Iraq Situation is Bullshit by Succatash

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Iraq Situation is Bullshit

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 09:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 20731
PAGE 4 of 4

Sunday, October 5, 2003 5:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The more, the merrier!

I know that Drakon has argued on both sides of the idealism /realism fence, and many of his points contain both elements. But consistent picture that I'm getting is that the actual time, place, and circumstances of capitalism are superfluous to its *fundamental* nature. For example, when Drakon says that capitalism had its roots in prehistory, I think that says

Capitalism could be supported in a society that has no markets.

It is tied up with the *fundamentally* selfish aspect of human nature that expresses itself throughout history.

I know the point that Drakon is trying to make: that people acting selfishly advance development. But that conclusion rests on a process called "free markets" which requires that everyone come to the market with perfect knowledge, and that power among the players is levelled by competition. There are so many requirements, provisos, scenarios that don't fit this ideal that could cause the whole process to veer opposite of what was envisioned. They ar worth talking about.

For example, the "golden rule" of property ownership applied to air. If I open a refinery and you're downwind, then my property rights violate yours. I'm using the air as a resource to make money, and passing the costs on to you and your neighborhood in terms of property damage, health costs, and reduced market value of your home. How can we put "air" into the free market? If not, how do we otherwise decide on the values of a refinery versus that value of clean air?

There are a lot of other similar instances- airports (improve the economy but cause noise and stess in the flight path), roads, suburban development etc.all impact the things that we might need or want: fresh air, water, soil, biodiversity, community- but these resources aren't in the free market.

Then, looking at the requirements for roads. There is nothing "superfluous" about transportation in the operation of capitalism. But roads are not created or maintained, by and large, by capitalists. The old Roman roads, our highways, even the internet- were created by the government for military purposes. Trade requires safety: Roman legions or Federal Marshalls.

My point is that capitalism even under IDEAL circumstances is not a self-sustaining, independent system. It requires a lot of political, social, and economic inputs in the form of currency (which is maintained by government), safety, transportation, laws, etc that are either impossible to put into the free market or that help the free market continue to be free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 5, 2003 6:10 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hey Drakon, I have to go look at some investments. (Truly!

)

It has been and coninues to be a pleasure talking with you. I apologize for my provoking statement of last night- I will in future try not to needle you on purpose, it's a bad habit of mine!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 5, 2003 6:15 AM

DRAKON

Huh?

no sweat. I took it as more a failure to understand what I was saying rather than anything else.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 5, 2003 6:40 AM

SUCCATASH

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

So, we all agree, right? Bush sucks?

No actually we don't, but I suspect you don't really care what others think anyway, so why ask?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 5, 2003 6:46 AM

SUCCATASH

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
No actually we don't, but I suspect you don't really care what others think anyway, so why ask?

Bite me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 5, 2003 7:03 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But consistent picture that I'm getting is that the actual time, place, and circumstances of capitalism are superfluous to its *fundamental* nature.

True.

Quote:
Capitalism could be supported in a society that has no markets.

I am saying that without markets, you don't have any economic system at all, socialist, capitalist or whatever. You got a person out on his own. You also don't have any society either, and no body else's rights to worry about.

Quote:
It is tied up with the *fundamentally* selfish aspect of human nature that expresses itself throughout history.

True.

Quote:
I know the point that Drakon is trying to make: that people acting selfishly advance development. But that conclusion rests on a process called "free markets" which requires that everyone come to the market with perfect knowledge,

False, and not sure how you got there. Everyone does not need to have "perfect knowledge" nor really that much knowledge at all. You know what you have, what the value of your goods are to you. You know what the other guy's offer is, and whether that offer is greater than your value of your goods. You know whether you value his money, or other goods, more than you value your own. That is all that matters.

What does require "perfect knowledge" is socialism. That is the only way any central authority can make the right decisions. And they ain't got it, which is why socialism is a failure compared to capitalism.

Quote:
power among the players is levelled by competition.

You need to define what you mean by "power" here before I can address it.

Quote:
For example, the "golden rule" of property ownership applied to air. If I open a refinery and you're downwind, then my property rights violate yours. I'm using the air as a resource to make money, and passing the costs on to you and your neighborhood in terms of property damage, health costs, and reduced market value of your home. How can we put "air" into the free market? If not, how do we otherwise decide on the values of a refinery versus that value of clean air?

This is related to "the tradegy of the commons" And it can get rather complicated. I have been trying to keep this simple for pendantic purposes, and you are right that commons are a problem.

But it should be noted that anything you do has a cost, as well as a potential benefit. Regulations have costs, and that cost gets passed on to the buyer of the goods you produce. Your business has to survive in the market, and if the cost is too high, for the percieved value of those goods, then your goods will not sell.

If your profits are too low, whats the point in all the hard work?

Besides which, you breathe the air as well, there is a detrimental effect on you, in pollution, not only in the self defensive actions you encourage in others, but to your own health. You want to poison yourself, well, I think that would be pretty dumb. But if you want to poison the rest of us, or don't want us to poison you, well then we better sit down and discuss just how we not do that.

Quote:

My point is that capitalism even under IDEAL circumstances is not a self-sustaining, independent system. It requires a lot of political, social, and economic inputs in the form of currency (which is maintained by government), safety, transportation, laws, etc that are either impossible to put into the free market or that help the free market continue to be free.

Again, I gotta refer you the difference between positive and negative rights. You are right that it requires a lot of politics, social, and economic inputs, to keep markets free and honest. And if those inputs are not present, what would happen?

The market would collapse as people abandon that market or deal with others.

Enron is a perfect example. When it came out they had been lying on their financial reports, their stock tanked. And the rest of the market, including a lot of honest businesses tanked as well, because the overall perception was that all businesses were lying.

Even before the law started arresting people, the market responded. And because of that response, businesses became highly motivated to get independent audits, to make sure no one inside was cooking the books and proving their honesty to the market.

While the law was helpful, the market reacted before the law was able to. And businesses responded appropriately to that market action.

And looking at the law in general, what you see is several principles at work. First off, you see that the law makes more immediate the detrimental effects of a particular immoral action. It makes bad things that would happen to others, affect the perpetrator, and (hopefully) sooner.

Another thing is that the law is reflective, rather than pro-active. It does not prevent bad people doing bad things, (at least immediately, it does serve as a deterent to some however) but try to clean up the mess after the fact.

While all these are useful, and make life easier, better for capitalist economies, they are also employable by socialist systems as well. And more importantly, they are not the only way of doing things.

Unsafe roads and banditry (piracy)? Again, as Rizza pointed out, security forces become a growth industry. Theives running loose? One could rely on a government, or take the law into one's own hands and hunt down the bad guys one self. Someone breaks the "social compact" of reciprocal negative rights? You can break theirs. A business does not play fair? You no longer do business with them. And tell others about your experience or even arraign a boycott of the business. That is not good for the business.

In short, a central government, like currency,
while easier, does not mean it is necessary. The individual has a lot of power and can cause effect all on his own. The individual can negatively impact the bad guys, with or without government help. He can build his own roads, on his own property, if he likes.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 5, 2003 12:31 PM

RAZZA

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
No actually we don't, but I suspect you don't really care what others think anyway, so why ask?
Bite me.

Well now, I am overwhelmed by your intellect and see the error of my ways. Of course, I hate Bush, thank you for showing me the light. NOT!

Thanks for proving my point by the way.

"Keep Flying!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I leave for a week on a top-secret bio-surveillance mission and look what happens!!! tsk tsk

NOT!

Just been really really really busy. I'm one of those unmotivated government lab rats that kicks in hours of free time for the helluva it!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE