|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 27 2023 03:33 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2023 08:22 Introvert wrote:On February 26 2023 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2023 05:55 Dan HH wrote:On February 26 2023 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 25 2023 23:18 Dan HH wrote:On February 25 2023 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
In that vain and to this larger point/question, people need look no further than food. In the US it's quite possible that the cost of dealing with our food waste alone could make sure no kid has to go hungry. I don't mean reallocating scraps or reallocating shipments so that unpurchased food doesn't rot in the dumpster behind the supermarket (instead of giving it away before it expired), or even not throwing out perfectly good "weird looking" fresh foods. I mean just the cost to move only the food we waste into a pile and bury/burn it, never mind the environmental "externalities". That's just the tip of the iceberg of how insanely inefficient, at the expense of humanity, for the sake of profit the capitalist market system is. How is this an -ism thing and a not a people thing like Acrofales was saying? + Show Spoiler +I go to the store and intentionally pick the firmest fruit and veg, and perishables with the longer expiration dates, precisely because I don't want them to go bad before I get a chance to eat them and have to throw them away. The next person does the same. The next person does the same. By doing this we externalize the throwing away part to the store then we point at how wasteful and evil the store is. Of course they would rather sell those things but they figured out buyer psychology a long time ago.
We could go to the store more frequently and get the smaller carton of milk that expires in 4 days instead of two larger ones that expire in 2 weeks, we could get fewer bananas that are already going dark instead of a large bunch of green ones. We could go to a stall and have the person running it select what vegetables to put in the bag and they'll pick the ripest things first. But that's less convenient and takes more of our free time and we want to spend as little time as possible on chores.
The current way we get both the benefits of convenience and the moral superiority over the evil corporate chain that provides it.
The market is like the golden sphere in Roadside Picnic (or the room in Stalker for you cinephiles), it gives society what it actually wants rather than what it says it wants (or wishes it would want). It's capitalist culture and a cult of individualism. One thing I've learned in my research is that the history of the world/modern civilization that I was taught is not only grossly outdated (anthropology has made significant discoveries over the last decade+) but specifically intended to rationalize that culture (look at phrenology for an example with a shorter social half-life, not that there aren't lingering vestiges). I've always found it completely absurd that apologists for capitalism insist that it's sensible to believe human nature is inextricably cruel and selfish and appease it by developing/defending a system designed to amplify and incentivize the worst parts of that nature. It's not a coincidence that some of the best compensated jobs in the US are also among the most popular jobs for people with antisocial personality disorders (or psycho/sociopathy/narcissism colloquially). This has little to do with what I wrote, I wasn't going for a human nature angle. I think the disconnect between us is that you think the -ism is what drives local culture whereas I think it's local culture that determines how much good we can do within either -ism. I understand your position within the context of the US, it makes perfect sense. But I can't blame capitalist culture for our ills since my own country is a baby capitalist and the defects of our local culture caused even more damage under communism. I don't want to go down a rabbit hole about culture in Romania here but needless to say both under ostensible communism and today it's developing under the influence of hegemonic (though it was still fighting over domination until the ~80's) US racial capitalism, which has it's roots in European racialism and colonialism (the history and impact of which is probably more relevant to your inquiry, for which I highly recommend Black Marxism by Cedric Robinson). This is part of what I'm referencing when I talk about developments in anthropological, historical, psychological, sociological, etc understandings of the world vs what they were/how they were taught in the 18/1900's. Basically a lot of things people take for granted historically, psychologically, etc. as "common sense" or "the way it has always been" are just peculiar and transitory artifacts. A frequent example of this phenomena is the gendering of pink and blue (and basically dresses for all toddlers) in the US. Prior to the 1900's it wasn't really even a thing. From 'the early 1900's until ~1940's pink was the "masculine" color and blue the more "delicate". Now in the 21st century, we're going back to thinking gendering colors (and clothing somewhat), is silly. I get the appeal putting an infant in jeans or a tux or whatever so they look like a little you, but beyond a little harmless fun, it's capitalism preying on people at the expense of having less profitable and more practical customs for dressing infants/young children. Again, notwithstanding the immense environmental devastation it causes and capitalism calls "externalities" which is a euphemism for "the part that invalidates the conclusions drawn from many economic models". Basically if you remove the externalities with things like taxes/ environmental laws and remove the worker exploitation by appropriately compensating labor for the value they add, there are no profits left. That's a central quandary (or feature) of social democracy, they can only sustain the "social" part by perpetuating capitalism and it's exploitation/abuse. It is, by design, impossible for it to produce within its own mechanisms a society without capitalism and the atrocities that sustain it. On February 26 2023 06:33 Acrofales wrote:On February 26 2023 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 25 2023 23:18 Dan HH wrote:On February 25 2023 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
