she makes the same fatal error as die-hard supporters of Marxism (as distinct from communism, Leninism and Stalinism). All of these politico-economic ideologies seem to arise out of first principle thinking. They neglect to take into account the Real World.

No matter how self-consistent and theoretically perfect a system, they will fail when they come into contact with reality. This is why you often end up with supporters saying things like, "ah, but in a real Marxist economy..." or (to quote you above) "in a purely capitalist state...".

These ideal situations do not exist and none of the philosphies from Rand, Marx, Lenin, or Locke provide adequate suggestions for how to get from the World-as-it-is, to the World-as-they-say-it-should-be.

To take one of your arguments about the effect of the Irish Potato Famine: "However, the market did cause something - the emigration of the Irish out of Ireland. People moving to more prosperous areas where there is greater opportunity is a correction".
This implies free passage across international borders (only possible at the time as Ireland was part of the British empire and there were fewer restrictions on movement of people and capital between our colonies, plus the fact that America was ecouraging immigration to help populate its expanding territory). Imagine the U.S. embraced your purely capitalist state ideal. To allow for this free transfer of people and capital, it would have to stop restricting immigration. How would the people of the states bordering Mexico react?

Obviously you could argue that this is an unnecessary step - perhaps you only need to lift the restrictions on other equally purely capitalist states? All that would require is another poor country to enact laws to turn it into a purely capitalist state and you would immediately have large-scale short-term disruption caused by mass migration. The hawks in Washington would immediately demand immigration controls with widespread support from the electorate.

There is simply no way that what you think is the ideal politico-economic system could arise in the real world. I am similarly sceptical of ALL philosophical arguments regarding politics and economics. None of them can survive the Real World intact. Use them to influence policy, yes, but you always need to guard against the unintended consequences of not being able to fully implement them.

A brief word about the morality of Pure Capitalism
I am fairly footloose in terms of moving to take a new job. I'm currently single with no dependents. Given that I'm fairly fluent in French, I could even move abroad. Is it necessarily moral that I could be forced to leave my home country to find work in order to live? What about a married/civilly-partnered couple (again: Real World, they exist over here and across much of Europe) with children who rely on their extended family for childcare? Is it moral to uproot them, take them away from their friends and extended family just so that they can earn enough to feed themselves? As mentioned in one of my posts above, Thatcher destroyed many Northern (England) mining communities with unemployment reaching 50% in some localities. I think it neither right nor moral that these people should be forced (by circumstance, not in the sense of forcibly removed) to move away from their friends and family. Especially since many had been in mining all their lives and didn't have the skills for other work. Staying in mining would probably have meant moving to a foreign country and learning a different language. Staying within the UK would have meant learning new skills - which should have been encouraged. But the market couldn't provide this for free (to unemployed miners, charity couldn't hope to supply the demand for training, and the state (under Thatcher) didn't provide it. The only entity capable of delivering the necessary re-training was the State, and ideology prevented Thatcher from doing so.

My last point: natural monopolies again
"People aren't exactly forgiving in their role as consumers. If the start-up charges reasonable prices to start, they can force the competitor to charge reasonable prices, but the start-up will also gain business just from the old monopolies' past unscrupulous practices."
Generally agreed. However, when it comes to natural monopolies, the barriers to entry are incredibly high - a new rail line/motorway can cost billions and take decades to pay for itself. An already established company could more easily lower its prices, forcing the start up to do the same stretching the time until it pays back its investors (in the UK large supermarket chains have been accused numerous times of selling a wide variety of items at below-cost to put local competitors out of business - they can subsidise the losses with profits from other stores). This would be likely to depress the value of the start-up enabling the established company to re-establish its natural monopoly.

In terms of people being pretty unforgiving in the role as consumers, they also have very poor long-term memories. A year before our last election there was a massive scandal involving MPs claiming frivolous expenses (sticking to the letter of the rules, if not the spirit of them) for moat-cleaning (unsurprisingly a Conservative MP), dog food (not a necessary expenses incurred due to government business) and mortgage payments on the family home (this did eventually lead to a custodial sentence for fraud, although he rightly maintained that it wasn't against the rules on MPs expenses).

The issue probably contributed to us getting a coalition government this time round, but nearly everyone had forgotten about it by the election. It wasn't a big election issue and reform of the rules went from a high priority immediately following the scandal, to a watered-down proposal before the election, to nothing now. I believe the MPs have now signed up to a new voluntary code which still doesn't include full disclosure.

The point is, we have collectively forgotten this. I'd be willing to wager something similar would happen with companies who fleece their customers. There would be outrage for a few months, their stock would drop (admittedly risking a takeover), but it would all blow over in a few months.

Bring
Up
My
Post
Just 'cos I'd really like Scarlet's response to my points (if RL is getting in the way, no worries).

BUMP (again!)
Still not quite ready to let this thread die.
Plus count it as a reminder that we still have a big debate to start on social liberal issues.

Sorry, I'm really busy at the moment. I've only had enough time in the last week to post "The end is near!" regarding the LU world market shortages and not enough time to do much about it.

Awww Scarlet, and we were all so depending on you...

Just to throw a couple points out. Not quite ready to get started on the con/lib social debate, but will say that your beliefs on religion and secularity will find no argument from me as I feel religion, or lack thereof, is strictly a personal choice which has little or no bearing in national political discussions. The rest we can find some wriggle room to bat things back and forth.

Regarding the Israel thing. No, of course I won't call you anti-Semitic. Hyperbole such as that brings an unwelcome stench into a debate.

However, allow me to ask this: How many examples from history can you give me where the aggressor in a war, who then loses said war, gets back territory it lost?

Israel was attacked by all of it's Arab neighbors in 1967. Outnumbered and surrounded it still somehow managed to soundly defeat it's enemies, in SIX days! It gained territory which provided it with a modicum of national security against future incursions.

Despite that, under Carter's (ugh, I really dislike that man!)pressure they returned the Sinai to Egypt in return for a peace treaty in the late 1970's, which is now in grave jeopardy.

No, I'm sorry, but a return to the 1967 borders is not open for discussion. Or shouldn't be. And it has nothing to do with religion, simple national security and spoils of war. If the Arabs were really concerned with the Palestinian "plight", why is it that there was no Arab country that wanted to accept the refugees after the Six Day War? Every one of them said "hell no, we don't want you in OUR country"?

Don't mean to sound snarky, so if it comes across that way I apologize. It's just that history could have been so much different if it weren't for that sorry J. Carter and his foreign policies in the entire mideast.

Then again, maybe not.

"Israel was attacked by all of it's Arab neighbors in 1967."
5th of June: Israel launched surprise attacks on its Arab neighbours. Opinion is divided as to whether it was a preemptive defensive strike or an act of aggression. Going on the principal that he who lobs the first grenade wins the title of 'aggressor', I'd give it to Israel.

"...where the aggressor in a war, who then loses said war, gets back territory it lost?"
Doesn't apply due to issue mentioned above.

Israel "gained territory which provided it with a modicum of national security against future incursions."
Yes, but at the cost of the national security of its neighbours. If your aim is a lasting peace in the Middle East, it won't be achieved if either side feels it does not have territorial security. The best chance we have is to work towards the two-state solution (Israel and Palestine) and that requires a shelving of Zionist aims to take larger areas of the Middle East.

Given that Israel was the aggressor in the 1967 war, a return to the pre-war borders should most definitely be open for discussion. Even your 'spoils of war' argument is not to my liking. By that argument, we could have gone on to conquer Argentina during the Falklands War (they attacked us, we only fought back as far as regaining what we lost) claiming it was only right as a spoil of war. In that sense, it is little different to Imperialism (which the US has generally opposed in all its overt forms).

Food for thought there, my friend. I'll have to do some research and get back to you.

BTW, my condolences to the of the Commonwealth for the recent earthquake. Nyy57 has planned a memorial monument in the country for those lost.

Okay, did my research. Apologize for the length:

Myth: Israel sought war in 1967 so it could conquer territory.


Fact: In what they perceived as the existential crisis leading to the Six-Day War, no Israeli political leader argued in favor of conflict on the basis that it would enable the country to conquer new lands. The debate was over how to avoid what appeared to be impending destruction, not how to expand. While a pre-emptive strike was seen as one way to avoid being wiped out, Israeli Prime Minster Levy Eshkol looked for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, and insisted on delaying all military action as long as possible so as to allow for diplomacy to run its course — even whil military officials warned that delays would work to Egypt's advantage by allowing them to build their forces.

That Israel had not considered a war for conquest became clear almost as soon as the fighting ended on June 10, 1967. The national unity government appeared to be looking for a way to shed most of the newly-acquired territory. (The Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, West Bank [Judea and Samaria] and Gaza Strip more than tripled the area under Israel's control.) In Defense Minister Moshe Dayan's phrase, Israel was "waiting for a telephone call" from Arab leaders, expecting to hear that now they were ready to negotiate peace. Some Israeli leaders asserted that the country would never return to the vulnerable, pre-war armistices lines of 1949 and 1950 or permit the newly-reunified Jerusalem to be divided again; nevertheless, Foreign Minister Abba Eban said the Jewish state would be "unbelievably generous in working out peace terms." In direct talks with Arab countries, "everything is negotiable," he said.

