Path to Socialism

[sigmtnman]

In many of the discussions here we see that our country's descent into socialism or communism is of great concern, as it should be. We can look throughout history and recognize that countries in which the government imposes rigid structure over the behaviors of men are the ones that have the worst conditions for the majority of the inhabitants/citizens.

People scoff at libertarianism as a bunch of baseless crazy ideas, but these same ideas are the antithesis of socialism/communism/collectivism and indeed the foundation for a free market capitalism and a life of self determination.

I'm a bit of a Milton Friedman fan and hopefully this video will be of interest to folks who would like a better understanding of classical liberalism (Libertarianism).

Edited August 15, 2012 by sigmtnman

[kieefer]

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Our country was founded on mostly

libertarian principles. They've been

working against it from the

beginning.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RobertNashville]

The problem that most people have with libertarianism, or at least that I have with it, is that as a philosophy it seems to promote individualism to the point that the overall good of society can be sacrificed. I claim no special insight into the founders but at least based on what I do know, I think they also leaned toward libertarianism but not to the extreme that some want to take it.

That said, as long as people can recognize that government (federal, state and local) have a prat to play in people's lives, we can discuss and hopefully reach a consensus on just how much of a part that should be.

[sigmtnman]

The federal, state and local governments absolutely have a role to play. Anarcho capatalism would be the form of libertarianism that has no role for government.

[sigmtnman]

If I've not bored folks, this is an excellent segment from a horrible talk show everyone remembers. It gets to the heart of whether the government should be in the business of protecting folks from themselves.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Friedman is an interesting guy. He drives points home well as illustrated by your posted videos. I agree with him on a great deal.

He was a complex fella and some aspects were a "kinder gentler big-gov guy". The basic fallacy that it isn't a problem we have big gov, but the problem is that the wrong people are in charge and implement the wrong policies. Which is typically the attitude of big gov progressive D's, big gov progressive R's, authoritarians and theocrats of all stripe.

Ferinstance, Friedman was an early proponent of negative income tax as a better solution than the patchwork of welfare, social security, minimum wage and labor law. Which he may have been correct about, but the idea of negative income tax raises reflexive hackles of many including most libertarians. It is strange that in the Nixon era it had a good chance of becoming law, but Friedman withdrew support when it became obvious that the concept would get "piled on" atop the other patchwork of programs, rather than replacing them.

http://en.wikipedia....tive_income_tax

Another source of cognitive dissonance is that Friedman was one of the foremost students of the great depression. Bernanke was a student of Friedman and in Bernanke's mind he is doing what Friedman said "should have been done" to allow the great depression to be a year-long recession rather than a 15 year depression. Most fans of Friedman among libertarians and conservatives think Bernanke is out of his mind, so it is kinda wierd that Bernanke believes himself to be following the prescriptions of the hero Friedman. Maybe Bernanke has it all wrong, but there are similarities there which can't be denied, as illustrated in these two videos.

[media=]

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You don't bore me with this kind of stuff, sig. I enjoy watching the old videos of people with minds that work.

I really loved watching Friedman doing those college town hall type seminars of years ago. He's a kind of "Hugh

Axton" guy.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Now I'm stuck on watching him, Thomas Sowell and Ayn Rand. Maybe I'll get to bed by morning.

[G27]

The problem that most people have with libertarianism, or at least that I have with it, is that as a philosophy it seems to promote individualism to the point that the overall good of society can be sacrificed. I claim no special insight into the founders but at least based on what I do know, I think they also leaned toward libertarianism but not to the extreme that some want to take it.

That said, as long as people can recognize that government (federal, state and local) have a prat to play in people's lives, we can discuss and hopefully reach a consensus on just how much of a part that should be.

Great point - everyone wants some government, the arguments arise over how much is too much. The ideological inflexibility I see from so many (from all across the political spectrum) seems to be higher now than ever before, and it's not helping anything.

[sigmtnman]

The problem that most people have with libertarianism, or at least that I have with it, is that as a philosophy it seems to promote individualism to the point that the overall good of society can be sacrificed.

...

Most libertarians believe that individual interest helps society unintentionally as a man works to attain his goals. The idea that individualism sacrifices the good of society is quite cynical and assumes that most men are basically bad people without self control or morals. Bad people will exist regardless of the amount of individualism allowed by the government. The restrictions imposed by "do gooders" will only hinder the moral and good man, while the immoral will continue to be immoral while working around the restrictions.