In that vain and to this larger point/question, people need look no further than food. In the US it's quite possible that the cost of dealing with our food waste alone could make sure no kid has to go hungry. I don't mean reallocating scraps or reallocating shipments so that unpurchased food doesn't rot in the dumpster behind the supermarket (instead of giving it away before it expired), or even not throwing out perfectly good "weird looking" fresh foods. I mean just the cost to move only the food we waste into a pile and bury/burn it, never mind the environmental "externalities". That's just the tip of the iceberg of how insanely inefficient, at the expense of humanity, for the sake of profit the capitalist market system is. How is this an -ism thing and a not a people thing like Acrofales was saying? + Show Spoiler +I go to the store and intentionally pick the firmest fruit and veg, and perishables with the longer expiration dates, precisely because I don't want them to go bad before I get a chance to eat them and have to throw them away. The next person does the same. The next person does the same. By doing this we externalize the throwing away part to the store then we point at how wasteful and evil the store is. Of course they would rather sell those things but they figured out buyer psychology a long time ago.
We could go to the store more frequently and get the smaller carton of milk that expires in 4 days instead of two larger ones that expire in 2 weeks, we could get fewer bananas that are already going dark instead of a large bunch of green ones. We could go to a stall and have the person running it select what vegetables to put in the bag and they'll pick the ripest things first. But that's less convenient and takes more of our free time and we want to spend as little time as possible on chores.
The current way we get both the benefits of convenience and the moral superiority over the evil corporate chain that provides it.
The market is like the golden sphere in Roadside Picnic (or the room in Stalker for you cinephiles), it gives society what it actually wants rather than what it says it wants (or wishes it would want). It's capitalist culture and a cult of individualism. One thing I've learned in my research is that the history of the world/modern civilization that I was taught is not only grossly outdated (anthropology has made significant discoveries over the last decade+) but specifically intended to rationalize that culture (look at phrenology for an example with a shorter social half-life, not that there aren't lingering vestiges). I've always found it completely absurd that apologists for capitalism insist that it's sensible to believe human nature is inextricably cruel and selfish and appease it by developing/defending a system designed to amplify and incentivize the worst parts of that nature. It's not a coincidence that some of the best compensated jobs in the US are also among the most popular jobs for people with antisocial personality disorders (or psycho/sociopathy/narcissism colloquially). I think maybe I wasn't clear. I thought I'd said that putting our own greed ahead of what is good for society is cultural. + Show Spoiler + I'm not sure what a good culture is for living in globalist megalopoli, as the societal culture that worked decently for most of human history was pretty much tribal, and focused very much on small close-knit communities: you put the needs of your family and your town ahead of your own greed *because* they did the same for you. That comes together with a whole bunch of problems stemming from "othering", but it did give us a solid societal cohesion within those small(ish) groups. That started to break down roughly around the industrial revolution, which was also the rise of cities, and of nationalism. But nations are kinda too big to wrap our brains around, and I don't think nations are a useful unit either: if we have to go bigger than we can wrap our brains around anyway, we should teach people that *everybody everywhere* is our social in-group. Of course, we haven't solved the problem of "not being able to wrap our brains around it" yet, but at least we (theoretically) got rid of othering. An equally big problem is that even if you go local, a city with a few hundred thousand inhabitants is already too large a unit for most people to wrap their brain around, leading to things like neighborhoods getting neglected (because only criminals live there anyway), hate crimes (against "others"). So even at a local level, achieving social cohesion is far harder than it has been throughout most of human history. And, well, if you don't feel particularly cohesive with your surroundings, then it's a fairly easy step to say that what really matters is the *individual*, and if everyone just looks out for number one, society will work out fine (Ayn Rand style). Now, I don't think socialism solves that. + Show Spoiler +True believers in socialism have already solved it. The problem is that there are very few true believers. And the vast majority is just trying to get on with their lives. A capitalist system allows for that (and indeed, rewards it, which is counterproductive, we agree on that). But socialism fundamentally breaks down if you don't have enough true believers, because it isn't set up well to deal with freeloaders. So socialism right now would be a disaster, just as it was when the Bolsheviks or the Maoists tried it.