But Arab leaders rejected negotiations, rejected recognition, and rejected peace. Even so, rather than annex the West Bank or Gaza Strip, for example, Israel instituted a military administration and maintained their status under international law as disputed territories, subject to eventual negotiations. This suggested that the country did not intend to absorb these areas, or the bulk of them, into Israel proper. Further, Israel eventually negotiated the return of the Sinai - site of Israeli-developed oil fields, Israeli-built air bases, and the newly-constructed Jewish town of Yamit with its surrounding agricultural settlements - to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace treaty. The 1993 Oslo accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization, and their provisions for final status talks by 1998 on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, much of which were to be administered by the new Palestinian Authority, likewise confirmed that the Six-Day War had not been launched for territorial conquest.

Myth: Israel attacked Syria and Jordan first during the Six Day War.

Fact: A continual state of war existed with Syria in the months and years leading up to June 5, 1967. Artillery exchanges and hundreds of attempted infiltrations occurred between February 1966 and May 1967. At noon on June 5, Syrian aircraft attacked Israeli villages in the North of the country. Israel struck back almost immediately and destroyed much of Syria's air force. That same day, Syrian artillery attacked Israel from positions in the Golan Heights. On June 6, Syria opened the morning with an intense artillery bombardment followed by an attack on the Israeli communities of Tel Dan, Kibbutz Shaar Yashuv and Ashmura. The attack was repelled by Israeli forces. Israel attacked Syrian forces on the Golan Heights on June 9, and concluded the operation on June 10.

Despite Israel's entreaties to King Hussein to stay out of the war, Jordan shelled Jerusalem and Tel Aviv on June 5th and then occupied the United Nations headquarters in Jerusalem. Israeli forces responded and drove the Jordanian forces out of Jerusalem and the West Bank by June 7th.

Myth: Israel's attack was unprovoked.

Fact: In speeches for at least the previous two years, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had been threatening war. Terrorists supported by Syria and Egypt dramatically increased their attacks, from 41 raids in 1966 to 37 in the first four months of 1967. Syria used the Golan Heights as a platform to continue the shelling of Israeli villages near the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). On April 7, 1967 Israel retaliated, shooting down six Russian-built Syrian MiG fighters. Early in May, Moscow falsely told Syria that Israel was mobilizing forces for a massive attack. Syria then invoked its joint defense treaty with Egypt.

On May 15, Israeli Independence Day, Egypt began moving troops into the Sinai Peninsula toward Israel's borders. The following day, it requested that the United Nations Emergency Force, installed to help keep peace after the 1956 Sinai Campaign, evacuate, which UNEF did. By May 18, Syrian troops were ready for battle along Israel's northern frontier. The same day the Voice of the Arabs radio declared that "we shall not complain any more to the U.N. about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and all foreign ships bound for Israel's Red Sea port of Eilat, an act of war that cut the route from Israel's main oil supplier, Iran. Nasser continued to threaten Israel, asserting on May 27 that coexistence was out of the question and that "the war with Israel is in existence since 1948." Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Other Arab countries sent forces to Egypt and Jordan to assist, and by June 4, approximately 250,000 enemy troops with more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft surrounded Israel. By then on a socially and economically unsustainable alert for three weeks, Israel's best option was to pre-empt the Arab attack, which it did on June 5, first knocking out the Egyptian air force. Years later, Salah al-Hadidi, the Egyptian judge presiding over trials of army officers held accountable for his country's defeat, admitted Egypt's responsibility for causing the war: "I can state that Egypt's political leadership called Israel to war. It clearly provoked Israel and forced it into a confrontation" (Michael Oren, Six Days of War, 310-11).

So although the first military action could arguably be said to belong to Israel, the mobilizations along the borders, the expulsion of UN "peacekeepers", and the diplomatic language by the Arab nations left little doubt as to their intentions.

I could theoretically gloss over that as mere sabre rattling, but one glaring fact still remains: A naval blockade is an act of war. That action alone would seem to justify Israel's response. And yet they waited two weeks for diplomacy to work before turning to a military solution.

As far as your Argentina argument, what would Britain want with that country? Granted they raise good beef! And the climate is probably nicer than the U.K., but still. Anyhow, you guys had a strong presence in the Argentine for a long time and decided it wasn't worth the trouble of administering. Joking aside, although the British could have justified continuing to the mainland, the perceived benefits were far outweighed by the cost such an op would have entailed.

Thanks for the monument to those killed/injured in the earthquake (admission: I hadn't actually noticed my country had experienced one!)

The overview of Israeli-Arab actions is great. But it just highlights (to me) that both sides made mistakes, could be accused of aggressive acts, and often act stubbornly when it comes to diplomacy. All to often, it seems that there is just an endless cycle of aggressive acts, half of which are then termed counter-offensives as retaliation for the actions of the other side.