...By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

The Wealth of Nations

Adam Smith

[sigmtnman]

Friedman is an interesting guy. He drives points home well as illustrated by your posted videos. I agree with him on a great deal.

He was a complex fella and some aspects were a "kinder gentler big-gov guy". The basic fallacy that it isn't a problem we have big gov, but the problem is that the wrong people are in charge and implement the wrong policies. Which is typically the attitude of big gov progressive D's, big gov progressive R's, authoritarians and theocrats of all stripe.

Ferinstance, Friedman was an early proponent of negative income tax as a better solution than the patchwork of welfare, social security, minimum wage and labor law. Which he may have been correct about, but the idea of negative income tax raises reflexive hackles of many including most libertarians. It is strange that in the Nixon era it had a good chance of becoming law, but Friedman withdrew support when it became obvious that the concept would get "piled on" atop the other patchwork of programs, rather than replacing them.

http://en.wikipedia....tive_income_tax

Another source of cognitive dissonance is that Friedman was one of the foremost students of the great depression. Bernanke was a student of Friedman and in Bernanke's mind he is doing what Friedman said "should have been done" to allow the great depression to be a year-long recession rather than a 15 year depression. Most fans of Friedman among libertarians and conservatives think Bernanke is out of his mind, so it is kinda wierd that Bernanke believes himself to be following the prescriptions of the hero Friedman. Maybe Bernanke has it all wrong, but there are similarities there which can't be denied, as illustrated in these two videos.

He is a very interesting fellow indeed who put most if not all of his ideas out in the open, for better or worse. I too agree with him on many things, but I treat him like a buffet where I can pick and choose what I want and leave the rest.

Never came across as a big-gov guy to me, but I've also not read his books or seen all of his interviews and lectures, so it's quite possible I've just missed those points. There was one interview where he wanted to do away with 10 of 14 cabinets though, IIRC. He was also in favor of doing away with most if not all regulations and relying on personal liability and tort to self regulate the marketplace and personal behavior.

One thing I don't necessarily agree on was his view on foreign relations using defense. His fear of authoritarian governments spreading was the source of a bit of cognitive dissonance with regards to having a proactive defense against their spread, which would seem to go against his anti coercion views. Although this is still foggy in my mind and as with most things open for debate.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the negative income tax thing, but it seems to be one of the ideas he was kicking around in order to wean folks off of big-gov. I'm not sold on it, but equally unsure of how to do away with welfare without cold turkey shock. Here is a good vid with Buckley about it.

Thanks for posting those vids. I've seen them before and watched them again and my take away is a bit different. Him being an academic, it's my opinion that most of the time he was assuming the operation of most of his ideas in concert with a different overall foundation in place. It's funny about the Bernank. Alan Greenspan was a student, so to speak, of Ayn Rand but he went on to act in direct opposition to many of her philosophies. Friedman's concepts on monetary policy were based on a much smaller government that did not perform bailouts of failed industries. It was my perspective that he also did not agree with the unrestricted expansion of dollars for fear of inflation. What he was saying about the Federal Reserve seems to be true, in that during the depression the Fed did not distribute as many dollars as it should have, which caused banks to not have enough dollars to pay out, leading to the overall lack of trust in the system and the subsequent deflation.

Edited August 16, 2012 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

...

I really loved watching Friedman doing those college town hall type seminars of years ago. He's a kind of "Hugh

Axton" guy.

He really "schools" them college kids.

Now I'm stuck on watching him, Thomas Sowell and Ayn Rand. Maybe I'll get to bed by morning.

Watch out. It's a rat hole with no end!

[RobertNashville]

Most libertarians believe that individual interest helps society unintentionally as a man works to attain his goals. The idea that individualism sacrifices the good of society is quite cynical and assumes that most men are basically bad people without self control or morals. Bad people will exist regardless of the amount of individualism allowed by the government. The restrictions imposed by "do gooders" will only hinder the moral and good man, while the immoral will continue to be immoral while working around the restrictions.

So if I don't accept the libertarian philosophy I’m a cynical do-gooder who assumes that most men are basically bad people? Well, if that’s how you feel than that’s how you feel.