So can we educate people to be less individualistic and *also* sort out a structure where we consider *nobody* to be an "other"? I don't know if it's possible to get there (some Klingons arriving and threatening to wipe us out might help. They'd be othererer than other humans), but we definitely need to try that! There are smart humanists and pedagogues who have thought about this, there's sociologists and city planners trying to deal with the practicalities of humans living in cities. It's not as if we're starting from scratch. But we should probably get a move on if we want to get people to care enough about "others" before we destroy the planet out of callousness, greed and apathy. E: freeloaders is probably not the right term. It's probably just straight up corruption or larceny if people try to get paid "extra" for their labor by selling it on the black market. I think one of the most important points I'm trying to make is that I'm not trying to convince people that socialism (particularly not just the economics of it) will solve this stuff, but that it's the "lesser evil" way to try. Increasingly the scientists and experts you allude to are coming to the realization (to the degree they can and not lose funding, which in itself is another example of such) that capitalism fundamentally and inextricably stands in the way of their (and all of ours) potential for progress on these fronts. ok, so as interesting as this conversation is, in that it's different than what we normally get, GH and I generally ignore each other because we are so very far apart. We also have a history of, uh, lowering thread quality many years ago. So I hesitate to wade into a conversation between what might be called the neoliberal left and the revolutionary left. But I would just say that we can do better and actually affirm the moral superiority of a market capitalist system. I think it gives away too much to say "well, it's the least bad." After all, if we are going to go down to the level of community and individuals we could of course, as has already been alluded to, call capitalism a system of free exchange. I don't know that, at least in theory, it's a fair characterization to say that capitalism is merely "greed is good." In fact I don't know how many self-proclaimed capitalists who would say such a thing. Certainly none of the market-loving intellectuals whose names we know would say this. Now to me of course as a matter of empirical examination the different between capitalism and some form of Marxism or socialism is clear, but we have wandered into more difficult territory because the socialist gets to play at what they want and the capitalist has to play with what is. Nonetheless, if we are going to compare apples to apples (i.e. theory to theory) capitalism is still better in that it allows for dispersed knowledge which aids dealing with unforeseen consequences and free choice which hopefully leads to happier lives. I admit I haven't presented an actual argument but as I said above I am loath to wade in here. Summary is to say that we need not argue that capitalism "succeeds" because humans are bad. That's a flaw in every system, and people on the right don't encourage greed or avariciousness any more than they encourage theft. Capitalism's faults stem from human failure too, it's not only socialism that deals with this. But it better corrects for these imperfections embedded in human free will than does an actual socialist system. Capitalism does not turn vice into virtue. "Moral superiority" is an interesting word choice. It sounds like a claim, not of the greater efficacy of a market system (though I'm sure you believe that too), but of the greater virtue of a market system over something centrally planned. I know you're trying to avoid wading into this discussion, but I'd be very curious at some point to hear why you think capitalism has a greater tendency to inspire virtue. It reminds me of an argument I hear sometimes from religious conservatives (not attributing this to you, necessarily) that goes something like this: society has a variety of people in need of help, but the government shouldn't provide it – not because they couldn't do it effectively, but because it denies private charity the chance to help. It's virtuous, after all, to help a person in need; God rewards good deeds like that! But if it's just done systemically, as a matter of law, nobody had the chance to be virtuous, and God has no one to reward. In fact, I have an uncle who made an even stronger version of this argument: it's good for people to rely on private charity, because private charity is frequently church-based. Churches are, naturally, more inclined to take care of their own, and therefore people will be incentivized to join a church and be active in it if they want a social safety net. + Show Spoiler [aside] +In the same discussion, he kept repeating that taxing your fellow citizens to pay for social services is essentially "enslaving" them – he was quite insistent on this word choice. You may imagine he and I didn't agree on much, although I kind of appreciated his honesty, at least. It's not for me to tell people their faith, although it seems to me this scheme is equivalent to maintaining a walled-off kingswood stocked with "wild" animals, so you can demonstrate to God your great hunting prowess; it's hard to imagine believing He could be fooled so easily. But it is, at least, useful to remember that people wrap up ideologies like free market capitalism in value systems that have very little to do with being more "effective." One consequence is that the belief is not, fundamentally, empirical; if you rigorously showed that some alternative economic system was ultimately more productive, and produced more total goods and services for everyone to enjoy, it would do very little to persuade someone who believes in capitalism for other reasons.