Americans tend to focus on Palestinian and Arab acts of aggression/counter-aggression, placing the majority of their support with Israel.
Europeans tend to focus on Israeli acts of aggression/counter-aggression, placing the majority of their support with Palestine/surrounding Arab nations.

Personally, I think the whole region is a complete mess, complicated further by the friction between religious groupings there. I'm not too interested in placing blame for each individual act of violence (be it terrorism, military actions, or whatever). All I can see is a seemingly endless war which I think would best be resolved by diplomacy - basically because if either side 'won' the war, the other would be unlikely to concede defeat.

In that case, it might be better for both Europe and America to step back from taking sides, shove their negotiators in a room somewhere and tell them not to come out until they have thrashed out a deal that is at least marginally acceptable to both sides. Then everyone should enforce it (including stamping down on detractors within their own territory). Probably an unworkable pipe-dream, but I live in hope. Otherwise, the only alternative is to nuke the region into a radioactive desert so no-one can have it (NB: not a serious suggestion).

Re: Argentina. Yep, there was no benefit to us to continuing on the mainland. I was merely seeking to highlight the point that even if a defender gets an upper hand in a war and goes on to capture territory, they do not necessarily have a right to keep it as a 'spoil of war'. It does help from the point of view of peace negotiations though (capitulate and we'll give it back, etc.).

All points well taken. And agreed with by me.

The region is a mess. And religion is a major root cause. It has long amazed me that three of the world's major religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) all have the same roots and pretty much the same belief systems yet manage to create such friction amongst themselves. Indeed, Christianity arose from Judaism, and Islam (the youngest of the three) was derived from perceived inadequacies of Christianity.

Of course that wasn't enough. Each of the three had to splinter off sects that are violently opposed to the other religions, and those sects from time to time gain ascendency amongst their respective groupings, causing world turmoil. And on it goes ad nauseum.

Your Argentina thoughts are correct, of course. The peace negotiation tactic is a well used one throughout history. It is rare in modern warfare for a country to attempt to completely overrun and conquer another. We no longer execute all the males when the war is done; I suppose that's an improvement!

Right suggestion about the EU and US stepping back and locking up the negotiators. Basically that was what happened at the Camp David accords back in 1979 between Egypt and Israel. There was interminable bickering and no progress until the US said "here's the deal: work something out or we wash our hands of all of you. End of discussion." They worked something out. It might be a pipe-dream, but if the EU and US got serious about it, and made perfectly clear to both sides that deviation from whatever agreement was reached would result in overwhelming response (be it military or economic or both) from an EU/US coalition, I think it's doable.

One thing: I'm Republican, I live in Wisconsin, and I support the budget cuts for state workers. If you don't like it, too bad. IF you don't like me, go fuck yourself.

Pretty well sums it up. What some don't seem to understand is that for every state worker crying about it, there are two other people hurting even more, that are forced to support the unrealistic contractual obligations through ever increasing tax burdens.

Exactly rep, and I am kind of one of those people right now.

Been there, done that. Until this current economic meltdown I made a pretty decent living writing articles (history & travel mostly) for magazines, but for the past two years I couldn't buy a steak dinner with what I made writing, so I'm working two part-time jobs trying to keep it going.

In the meantime, last year my property taxes went up 3%, school taxes up 4.5%. This year property went up another 1.5% (the politicos beat their chest about how they "cut" the taxes.) and the school district laid off most of the teacher's aides and cut cafeteria staff, and "only" raised taxes by 2%.

Bottom line I pay 2600 on my house every year (just your average, nothing fancy kind of place) and a little over a grand on school taxes.

That's 300 a month if you break it down. When you're working for 8 bucks/hour, 32 hours a week, it doesn't leave a lot leftover.

Whine, whine, bitch, bitch. Sorry for the rant, just wanted to let you know you're not alone.

Rep.......thus why I left the journalism field. Pays crap.

If you're on a daily or weekly, yeah, you're right.

Most of my work was on monthly and quarterly's, and since I was free lance I could make up for the low rates by doing volume.

And if you've read any of my other posts you KNOW I can pump out 2500 words without breaking a sweat!

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

@Scarlet "I don't think the invocation of free market was seriously under the impression that the food would go to the Irish"
I think you're right on this. It wasn't the expectation that the free market would bring food to the Irish, but the ideology of the British elite at the time that intervening in the market to bring food to the Irish would be morally wrong.

Relying on charitable giving in such circumstances also tends not to provide enough resources, nor quickly enough. Charitable donations did help alleviate some of the suffering in Ireland, but there was a significant lag before they started, and they never reached a level sufficient to stem the flee from Ireland.<!-/Quote-!>

I was thinking more that the idea was to starve out the Irish. I'm not a believer in immediate, complete change . . . more of an incrementalist. I'm alleging that the invocation of the free market was done inappropriately. The changeover from economic control to economic freedom needs to be done slowly. Economic freedom could've done a lot to avert the famine in the first place, but since it wasn't anywhere near being established, some controls can be warranted temporarily and only with the idea of moving toward greater economic freedom (in my book at least).

