In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 24 2015 10:31 screamingpalm wrote: Thanks... sorry I keep using small business, but I think we can agree that a one size fits all approach isn't very wise?
not necessarily. One size fits all has considerable flaws, and is sometimes unsuitable. However others forms have issues as well. No rule at all often leads to other undesirable outcomes; and having a variable-size approach requires higher administrative and compliance costs, and sometimes corruption costs, from the process of creating those variable sizes. So sometimes one size fits all is the best available solution, and hence would be wise.
On May 24 2015 11:08 cLutZ wrote: If you read the post, many times the entry starts at low wages, but then the company can evolve to an automation plus skilled maintenance model, like modern car manufactures. Plus I generally prefer people being productive, over them not being productive.
You make up a very weird hypothetical there. A business model that has not been explored or introduced to the marketplace yet, that works fine with unskilled labor but only if it is paid like shit, because the margins are so tight. Do you really think a modern car manufacturer would suddenly pop up in all that prestine unclaimed market space if it weren't for this pesky minimum wage?
About your preferences regarding productivity: i do not like that you use the narrow definition of human productivity that only measures outcomes by their market value, because that one is heavily skewed towards the preferences of people and institutions with accumulated wealth. I see this economic reductionism as a destructive Menschenbild (conception of man, but i do not think that translation is quite good enough in conveying the concept).
On May 24 2015 10:42 puerk wrote: Depends on your definition of "size", "fits", and "all"
@ clutz, why do you want entry into the marketplace that is only feasible with very low wages to happen at all? people would take those jobs only because they have no other option, and therefore get exploited to prop up an inferior buisness model
i get the constant vibe from you that market action is always good even if it has clear detrimental outcomes
Maybe that's because you're too polemical and only think there are two sides (Progressive and Liberal), and so when you see the shibboleths that someone is not a Progressive you assume they are a Liberal. But what do I know.
You also seem to spend a lot of time tilting at windmills. When is "American Exceptionalism" used as a justification for anything? I can't remember the last time I heard anyone use it outside of a history or an America bashing discussion. Ditto for Rand. I fancy myself an amateur sociologist and don't see any Randian influences in American politics. I suspect more prosaic motives.
Sorry that was pretty vague lol. Was referring to:
Arbitrarily increasing the amount employers are required to pay workers, as cities like Seattle, and most recently Los Angeles have done, is a disincentive to hiring or retaining workers, especially those at the lower end of the economic latter who most need a job.
“I may wish to have all jobs pay at least $15 an hour,” writes Buffett. “But that minimum would almost certainly reduce employment in a major way, crushing many workers possessing only basic skills.
Makes logical sense to me, perhaps someone has data that says different?
On May 24 2015 10:42 puerk wrote: Depends on your definition of "size", "fits", and "all"
@ clutz, why do you want entry into the marketplace that is only feasible with very low wages to happen at all? people would take those jobs only because they have no other option, and therefore get exploited to prop up an inferior buisness model
i get the constant vibe from you that market action is always good even if it has clear detrimental outcomes
Maybe that's because you're too polemical and only think there are two sides (Progressive and Liberal), and so when you see the shibboleths that someone is not a Progressive you assume they are a Liberal. But what do I know.
You also seem to spend a lot of time tilting at windmills. When is "American Exceptionalism" used as a justification for anything? I can't remember the last time I heard anyone use it outside of a history or an America bashing discussion. Ditto for Rand. I fancy myself an amateur sociologist and don't see any Randian influences in American politics.
Your answer does not seem to fit the quoted post so i guess you are refering to the one before? I was quoting an other poster with those exact words. They were (i think quite obviously) not meant to be taken seperatly but to convey a hyperbolic image as a whole. The refered to viewpoint is that of value is determined through voluntary exchanges and if we would just get rid of the government every exchange would become voluntary. Basically people campaining for the right to starve to death in the streets or sell themselfs into wageslavery because real hardship empowers them to better themselfs and finally become rich and well connected.
On May 24 2015 11:08 cLutZ wrote: If you read the post, many times the entry starts at low wages, but then the company can evolve to an automation plus skilled maintenance model, like modern car manufactures. Plus I generally prefer people being productive, over them not being productive.