I wouldn't say it inspires virtue so much as I would say it better allows the free and effective exercise of virtuous behavior. Simultaneously, it helps contain less pleasant behavior. Both by incentivizing cooperation and competition while allowing the collective, but admittedly incomplete, knowledge of multiples actors make decisions. Hayek is still right. Now of course to a certain type of person this seems absurd but if we are going to compare the ideal to the ideal...I don't think we need trod down the road of if socialism has ever been tried. Clearly China is not economically Marxist, but it's not quite capitalist either....
As to your discourse on charity it seems to me that there's a line. I'm not sure it's a popular position even in religious right circles to advocate the complete abolition of the social safety net. But, it is supposed to be a net that catches you when you fall, not place to live. Right-leaning criticism of the welfare state focuses more on the dependency it encourages than the service it provides. I do also happen to think that much like in economics, the crowding out effect is real in charity too. Conservatives, religious or not, know that people do in fact fall on hard times, and do need help. You might be poor by an accidental circumstance, but it might also be the result of your own freely taken decisions. The issue is addressing the former without encouraging the latter.
We could say more about why it is that the a significant portion of religious thought in this country is so pro-work, if I may brand it that. There are historical reasons I'm sure we are all aware (the type of people who came to this continent brought a lot of that with them). But also it's because throughout the Bible both charity and industriousness are praised (Proverbs is full of both). It may be too much to go into but it's like so many misreadings are partial readings of the Christian Bible. Sure, Jesus says "let he who has not sinned throw the first stone" but he also says to that same adulteress "Go, and sin no more." 
|
“Pro-work” is exactly perfect. It’s always about “jobs,” isn’t it? Not wages, not benefits, not purchasing power, it’s always about jobs. No matter how much economic progress we have, how many years in a row we grow GDP by 3% or w/e, we never work any less, do we?
These days you don’t hear a lot of Hayek from the right. Partly because they’d rather talk trans panic than economics, partly because the literacy level of discourse has fallen a lot in general, but mostly, I think, because libertarian/free market/free trade isn’t really where people are at, are they? It’s protectionism, it’s populism, it’s using government power to punish their enemies. None of that’s very Hayek.
A few years ago Tucker Carlson ran a segment arguing that self-driving cars are just around the corner, and we need to have regulations ready to protect the jobs of truckers. Around the same time people were advocating deregulation (or even subsidies!) to protect the jobs of coal miners. That’s certainly “pro-work!” We’re gonna keep people driving 18-wheelers across the country or breathing coal dust, even when it isn’t necessary! Even when it’s a net loss in value for society!
Of course, I’ve always gotten the impression you’re more of a National Review conservative, where I’m sure Hayek is still held in very high esteem. But even over there, nobody’s really arguing for going back to lassez-faire, are they? It’s still all culture war and grievance, with a more patronizing tone; just now I saw the impossible-to-parody NR headline “On the Childishness of the ‘Woke’ .”