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

You are also right to point out that it wasn't just the free market that caused this. There were laws that restricted the rights of the Irish, although they had been largely abolished by the time of the famine (the 1829 Act of Emanicpation removed many of the restrictions on Roman Catholics which had applied equally across Great Britain and Ireland with disproportionate effects on Ireland due to the greater numbers of Catholics there). These had been introduced over the preceeding centuries, in part in response to the refusal of the Pope to recognise the right of the Houses of Tudor and Stuart as lawful rulers, this being a result of the protestant reformation.

The point so far is, all of this is still ideologically driven. Even the semi-legal (in the sense that laws were enacted to declare it legal) process of dispossessing Catholic landholders was done with the dual aim of ensuring the protestant reformation in the UK AND improving the economy by enabling landholders to replace tenant farmers with more profitable sheep-rearing, etc. (free-marketeering). I suspect even your ideal "purely capitalist state", without the benefit of hindsight would have acted similarly - don't forget that an aspect of this was to secure the UK from potential Catholic aggression during the series of reformations and counter-reformations. War tends to make the stock market volatile due to uncertainty of supply and access to foreign markets and Europe had been in an almost perpetual state of war since the reformation started.<!-/Quote-!>

Eh, freedom of religion. It worked out here in America. Back on the incrementalist side, it doesn't make sense to create a capitalist state when all citizens aren't politically equal. Political equality needs to precede economic freedom in every case. Otherwise, disaster is definitely going to ensue. The reason why should be clear in this case: by dispossessing Catholics, it ensured that any free market situation was biased in favor of Protestants. I'd wager that if the Catholics had not be dispossessed, the potato famine would have been much less deadly simply because the Irish tenant farmers would have been less likely to have been kicked out and Irish landholders would've have been more likely to help out their community voluntarily. Stripping property rights of certain groups of people isn't a part of a capitalist ideology as far as I know - in fact, such actions run completely counter to it as far as I can tell. So from an ideological perspective, I may not have intervened in the Potato Famine, but I would most definitely not have dispossessed the Catholic landholders.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

This brings me on to my next criticism of your position - the philosophical aspect. I get a sense that your unswerving support for the morality of pure capitalism arises from familiarity with the philosophy and politics of Ayn Rand. In my opinion, she makes the same fatal error as die-hard supporters of Marxism (as distinct from communism, Leninism and Stalinism). All of these politico-economic ideologies seem to arise out of first principle thinking. They neglect to take into account the Real World.

No matter how self-consistent and theoretically perfect a system, they will fail when they come into contact with reality. This is why you often end up with supporters saying things like, "ah, but in a real Marxist economy..." or (to quote you above) "in a purely capitalist state...".

These ideal situations do not exist and none of the philosphies from Rand, Marx, Lenin, or Locke provide adequate suggestions for how to get from the World-as-it-is, to the World-as-they-say-it-should-be.<!-/Quote-!>

I disagree that following principles necessarily neglects to take into account the real world. My point is more that things might have been better if it were closer to a pure state. Of course, I'm referencing a purely capitalist state so I would use the phrase "in a purely capitalist state". I could just as well have turned the language around to allege that controls were responsible for the negative events in question which wouldn't require the use of "in a purely capitalist state". Furthermore, if I were to argue through this format, then we would be debating whether or not controls or freedom was the cause of the negative consequences of the event in question (and whether more controls or more freedom could have avoided or reduced the effects of the event) which would negate your assertion entirely. Besides, it is impossible to have an opinion outside an ideology. How would you ever form an opinion without reasons for that opinion? So far, I'd say that it looks like you're following something similar to Utilitarianism.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

To take one of your arguments about the effect of the Irish Potato Famine: "However, the market did cause something - the emigration of the Irish out of Ireland. People moving to more prosperous areas where there is greater opportunity is a correction".
This implies free passage across international borders (only possible at the time as Ireland was part of the British empire and there were fewer restrictions on movement of people and capital between our colonies, plus the fact that America was ecouraging immigration to help populate its expanding territory). Imagine the U.S. embraced your purely capitalist state ideal. To allow for this free transfer of people and capital, it would have to stop restricting immigration. How would the people of the states bordering Mexico react?<!-/Quote-!>

Wherever goods flow, people should as well. We should allow both immigration and emigration between every trade partner. It's only fair. I've no problem with legal immigration whatsoever. Anyway, I'm in a border state, but I'm half mexican - so yeah.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Obviously you could argue that this is an unnecessary step - perhaps you only need to lift the restrictions on other equally purely capitalist states? All that would require is another poor country to enact laws to turn it into a purely capitalist state and you would immediately have large-scale short-term disruption caused by mass migration. The hawks in Washington would immediately demand immigration controls with widespread support from the electorate.