I’m not opposed to individual freedom; I’m opposed to the unrestricted individual freedom without boundaries; which is the logical end to the libertarian philosophy (at least as I understand that philosophy). We need boundaries because, while I don’t believe most people are evil I don’t believe, based on experience as well as teachings, that they are necessarily moral, altruistic or selfless either which is, I would suggest, is a primary reason for having any of our laws.

Of course, laws do not and cannot hinder the immoral man…the evil man (something we all wish that the sheep would come to understand). Rather, laws define what is and isn’t acceptable behavior. We don’t have laws against murder and rape and robbery to keep those things from happening; we have them because it needs to be known that those acts, for the good of society and the individual, are not allowed and that, when broken, punishment will be meted out.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He really "schools" them college kids.

Watch out. It's a rat hole with no end!

Just 'til about 3:00AM. But you have to purge yourself of the other stuff somehow. That group is a good way to

purge.

[sigmtnman]

So if I don't accept the libertarian philosophy I’m a cynical do-gooder who assumes that most men are basically bad people? Well, if that’s how you feel than that’s how you feel.

I’m not opposed to individual freedom; I’m opposed to the unrestricted individual freedom without boundaries; which is the logical end to the libertarian philosophy (at least as I understand that philosophy). We need boundaries because, while I don’t believe most people are evil I don’t believe, based on experience as well as teachings, that they are necessarily moral, altruistic or selfless either which is, I would suggest, is a primary reason for having any of our laws.

Of course, laws do not and cannot hinder the immoral man…the evil man (something we all wish that the sheep would come to understand). Rather, laws define what is and isn’t acceptable behavior. We don’t have laws against murder and rape and robbery to keep those things from happening; we have them because it needs to be known that those acts, for the good of society and the individual, are not allowed and that, when broken, punishment will be meted out.

No, your apparent cynicism is evident from your second paragraph above. The idea of individual freedom proposes that a person is not allowed to impose on a second or third parties freedoms. Rights end where other's noses begin. It appears that you continue to take everything to the anarchist extreme, which is a fallacy. Laws against murder and rape are obvious as they protect property rights, specifically that of the murdered or raped person.

Where do I accuse you of being a do gooder? It would appear as though you are attributing it to yourself, since you picked it out of a sentence that was not in reference to you. The comment about do gooders is in reference to people who want laws passed to pro-actively keep bad things from happening, such as mandatory seat belt laws, helmet laws, gun restrictions, licensing, etc.

Edited August 16, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Friedman is an interesting guy. He drives points home well as illustrated by your posted videos. I agree with him on a great deal.

He was a complex fella and some aspects were a "kinder gentler big-gov guy". The basic fallacy that it isn't a problem we have big gov, but the problem is that the wrong people are in charge and implement the wrong policies. Which is typically the attitude of big gov progressive D's, big gov progressive R's, authoritarians and theocrats of all stripe.

Ferinstance, Friedman was an early proponent of negative income tax as a better solution than the patchwork of welfare, social security, minimum wage and labor law. Which he may have been correct about, but the idea of negative income tax raises reflexive hackles of many including most libertarians. It is strange that in the Nixon era it had a good chance of becoming law, but Friedman withdrew support when it became obvious that the concept would get "piled on" atop the other patchwork of programs, rather than replacing them.

http://en.wikipedia....tive_income_tax

Another source of cognitive dissonance is that Friedman was one of the foremost students of the great depression. Bernanke was a student of Friedman and in Bernanke's mind he is doing what Friedman said "should have been done" to allow the great depression to be a year-long recession rather than a 15 year depression. Most fans of Friedman among libertarians and conservatives think Bernanke is out of his mind, so it is kinda wierd that Bernanke believes himself to be following the prescriptions of the hero Friedman. Maybe Bernanke has it all wrong, but there are similarities there which can't be denied, as illustrated in these two videos.

Hey Lester,

Maybe Bernanke wants us to think he is following the prescriptions of Friedman. That does happen. Friedman wasn't a

big fan of the Fed and it appears Bernanke is. Something rotten there, to me. Something about Bernanke I still don't like,

just don't know much about him.

[sigmtnman]

...