I mean, in recent years (say, the last decade or two), economic trends have been toward rising cost of living pricing people out of cities (especially on the coasts), while good-paying jobs disappear in rural areas (especially in middle America). Either way, it makes people desperate. Are we gonna tell them “You’re desperate because the free market says you’re not pulling your weight”? Because both parties seem more inclined to say “You’re desperate because somebody is screwing you, and we’re gonna figure out how to fix it.”
|
On February 26 2023 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2023 05:55 Dan HH wrote:On February 26 2023 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 25 2023 23:18 Dan HH wrote:On February 25 2023 20:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
In that vain and to this larger point/question, people need look no further than food. In the US it's quite possible that the cost of dealing with our food waste alone could make sure no kid has to go hungry. I don't mean reallocating scraps or reallocating shipments so that unpurchased food doesn't rot in the dumpster behind the supermarket (instead of giving it away before it expired), or even not throwing out perfectly good "weird looking" fresh foods. I mean just the cost to move only the food we waste into a pile and bury/burn it, never mind the environmental "externalities". That's just the tip of the iceberg of how insanely inefficient, at the expense of humanity, for the sake of profit the capitalist market system is. How is this an -ism thing and a not a people thing like Acrofales was saying? + Show Spoiler +I go to the store and intentionally pick the firmest fruit and veg, and perishables with the longer expiration dates, precisely because I don't want them to go bad before I get a chance to eat them and have to throw them away. The next person does the same. The next person does the same. By doing this we externalize the throwing away part to the store then we point at how wasteful and evil the store is. Of course they would rather sell those things but they figured out buyer psychology a long time ago.
We could go to the store more frequently and get the smaller carton of milk that expires in 4 days instead of two larger ones that expire in 2 weeks, we could get fewer bananas that are already going dark instead of a large bunch of green ones. We could go to a stall and have the person running it select what vegetables to put in the bag and they'll pick the ripest things first. But that's less convenient and takes more of our free time and we want to spend as little time as possible on chores.
The current way we get both the benefits of convenience and the moral superiority over the evil corporate chain that provides it.
The market is like the golden sphere in Roadside Picnic (or the room in Stalker for you cinephiles), it gives society what it actually wants rather than what it says it wants (or wishes it would want). It's capitalist culture and a cult of individualism. One thing I've learned in my research is that the history of the world/modern civilization that I was taught is not only grossly outdated (anthropology has made significant discoveries over the last decade+) but specifically intended to rationalize that culture (look at phrenology for an example with a shorter social half-life, not that there aren't lingering vestiges). I've always found it completely absurd that apologists for capitalism insist that it's sensible to believe human nature is inextricably cruel and selfish and appease it by developing/defending a system designed to amplify and incentivize the worst parts of that nature. It's not a coincidence that some of the best compensated jobs in the US are also among the most popular jobs for people with antisocial personality disorders (or psycho/sociopathy/narcissism colloquially). This has little to do with what I wrote, I wasn't going for a human nature angle. I think the disconnect between us is that you think the -ism is what drives local culture whereas I think it's local culture that determines how much good we can do within either -ism. I understand your position within the context of the US, it makes perfect sense. But I can't blame capitalist culture for our ills since my own country is a baby capitalist and the defects of our local culture caused even more damage under communism. I don't want to go down a rabbit hole about culture in Romania here but needless to say both under ostensible communism and today it's developing under the influence of hegemonic (though it was still fighting over domination until the ~80's) US racial capitalism, which has its roots in European racialism and colonialism (the history and impact of which is probably more relevant to your inquiry, for which I highly recommend Black Marxism by Cedric Robinson). This is part of what I'm referencing when I talk about developments in anthropological, historical, psychological, sociological, etc understandings of the world vs what they were/how they were taught in the 18/1900's. Basically a lot of things people take for granted historically, psychologically, etc. as "common sense" or "the way it has always been" are just peculiar and transitory artifacts. A frequent example of this phenomena is the gendering of pink and blue (and basically dresses for all toddlers) in the US. Prior to the 1900's it wasn't really even a thing. From 'the early 1900's until ~1940's pink was the "masculine" color and blue the more "delicate". Now in the 21st century, we're going back to thinking gendering colors (and clothing somewhat), is silly. I get the appeal putting an infant in jeans or a tux or whatever so they look like a little you, but beyond a little harmless fun, it's capitalism preying on people at the expense of having less profitable and more practical customs for dressing infants/young children. Again, notwithstanding the immense environmental devastation it causes and capitalism calls "externalities" which is a euphemism for "the part that invalidates the conclusions drawn from many economic models". Basically if you remove the externalities with things like taxes/ environmental laws and remove the worker exploitation by appropriately compensating labor for the value they add, there are no profits left. That's a central quandary (or feature) of social democracy, they can only sustain the "social" part by perpetuating capitalism and it's exploitation/abuse. It is, by design, impossible for it to produce within its own mechanisms a society without capitalism and the atrocities that sustain it.