There is simply no way that what you think is the ideal politico-economic system could arise in the real world. I am similarly sceptical of ALL philosophical arguments regarding politics and economics. None of them can survive the Real World intact. Use them to influence policy, yes, but you always need to guard against the unintended consequences of not being able to fully implement them.<!-/Quote-!>

As I mentioned earlier the rule of thumb I'm using is "Wherever goods flow, people should as well." Basically, the idea is to create a trade package that allows for people, goods, money, and information to flow freely between the borders of both countries. It doesn't require the other state to be purely capitalist, but I agree that there will be mass movement to the more free state either way. It would have a tendency to force a high degree of cooperation among nations in order to maintain - which is a good thing, no? Even with a temporary disruption, is there any reason to think that things wouldn't turn out better in the long term? Also, I'm not a politician: I don't need to be concerned about whether an electorate would accept it - plus, the fact is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it would be a good idea. As a voter, it would be extremely stupid of me to disregard my principles. If I'm concerned about economic freedom, why should I ever consent to pass laws that limit it? If I believe that the ideal situation requires many different things to be taken out of the hands of government, why shouldn't I follow through as much as possible? If the system needs to be fully implemented to be completely effective, I'll definitely NEVER see the full implementation if I don't follow through and TRY to fully implement it.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

A brief word about the morality of Pure Capitalism
I am fairly footloose in terms of moving to take a new job. I'm currently single with no dependents. Given that I'm fairly fluent in French, I could even move abroad. Is it necessarily moral that I could be forced to leave my home country to find work in order to live? What about a married/civilly-partnered couple (again: Real World, they exist over here and across much of Europe) with children who rely on their extended family for childcare? Is it moral to uproot them, take them away from their friends and extended family just so that they can earn enough to feed themselves? As mentioned in one of my posts above, Thatcher destroyed many Northern (England) mining communities with unemployment reaching 50% in some localities. I think it neither right nor moral that these people should be forced (by circumstance, not in the sense of forcibly removed) to move away from their friends and family. Especially since many had been in mining all their lives and didn't have the skills for other work. Staying in mining would probably have meant moving to a foreign country and learning a different language. Staying within the UK would have meant learning new skills - which should have been encouraged. But the market couldn't provide this for free (to unemployed miners, charity couldn't hope to supply the demand for training, and the state (under Thatcher) didn't provide it. The only entity capable of delivering the necessary re-training was the State, and ideology prevented Thatcher from doing so.<!-/Quote-!>

Then you would say that it is right and moral to charge others for the expenses of ensuring that these people don't need to move or to place the burden of retraining them on other people who wouldn't voluntarily provide it through charities? Yes, this is the real world, and in the real world, it's also possible to learn more than one skill set before you're unemployed. Even afterward, there are apprenticeships, company-sponsored classes, and paid internships to teach you new skills as well (I've seen them myself!). I'm looking at a print-out for sheet metal worker apprenticeship that requires only a High School Diploma (or GED) that pays $20.73/hour. I know someone who took free classes paid by a utility company to teach him how to work on transmission power lines. Furthermore, it seems like you're arguing for me to back down from my principles so that I'll follow your principles. There is no such thing as a position that doesn't follow principles (well, a position that isn't chosen randomly). However, there is one situation where I would consider it okay for the State to provide services such as retraining, food, and such. Considering that I would support a fiscally responsible government that didn't spend more than it took in, there would inevitably arise a surplus of funds. This surplus could be saved as like a rainy day fund to help retrain or feed people in tough times. It's already been taxed, after all. Permanent programs or debt/deficit-based programs, no.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

My last point: natural monopolies again
"People aren't exactly forgiving in their role as consumers. If the start-up charges reasonable prices to start, they can force the competitor to charge reasonable prices, but the start-up will also gain business just from the old monopolies' past unscrupulous practices."
Generally agreed. However, when it comes to natural monopolies, the barriers to entry are incredibly high - a new rail line/motorway can cost billions and take decades to pay for itself. An already established company could more easily lower its prices, forcing the start up to do the same stretching the time until it pays back its investors (in the UK large supermarket chains have been accused numerous times of selling a wide variety of items at below-cost to put local competitors out of business - they can subsidise the losses with profits from other stores). This would be likely to depress the value of the start-up enabling the established company to re-establish its natural monopoly.