You make up a very weird hypothetical there. A business model that has not been explored or introduced to the marketplace yet, that works fine with unskilled labor but only if it is paid like shit, because the margins are so tight. Do you really think a modern car manufacturer would suddenly pop up in all that prestine unclaimed market space if it weren't for this pesky minimum wage?
About your preferences regarding productivity: i do not like that you use the narrow definition of human productivity that only measures outcomes by their market value, because that one is heavily skewed towards the preferences of people and institutions with accumulated wealth. I see this economic reductionism as a destructive Menschenbild (conception of man, but i do not think that translation is quite good enough in conveying the concept).
Its not a weird hypothetical. There are a lot of types of companies that require either a large, upfront, capital investment + few, well paid, workers or small capital investment + many, poorly paid, workers to operate. A great example is the modern factory. Now, I don't think car manufacturers would pop up without the minimum wage, because automation in that industry is so well developed that minimum wage workers are basically worthless to them, and if you wanted to compete with Ford/Chevy/etc you would need several billion dollars in seed money regardless.
A good example is the company I worked for between Sr. year of high school and Fr. year of college: It was a book company that filled the needs of school libraries, and basically I got paid minimum wage + incentives to gather books from their internal library to fill orders from these schools. There were 100+ workers who did what I did. The machine that replaced those workers, long after I had departed, cost over $10,000,000 per line, and I think the fulfillment center needed 3 of them.
The remainder of your post is rhetoric that I disagree with philosophically.
On May 24 2015 10:42 puerk wrote: Depends on your definition of "size", "fits", and "all"
@ clutz, why do you want entry into the marketplace that is only feasible with very low wages to happen at all? people would take those jobs only because they have no other option, and therefore get exploited to prop up an inferior buisness model
i get the constant vibe from you that market action is always good even if it has clear detrimental outcomes
Maybe that's because you're too polemical and only think there are two sides (Progressive and Liberal), and so when you see the shibboleths that someone is not a Progressive you assume they are a Liberal. But what do I know.
You also seem to spend a lot of time tilting at windmills. When is "American Exceptionalism" used as a justification for anything? I can't remember the last time I heard anyone use it outside of a history or an America bashing discussion. Ditto for Rand. I fancy myself an amateur sociologist and don't see any Randian influences in American politics.
Your answer does not seem to fit the quoted post so i guess you are refering to the one before? I was quoting an other poster with those exact words. They were (i think quite obviously) not meant to be taken seperatly but to convey a hyperbolic image as a whole. The refered to viewpoint is that of value is determined through voluntary exchanges and if we would just get rid of the government every exchange would become voluntary. Basically people campaining for the right to starve to death in the streets or sell themselfs into wageslavery because real hardship empowers them to better themselfs and finally become rich and well connected.
I have to ask the obvious question: Does anybody actually believe this?
On May 24 2015 10:42 puerk wrote: Depends on your definition of "size", "fits", and "all"
@ clutz, why do you want entry into the marketplace that is only feasible with very low wages to happen at all? people would take those jobs only because they have no other option, and therefore get exploited to prop up an inferior buisness model
i get the constant vibe from you that market action is always good even if it has clear detrimental outcomes
Maybe that's because you're too polemical and only think there are two sides (Progressive and Liberal), and so when you see the shibboleths that someone is not a Progressive you assume they are a Liberal. But what do I know.
You also seem to spend a lot of time tilting at windmills. When is "American Exceptionalism" used as a justification for anything? I can't remember the last time I heard anyone use it outside of a history or an America bashing discussion. Ditto for Rand. I fancy myself an amateur sociologist and don't see any Randian influences in American politics.
Your answer does not seem to fit the quoted post so i guess you are refering to the one before? I was quoting an other poster with those exact words. They were (i think quite obviously) not meant to be taken seperatly but to convey a hyperbolic image as a whole. The refered to viewpoint is that of value is determined through voluntary exchanges and if we would just get rid of the government every exchange would become voluntary. Basically people campaining for the right to starve to death in the streets or sell themselfs into wageslavery because real hardship empowers them to better themselfs and finally become rich and well connected.
I have to ask the obvious question: Does anybody actually believe this?
Well, if you believe that Danglars and Jonny stand by what they say, probably?
On May 24 2015 12:09 Jerubaal wrote: Maybe that's because you're too polemical and only think there are two sides (Progressive and Liberal), and so when you see the shibboleths that someone is not a Progressive you assume they are a Liberal. But what do I know.
You also seem to spend a lot of time tilting at windmills. When is "American Exceptionalism" used as a justification for anything? I can't remember the last time I heard anyone use it outside of a history or an America bashing discussion. Ditto for Rand. I fancy myself an amateur sociologist and don't see any Randian influences in American politics. I suspect more prosaic motives.
Randian American Exceptionalism is part of every single State of the Union address I've ever seen, and is absolutely huge from a cultural standpoint. For me personally, Rush was a huge inspiration on me growing up as a stoner and musician pondering Peart's political philosophy- there were many many more just like me. And that's from someone solidly to the left of it. There's no denying the influence though.
How can you blame a loner nerdy hipster surrounded by The Clash etc compared with this? :D
Perhaps the most unfortunate reality about American politics is that everything is Us v Them. There is no room for independent or critical thinking. Everyone must adopt an agenda or party platform and "conform or be cast out".
On May 24 2015 10:42 puerk wrote: Depends on your definition of "size", "fits", and "all"
@ clutz, why do you want entry into the marketplace that is only feasible with very low wages to happen at all? people would take those jobs only because they have no other option, and therefore get exploited to prop up an inferior buisness model
i get the constant vibe from you that market action is always good even if it has clear detrimental outcomes
Maybe that's because you're too polemical and only think there are two sides (Progressive and Liberal), and so when you see the shibboleths that someone is not a Progressive you assume they are a Liberal. But what do I know.
You also seem to spend a lot of time tilting at windmills. When is "American Exceptionalism" used as a justification for anything? I can't remember the last time I heard anyone use it outside of a history or an America bashing discussion. Ditto for Rand. I fancy myself an amateur sociologist and don't see any Randian influences in American politics.
Your answer does not seem to fit the quoted post so i guess you are refering to the one before? I was quoting an other poster with those exact words. They were (i think quite obviously) not meant to be taken seperatly but to convey a hyperbolic image as a whole. The refered to viewpoint is that of value is determined through voluntary exchanges and if we would just get rid of the government every exchange would become voluntary. Basically people campaining for the right to starve to death in the streets or sell themselfs into wageslavery because real hardship empowers them to better themselfs and finally become rich and well connected.
I have to ask the obvious question: Does anybody actually believe this?
As happens frequently on this forum, the ultimate theoretical construction is offered up as the real and persisting belief of the opponents argument. Conservatives want small government, but take it one step further to the no-government state and you can hyuk it up with your buddies at how ludicrous it all is. The reader must understand viewpoints and evaluate arguments. His wageslavery (or selling yourself) harkens to the thought that you must be prevented from taking a job that somebody else considers to have no future. They ascribe some moral ascetic of hardship, flipped around its the thought that all gains must be pain-free to be gains at all. He mocks the liberty of starvation, but won't go to forcefeeding. So read and listen to each side, since myself and Jonny have both said previous a well-administered safety net for the truly destitute and market trade subject to light (and Jonny's got his own thoughts on this) regulation and taxation.
On May 24 2015 12:09 Jerubaal wrote: Maybe that's because you're too polemical and only think there are two sides (Progressive and Liberal), and so when you see the shibboleths that someone is not a Progressive you assume they are a Liberal. But what do I know.
You also seem to spend a lot of time tilting at windmills. When is "American Exceptionalism" used as a justification for anything? I can't remember the last time I heard anyone use it outside of a history or an America bashing discussion. Ditto for Rand. I fancy myself an amateur sociologist and don't see any Randian influences in American politics. I suspect more prosaic motives.
Randian American Exceptionalism is part of every single State of the Union address I've ever seen, and is absolutely huge from a cultural standpoint. For me personally, Rush was a huge inspiration on me growing up as a stoner and musician pondering Peart's political philosophy- there were many many more just like me. And that's from someone solidly to the left of it. There's no denying the influence though.
How can you blame a loner nerdy hipster surrounded by The Clash etc compared with this? :D
Randian American Exceptionalism? The idea of American Exceptionalism has been around a long time before Rand. The two ideas don't even especially jive. Again, AE seems like a post hoc construction to me. Strong American foreign involvement seems much more akin in the Progressivism (although I don't think you have to be a Progressive to believe in it) of TR and Wilson. Rand has much more in common, it seems to me, with the isolationists of the pre Wars era.
Mostly I think that the "American Exeptionalism" argument has less to do with whether "America is better than everyone else" and more to do with "America is no better than anyone else". Europe has decided that they are no longer interested in substantively effecting the world outside their borders and anyone who is still interested is an inconvenience who needs to be told how deviant they are.
Perhaps the most unfortunate reality about American politics is that everything is Us v Them. There is no room for independent or critical thinking. Everyone must adopt an agenda or party platform and "conform or be cast out".
Well, I partly want to blame this on Modernity, which abrogates all prior thought, and of which Leftism/Progressivism and Liberalism are but two heads of the hydra. You might have noticed that anytime someone says something about their views, somebody jumps in and assumes they are either a Marxist or Neocon(whatever that is). I wrote a blog about Banned Book Week and someone who clearly hadn't read it accused me of being a "Statist", which is an edgy word with the kids these days. Partly, though, this is just human nature.
On May 24 2015 10:42 puerk wrote: Depends on your definition of "size", "fits", and "all"
@ clutz, why do you want entry into the marketplace that is only feasible with very low wages to happen at all? people would take those jobs only because they have no other option, and therefore get exploited to prop up an inferior buisness model
i get the constant vibe from you that market action is always good even if it has clear detrimental outcomes
Maybe that's because you're too polemical and only think there are two sides (Progressive and Liberal), and so when you see the shibboleths that someone is not a Progressive you assume they are a Liberal. But what do I know.
You also seem to spend a lot of time tilting at windmills. When is "American Exceptionalism" used as a justification for anything? I can't remember the last time I heard anyone use it outside of a history or an America bashing discussion. Ditto for Rand. I fancy myself an amateur sociologist and don't see any Randian influences in American politics.
Your answer does not seem to fit the quoted post so i guess you are refering to the one before? I was quoting an other poster with those exact words. They were (i think quite obviously) not meant to be taken seperatly but to convey a hyperbolic image as a whole. The refered to viewpoint is that of value is determined through voluntary exchanges and if we would just get rid of the government every exchange would become voluntary. Basically people campaining for the right to starve to death in the streets or sell themselfs into wageslavery because real hardship empowers them to better themselfs and finally become rich and well connected.
I have to ask the obvious question: Does anybody actually believe this?
As happens frequently on this forum, the ultimate theoretical construction is offered up as the real and persisting belief of the opponents argument. Conservatives want small government, but take it one step further to the no-government state and you can hyuk it up with your buddies at how ludicrous it all is. The reader must understand viewpoints and evaluate arguments. His wageslavery (or selling yourself) harkens to the thought that you must be prevented from taking a job that somebody else considers to have no future. They ascribe some moral ascetic of hardship, flipped around its the thought that all gains must be pain-free to be gains at all. He mocks the liberty of starvation, but won't go to forcefeeding. So read and listen to each side, since myself and Jonny have both said previous a well-administered safety net for the truly destitute and market trade subject to light (and Jonny's got his own thoughts on this) regulation and taxation.
I think I understand you, but, just to be clear, libertarianism is not an outgrowth of Conservatism. Conservatism emphasizes the importance of social structures while libertarianism (and Randianism) emphasizes the individual.
I don't think that Conservatism necessarily demands small government, being somewhat content-neutral, but libertarianism's (and almost every other -ism's) penchant for on the spot reorganization sometimes puts them at odds, as you can sometimes see in the Republican Party.
Still, I don't take "some guy on the internet said so" to mean that it's a significant element of American politics. Mitt Romney doesn't really hate babies and old people. The natural evolution of Liberalism seems to be merging closer to Progressivism than to Libertarianism. The "we're going to force you to be tolerant" stuff we've been seeing smells like primordial Liberalism coming to laugh at the Marxists for thinking they were in charge.
Libertarians and Randians don't seem like part of the evolution to me. They seem like a reaction to dissatisfaction with Modernity. Poor souls that deserved a better education.
I understand libertarianism' roots and would never suggest it grew out of some conservative body of thought. They hold some things in common, others they disagree on. I would disagree with your thoughts on social structures: opposition to an expansive, intrusive State that would undermine property rights and a host of other individual rights is absolutely core, the other down several places of importance. The return to limited powers embodied in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is a common theme everywhere. But if you want to highlight differences with small 'l' libertarianism, certainly include traditional entities. State involvement in marriages has been decried by every libertarian I know.