I’m not opposed to individual freedom; I’m opposed to the unrestricted individual freedom without boundaries; which is the logical end to the libertarian philosophy (at least as I understand that philosophy). We need boundaries because, while I don’t believe most people are evil I don’t believe, based on experience as well as teachings, that they are necessarily moral, altruistic or selfless either which is, I would suggest, is a primary reason for having any of our laws.

Of course, laws do not and cannot hinder the immoral man…the evil man (something we all wish that the sheep would come to understand). Rather, laws define what is and isn’t acceptable behavior. We don’t have laws against murder and rape and robbery to keep those things from happening; we have them because it needs to be known that those acts, for the good of society and the individual, are not allowed and that, when broken, punishment will be meted out.

To add...

You say it yourself right here that laws do not and cannot hinder the immoral man. If that is the case, then what are the restrictive laws purposes and who is the person to decide what is to be and what is not to be restricted? If the gun haters are left to decide decide, then guns are restricted and you can't use the 2A as evidence since it's funky wording is often left open to interpretation by the do gooders who don't agree with it. The same can be said for the 9th and 10th which are left open to interpretation by do gooders who want to impose their will and restrictions on others regardless of a violation of property rights.

Property rights are the basis to individual freedoms since at the core, your person is your property.

Edited August 16, 2012 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

It's odd that you chose to mention "property rights" when to the best of my knowledge, the only mention of the same in the Constitution is the takings clause.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Inalienable rights is property since an individual is property, and freedom implies that individuals have certain

inalienable rights.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"I’m not opposed to individual freedom; I’m opposed to the unrestricted individual freedom without boundaries; which is the logical end to the libertarian philosophy (at least as I understand that philosophy). We need boundaries because, while I don’t believe most people are evil I don’t believe, based on experience as well as teachings, that they are necessarily moral, altruistic or selfless either which is, I would suggest, is a primary reason for having any of our laws."

Robert, we do have those laws against murder, rape and robbery to keep those things from happening. Knowing

actions have consequences should inhibit an individual from performing evil acts.

Immoral, altruistic and selfless people are evil if you believe in the individual and his liberty since they go against

the liberty of the individual. Laws that restrict good moral people are senseless since good people don't murder,

steal and infringe on others.

In other words, only those laws that are based on good and evil, and not on altruism, selflessness, or whatever you

wish to call it, are necessary. Justice should not be based on altruism. Just because it's convenient, and this is a gun

forum, we allowed the government to "protect" us from violence by restricting guns, not the people using them. That's

an immoral basis for a law, totally unjustified, and since the criminal, the evil one who doesn't care about the law, is

left with opportunity. Good people are punished with the inabiity to protect themselves from various problems and

evil is left unchecked. The law only creates more problems than it solves.

"You have the right to be free. I have the right to be free from you." I love that declaration because it deals with one's

right to be kept from the infringements of others.

[sigmtnman]

Another point is that never once do I purport that the man with liberty to pursue his goals does things which helps society for altruistic reasons.

The definition of altruism implies that things are done with selflessness. Try to name one instance where there is not a benefit to be had by the person who believes they are acting altruistically. The man who sacrifices himself to save his child does it so that his child can survive and therefore he has a vested interest. The person who gives to help the needy receives a feeling of helping, the satisfaction of knowing they have done something and generally providing a better environment in which to live for himself.

[sigmtnman]

It's odd that you chose to mention "property rights" when to the best of my knowledge, the only mention of the same in the Constitution is the takings clause.

Hi Robert,

Did you have time to watch any of the videos?

[mav]

Great thread sigmtnman.

I always thought C.S. Lewis summed it up nicely.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live

under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies (do-gooders). The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

And speaking of Thomas Sowell AR,

Looking at history in general, I am simply amazed at how many people just cannot leave other people alone.

[RobertNashville]

...Robert, we do have those laws against murder, rape and robbery to keep those things from happening. Knowing

actions have consequences should inhibit an individual from performing evil acts.

As I said above laws set the boundary...they define what is acceptable and not. I already said they don't prevent (or inhibit).

Immoral, altruistic and selfless people are evil if you believe in the individual and his liberty since they go against the liberty of the individual.

Immoral, altruistic and selfless is a very strange combination and calling such a person "evil" only adds to the strangeness. Saying that altruistism and selflessness is incompatible with liberty stranger yet...individual liberty is difficult if not impossible to achieve without those qualities. Edited August 16, 2012 by RobertNashville