There's a fair bit of pigeonholing going on with attempting to cast capitalist culture and European colonialism as a common cause for the issues you identify in your community/culture and the issues I identify in mine given the vastly different economic and historical contexts. On top of what I said about our cultural issues predating the current 30 year capitalist stint, our history during the colonial era was primarly concerned with Ottomans and couldn't be less concerned with the British and Spanish empires and their adventures on your side of the globe. There is a connection in that the Ottomans blocking access to India is what drove Western imperialism westward, but that only goes to further explain why our two histories and our cause-and-effect threads were separated until much later. I do appreciate the recommendation, I'll put it on my list.
If you want a better understanding of the relationship between advanced economies and the developing economies that assemble their goods, I recommend The Great Demographic Reversal by Goodhard & Pradhan. It's not an ideological book, it's economic theory and it can be a bit of a cumbersome read but even the data in the introduction alone should make it immediately apparent why nojok's post which you supported makes no sense from our (workers in developing countries) perspective. This "atrocity" that you think you should feel guilty about was a massive boon for us at your (workers in advanced economies) expense.
Note that I'm only taking issue with this angle because it's wrong, this isn't meant to be a general defense of capitalism on my part, the main beneficiaries of that exchange are still the capitalist class in advanced economies. This also isn't the main point of the book, the past 30 years of this relationship is merely the premise, their theory is that because of economic and the demographic changes in China and Eastern Europe they can no longer supply the planet with cheap excess labor that acts as a deflationary force, and that role can hardly be replaced by countries with political instability and a less well-trained workforce, and that this coupled with a rise in median age across the board will be quite the imminent paradigm shift for the global economy.
|
I'll take the recommendation, but it's very difficult to discuss economics without an ideological foundation, so I'm skeptical it isn't just capitalist (doesn't preclude it from having insights worth examining).
I do agree we're in for a paradigm shift (it can get worse), whether we want it or not, racial capitalism is reaching the end of its rope.
That's part of what motivates my advocacy for socialism as that new paradigm. Not that it's perfect, but when I look at the technofuedalism, fascism, etc. on the horizon, it sure as hell looks a lot more appealing
|
On February 27 2023 07:28 ChristianS wrote:
“Pro-work” is exactly perfect. It’s always about “jobs,” isn’t it? Not wages, not benefits, not purchasing power, it’s always about jobs. No matter how much economic progress we have, how many years in a row we grow GDP by 3% or w/e, we never work any less, do we?
These days you don’t hear a lot of Hayek from the right. Partly because they’d rather talk trans panic than economics, partly because the literacy level of discourse has fallen a lot in general, but mostly, I think, because libertarian/free market/free trade isn’t really where people are at, are they? It’s protectionism, it’s populism, it’s using government power to punish their enemies. None of that’s very Hayek.
A few years ago Tucker Carlson ran a segment arguing that self-driving cars are just around the corner, and we need to have regulations ready to protect the jobs of truckers. Around the same time people were advocating deregulation (or even subsidies!) to protect the jobs of coal miners. That’s certainly “pro-work!” We’re gonna keep people driving 18-wheelers across the country or breathing coal dust, even when it isn’t necessary! Even when it’s a net loss in value for society!
Of course, I’ve always gotten the impression you’re more of a National Review conservative, where I’m sure Hayek is still held in very high esteem. But even over there, nobody’s really arguing for going back to lassez-faire, are they? It’s still all culture war and grievance, with a more patronizing tone; just now I saw the impossible-to-parody NR headline “On the Childishness of the ‘Woke’ .”
I mean, in recent years (say, the last decade or two), economic trends have been toward rising cost of living pricing people out of cities (especially on the coasts), while good-paying jobs disappear in rural areas (especially in middle America). Either way, it makes people desperate. Are we gonna tell them “You’re desperate because the free market says you’re not pulling your weight”? Because both parties seem more inclined to say “You’re desperate because somebody is screwing you, and we’re gonna figure out how to fix it.”