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities.
On May 25 2015 05:31 Danglars wrote: I understand libertarianism' roots and would never suggest it grew out of some conservative body of thought. They hold some things in common, others they disagree on. I would disagree with your thoughts on social structures: opposition to an expansive, intrusive State that would undermine property rights and a host of other individual rights is absolutely core, the other down several places of importance. The return to limited powers embodied in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is a common theme everywhere. But if you want to highlight differences with small 'l' libertarianism, certainly include traditional entities. State involvement in marriages has been decried by every libertarian I know.
I don't really think the state is really involved in marriage at all unless they are for stripping all legal implications away from marriage then I guess that makes sense. If they are referring to the issue of gay marriage well then they should have no objections to it imo since if they did they would be letting religious concepts of marriage bleed into government and that is a no no.
They still think that contract law is sufficient to allow for every benefit of marriage, and even if it does, it would still mean that the government would be involved as it has to recognize the contract as legally binding and enforce it.
Well also there is the part of government-conferred benefits related to marriage, which is a sticking point for me. No reason for them to exist unless you buy the State's arguments in the gay marriage cases. In which case, you would rule against gay marriage.
On May 25 2015 05:31 Danglars wrote: I understand libertarianism' roots and would never suggest it grew out of some conservative body of thought. They hold some things in common, others they disagree on. I would disagree with your thoughts on social structures: opposition to an expansive, intrusive State that would undermine property rights and a host of other individual rights is absolutely core, the other down several places of importance. The return to limited powers embodied in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is a common theme everywhere. But if you want to highlight differences with small 'l' libertarianism, certainly include traditional entities. State involvement in marriages has been decried by every libertarian I know.
We have to be careful about overextending definitions. The modern conceptions of property rights and the State itself are fairly new. I don't think the conceptions overlap enough for Conservatism to "agree" on property rights. I think that Conservatism tends to say that your stewardship of the property should contribute to the public good.
On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote: Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities.
The Constitution is not meant to legislate Good and Evil. Most of the time I hear people complaining about the Constitution, it just means "why can't my prejudices be legislated immediately!". I think most of these discussions are not Constitutional issues. The only real Constitutional issues seem to be "how much can the Feds coerce the states" and "who makes the laws" (especially with regards to the three branches). I think those are the most pressing issues of the day, and, to boot, the second one is fairly cyclical. I don't think "can we build roads" is covered by the Constitution.
And, yeah, I think the Libertarian "position" on gay marriage is the height of absurdity. I don't even know what that phrase is supposed to mean. In order to have a position, you have to make some definitions about what marriage means, at least legally. It's just fence sitting in the extreme.
On May 25 2015 05:31 Danglars wrote: I understand libertarianism' roots and would never suggest it grew out of some conservative body of thought. They hold some things in common, others they disagree on. I would disagree with your thoughts on social structures: opposition to an expansive, intrusive State that would undermine property rights and a host of other individual rights is absolutely core, the other down several places of importance. The return to limited powers embodied in the Constitution & Bill of Rights is a common theme everywhere. But if you want to highlight differences with small 'l' libertarianism, certainly include traditional entities. State involvement in marriages has been decried by every libertarian I know.
We have to be careful about overextending definitions. The modern conceptions of property rights and the State itself are fairly new. I don't think the conceptions overlap enough for Conservatism to "agree" on property rights. I think that Conservatism tends to say that your stewardship of the property should contribute to the public good.
Well, you're welcome to your own opinion on the broad agreements amongst US conservatives. I find broad agreement on the size of government and on property rights, though specifics vary. The gist is the public good is better served by the invisible hand than some watchdog empowered to make sure it's stewarded towards social ends + Show Spoiler +
your stewardship of the property should contribute to the public good
In one sense, correct. The pursuit of increase in living standards for you and family improves the surrounding society. So the devil's in the details of "should:" A widely observable fact or call to wide-ranging supraindividual control?
. The moral imperative to help your neighbor in need is certainly part of it, attuned to the individual and freely associating groups of individuals, not reaching into the pockets of another to serve that need. But we're neck deep in the reeds of definitions, perceptions, and history, which don't really fruitfully progress in this thread. Suffice it to say I find your understanding of conservatives rather shocking.
On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote: Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities.
And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society.
I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago.
EPT