In terms of people being pretty unforgiving in the role as consumers, they also have very poor long-term memories. A year before our last election there was a massive scandal involving MPs claiming frivolous expenses (sticking to the letter of the rules, if not the spirit of them) for moat-cleaning (unsurprisingly a Conservative MP), dog food (not a necessary expenses incurred due to government business) and mortgage payments on the family home (this did eventually lead to a custodial sentence for fraud, although he rightly maintained that it wasn't against the rules on MPs expenses).

The issue probably contributed to us getting a coalition government this time round, but nearly everyone had forgotten about it by the election. It wasn't a big election issue and reform of the rules went from a high priority immediately following the scandal, to a watered-down proposal before the election, to nothing now. I believe the MPs have now signed up to a new voluntary code which still doesn't include full disclosure.

The point is, we have collectively forgotten this. I'd be willing to wager something similar would happen with companies who fleece their customers. There would be outrage for a few months, their stock would drop (admittedly risking a takeover), but it would all blow over in a few months.<!-/Quote-!>

I was writing up a long response to this, but I got tired. Basically, my point would have been that the new competitor doesn't necessarily have to be a start-up, the competitor to a road can be a rail, the new competitor can get contracts, or the new competitor can be a former high volume customer that wanted to cut out the middleman, etc. There are many possibilities.
I'm also willing to concede local streets and some local infrastructure (these don't seem to run counter to economic freedom, I'm not crazy enough to think the street I live on can have a competitor, a democratic majority is more meaningful at the local level, the payers are almost guaranteed to be the users, and/or the infrastructure costs can be passed on based on use), but NOT freeways, highways, subways, railroads, buslines, power/water production, etc. And I will agree with you that a government monopoly of the type I mentioned should be controlled entirely by the government (in this case, county/municipal level government)so there are no government-backed private monopolies which is asking for problems.

Anyway, long story short is that I would consider it extremely foolish to back down from principles on the basis that they might fail to be fully implemented. I would be equally foolish to believe that this couldn't end badly, but for me, this is a matter of prioritizing one part of the implementation before another part to ensure the best results. It's only a question of the appropriate order of implementation. As I mentioned, political freedom and political equality need to be achieved before economic freedom is of prime concern. Economic freedom within a nation is more important than economic freedom among nations. Obviously, I think that as much economic freedom as possible is the best thing. How much is possible (without undermining itself)? I'm not exactly sure. I certainly think there could be more. At the very least, I'd say government healthcare and subsidized industries are not conducive to economic freedom.

"I'm not a believer in immediate, complete change... more of an incrementalist."

I'm so glad you said that. Twenty-odd years ago, lot of liberal economists argued that a short sharp shock was what was needed for the transition from communism to capitalism in Russia. Gorbachev was 'for' a gradual transition to a Scandinavian-style social democratic model. Unfortunately, he lost out to Yeltsin in the first election and Shock Therapy was applied.

Given its association with the neoliberalism in the US (and its failure in practice in Chile, former Soviet countries and the Asian financial crisis), I'm perhaps a bit too suspicious of individuals who push for the sort of complete economic freedom you advocate. I have much less opposition to your idea of gradual change - that's sort of like what China is doing (although without the democracy, so far) with its transition to a market economy.

"Freedom of religion. It worked out here in America. Back on the incrementalist side, it doesn't make sense to create a capitalist state when all citizens aren't politically equal. Political equality needs to precede economic freedom in every case. Otherwise, disaster is definitely going to ensue."

I don't think it necessarily follows that disaster will ensue, however, I agree that the reasoning you lay out re: disposession of Catholics is valid. Some cultures (yes, I know I risk descending into cultural relativism, which is questionable) seem more tolerant of authoritarianism which is why the transition to restricted capitalism without political freedom is working so far in China. This suggests, to me, that it is not necessary for political equality to precede economic freedom in every case (although longer term, China will have to transition to democracy if it wants to continue its economic growth).

One last point on this, the dispossession happened well over a century before the Potato Famine, so even though you would not have dispossessed the Catholic landholders, I think circumstances would have forced you to intervene in the events that followed.

"It is impossible to have an opinion outside an ideology. [...] it looks like you're following something similar to Utilitarianism."

I probably do follow elements of negative utilitarianism (preventing the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number) and in that sense, yes, my opinions probably are formed within an ideology.

However, I remain deeply concerned by ideology in politics. Not so much about the ideologies themselves - more due to their implementation. In the First Past The Post (FPTP) system we have in the UK (& similar in the US), it is not uncommon for a party to gain a landslide election victory on a scant plurality of the votes. Labour's 1997 victory (the most significant in recent decades here) handed them 63% of the seats on only 43% of the votes. The US Presidential election handed 60% of the States to Bush on 47.9% of the vote (with more votes cast for Gore, 48.4%). Note: This is not an issue of whether Bush should have won or not; in both the UK and US, where the votes are cast matters as much as for whom. I am critical of FPTP as an electoral system, not the winners it produces.