To be perfectly honest I think you are a little ahead of yourself, but of course we could say all those things you mentioned are in fact a part of free exchange, but I'm sure we don't need to state that explicitly as that idea is well known and hotly contested by the left. Moreover, depending on your time scale we absolutely work less and less hard than before. Compare to, say, people 100 years ago.
As for the right, there has always been tension within what might be called "the right" just as there has been on the other side. But the vast majority of people who would call themselves right-leaning would accept the basic idea of dispersed decision making being better than centralized decision making. Where it gets into the weeds is over what happens to people whose jobs become obsolete (but are otherwise willing and able to work) and about balancing our desire to make sure we have the resources to defend ourselves while also making the taxpayer's dollar go the furthest. And both sides have a debate over this type of thing. For example, Biden is out here continuing Trump's idea that we should buy "made in America!" for as much government infrastructure as possible. This is despite the fact that we are going to get far, far less for our trillions because of such a rule.
And of course no one is arguing for a regulation-free market, in these last two posts I have been laying out what the types of tradoffs that conservatives consider. There's no rush to throw out anything in particular. But I've been trying to make that point in this thread for a long time. Conservatism takes seriously the idea that there is no such thing as perfect and that scarcity is real, so things are considered as a balancing act, not an attempt to bring about Utopia.
For your final paragraph, see
Conservatives, religious or not, know that people do in fact fall on hard times, and do need help. You might be poor by an accidental circumstance, but it might also be the result of your own freely taken decisions. The issue is addressing the former without encouraging the latter.
Living on the dole sucks, but simply subsidizing obsolete work is bad in the moment and it's bad for the future as well. The way our ports are run is a perfect example of this. Or even train jobs. We could do things better, less work, safer, etc, but unions fight because they want members. So I agree that both sides have people they want to protect, despite the downsides.
I'm not sure if you want some rule when all I am giving are forces in tension. The right has always had a more nationalist side, for lack of a better word. And for what it's worth, the left's concern for the local and the citizenry used to be much more pronounced.
|
Honestly not sure what you mean by “all those things are in fact part of free exchange.” Which things? Working less? You mean wages, benefits, etc.? Yeah, of course, you negotiate with employers what wages and benefits you get. Interestingly, working less. At least in most industries, you can ask for more money and such, but you really can’t negotiate to, say, work 4 days a week instead of five. It’s just not an acceptable bargaining parameter.
You don’t owe me any hard rules, although I will say too much “forces in tension” and “there’s no perfect, it’s a balancing act” doesn’t make for a very coherent ideology. Critics might sometimes want to indict conservatives for a lack of internal consistency with their ideology, but is the defense going to be “we can’t be inconsistent with our ideology because our ideology is Calvinball”? If true, isn’t that… worse?
|
On February 27 2023 13:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2023 07:28 ChristianS wrote:
“Pro-work” is exactly perfect. It’s always about “jobs,” isn’t it? Not wages, not benefits, not purchasing power, it’s always about jobs. No matter how much economic progress we have, how many years in a row we grow GDP by 3% or w/e, we never work any less, do we?
These days you don’t hear a lot of Hayek from the right. Partly because they’d rather talk trans panic than economics, partly because the literacy level of discourse has fallen a lot in general, but mostly, I think, because libertarian/free market/free trade isn’t really where people are at, are they? It’s protectionism, it’s populism, it’s using government power to punish their enemies. None of that’s very Hayek.
A few years ago Tucker Carlson ran a segment arguing that self-driving cars are just around the corner, and we need to have regulations ready to protect the jobs of truckers. Around the same time people were advocating deregulation (or even subsidies!) to protect the jobs of coal miners. That’s certainly “pro-work!” We’re gonna keep people driving 18-wheelers across the country or breathing coal dust, even when it isn’t necessary! Even when it’s a net loss in value for society!
Of course, I’ve always gotten the impression you’re more of a National Review conservative, where I’m sure Hayek is still held in very high esteem. But even over there, nobody’s really arguing for going back to lassez-faire, are they? It’s still all culture war and grievance, with a more patronizing tone; just now I saw the impossible-to-parody NR headline “On the Childishness of the ‘Woke’ .”