These are not the sort of majorities I would like to see if you want a significant shift in the direction of a country's politics or economics. In Britain, over the past century, we've had private industry, then nationalised by Labour (on ideological grounds), then privatised again by Thatcher's Conservatives (on ideological grounds). Each shift happened on broadly similar plurality votes so did not carry the support of even a slim majority of the electorate. Each shift also caused a significant amount of turmoil socially (growth of union power under Labour, mass unemployment under Thatcher).

I don't think that any significant ideological shift (towards a purely capitalist state, or a purely communist one) should take place without a clear majority of the electorate. When it comes to politics, I am firmly Centrist, and perhaps place a greater value on stability (at the cost of economic dynamism) than you.

This only applies to FPTP though. Throw a half-decent system of Proportional Representation (PR) into the electoral system (such as in Germany, which has weathered the Credit Crunch surprisingly well), and I would have no problem whatsoever with parties pushing for their full ideology. The post-election coalition agreement should iron out most of the more extreme ideas leaving something that should be tolerable to a majority. Compromise: The art of making nobody happy.

"Wherever goods flow, people should as well [...] Even with a temporary disruption, is there any reason to think that things wouldn't turn out better in the long term?"

I would LOVE to see a US politician try to implement your idea. I must agree, in the long term it may well work. In the short term, it's political suicide.

"As a voter, it would be extremely stupid of me to disregard my principles."

Agreed, however, accept that some of your principles might be unpalatable to a majority of the electorate (they would be in Europe) which would make it difficult for them to be passed and in force for long enough for the benefits to become clear. That's the trouble with democracy - you need a frequent choice, but not so frequent that the new government can't show the benefits of its policies. Given the disparity between the Mexican and American economies, it's all too likely that the electorate will blink and roll back your plan before things turn out for the better.

That said, we're managing it here in Europe. Britain had huge numbers of East Europeans immigrate after they joined the EU (other countries imposed limits). As investment flowed the other way (& now that our economy has hit a dip), many have returned. Still, there were huge criticisms (Poles coming over here, with their work ethic, working twice as long for less money) and the Tories have undoubtedly gained some support for being more Euro-sceptic.

"Then you would say that it is right and moral to charge others for the expenses of ensuring that these people don't need to move or to place the burden of retraining them on other people who wouldn't voluntarily provide it through charities?"

I think you're missing my main point. I don't think it's moral to force people to move great distances (possibly internationally) in search of work. This risks splitting up extended families and forcing people to move away from their friends. Should I not have the freedom to live near the people that matter to me?

I am generally opposed to shifting elements of our welfare state on to charities. The whole point of the welfare state is that it is effectively government-mandated charitable giving. I think it's a better way of ensuring that the money comes from those who can best afford it, and goes to those who most need it ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", admittedly a Karl Marx quote, but I still agree with it).

My other main reason for opposing charitable provision of welfare is very much ideological - too many of the charities lining up to take up the contracts on offer in this country are religious in nature. This goes against my principles on secularism (and the idea of freedom of religion). It has led to the ridiculous situation of a London Council handing a contract for counselling young people in schools to the Catholic Children's Society. The contract covers counselling services addressing issues of contraception, unwanted pregnancy and homophobic bullying. I think it's entirely inappropriate to expect Catholics to provide neutral advice to vulnerable children on these issues. Keeping provision of these sorts of services within state control would be a much better way of ensuring true freedom of (and from) religion. Either that, or each school should pay for Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish and Humanist counsellors - might work out a bit more expensive though. Oh, and Hindu and Sikh.

"as much economic freedom as possible is the best thing[...] I'd say government healthcare and subsidized industries are not conducive to economic freedom."
I think we've just about exhausted natural monopolies & I'm willing to agree to disagree.

I heartily agree with your assertion that subsidised industries aren't conducive to economic freedom. If I ever get power in the European Union, I would eliminate the ridiculous subsidies we pay to farmers. This would cause the whole of France to strike (I wish this were a joke, but it isn't), but open up competition from developing countries who would benefit from better access to European markets.

I don't agree with privatised healthcare - again it goes back to Marx's idea of ability to pay vs. need for services. I don't see how a medical insurance company can manage to maintain an affordable insurance premium on someone who, say, becomes unable to work through an accident, or is diagnosed with MS. I have a friend who has just had his third relapse, spent 3 weeks in hospital and will need intensive physio to regain his independence. He may well have further relapses. I don't see how an insurance company could possibly provide the health care he needs at a premium he could afford. Thankfully, he's a Brit, so it's all paid for by the state.

Another stupidly long post - sorry! But I am enjoying this debate and it's great to get an opposing view to challenge my thinking.