I mean, in recent years (say, the last decade or two), economic trends have been toward rising cost of living pricing people out of cities (especially on the coasts), while good-paying jobs disappear in rural areas (especially in middle America). Either way, it makes people desperate. Are we gonna tell them “You’re desperate because the free market says you’re not pulling your weight”? Because both parties seem more inclined to say “You’re desperate because somebody is screwing you, and we’re gonna figure out how to fix it.” To be perfectly honest I think you are a little ahead of yourself, but of course we could say all those things you mentioned are in fact a part of free exchange, but I'm sure we don't need to state that explicitly as that idea is well known and hotly contested by the left. Moreover, depending on your time scale we absolutely work less and less hard than before. Compare to, say, people 100 years ago. As for the right, there has always been tension within what might be called "the right" just as there has been on the other side. But the vast majority of people who would call themselves right-leaning would accept the basic idea of dispersed decision making being better than centralized decision making. Where it gets into the weeds is over what happens to people whose jobs become obsolete (but are otherwise willing and able to work) and about balancing our desire to make sure we have the resources to defend ourselves while also making the taxpayer's dollar go the furthest. And both sides have a debate over this type of thing. For example, Biden is out here continuing Trump's idea that we should buy "made in America!" for as much government infrastructure as possible. This is despite the fact that we are going to get far, far less for our trillions because of such a rule. And of course no one is arguing for a regulation-free market, in these last two posts I have been laying out what the types of tradoffs that conservatives consider. There's no rush to throw out anything in particular. But I've been trying to make that point in this thread for a long time. Conservatism takes seriously the idea that there is no such thing as perfect and that scarcity is real, so things are considered as a balancing act, not an attempt to bring about Utopia. For your final paragraph, see Show nested quote +Conservatives, religious or not, know that people do in fact fall on hard times, and do need help. You might be poor by an accidental circumstance, but it might also be the result of your own freely taken decisions. The issue is addressing the former without encouraging the latter. Living on the dole sucks, but simply subsidizing obsolete work is bad in the moment and it's bad for the future as well. The way our ports are run is a perfect example of this. Or even train jobs. We could do things better, less work, safer, etc, but unions fight because they want members. So I agree that both sides have people they want to protect, despite the downsides. I'm not sure if you want some rule when all I am giving are forces in tension. The right has always had a more nationalist side, for lack of a better word. And for what it's worth, the left's concern for the local and the citizenry used to be much more pronounced.
could you be any less vague? like give examples of the principles you laid out in action? anything resembling a real life impact of anything you stated? It's all well and good to theorize about your principles, but if we never see them in action they're kinda moot, especially because you're talking about having to balance different interests (e.g. jobs vs. automation).
What tradeoffs have conservatives considered and on what basis has the decision been taken in whose interest?
Who is subsidising obsolete work (you mean coal miners?)? And how are conservatives managing the issue, including the fallout from the end of subsidisation?
Explain for example how exactly the Unions are making rail transport more dangerous?
What are examples where without Unions anything was better and in adherence with the law of the land?
(including conservative views like thou shalt not kill anyone (by overworking or directly killing them due to unsafe work environments))
|
On February 27 2023 17:29 ChristianS wrote:
Honestly not sure what you mean by “all those things are in fact part of free exchange.” Which things? Working less? You mean wages, benefits, etc.? Yeah, of course, you negotiate with employers what wages and benefits you get. Interestingly, working less. At least in most industries, you can ask for more money and such, but you really can’t negotiate to, say, work 4 days a week instead of five. It’s just not an acceptable bargaining parameter.
You don’t owe me any hard rules, although I will say too much “forces in tension” and “there’s no perfect, it’s a balancing act” doesn’t make for a very coherent ideology. Critics might sometimes want to indict conservatives for a lack of internal consistency with their ideology, but is the defense going to be “we can’t be inconsistent with our ideology because our ideology is Calvinball”? If true, isn’t that… worse?
Well obviously being able to negotiate and compromise isn't the same thing as getting exactly what you want.
To your second paragraph, indeed there are those who contend that conservatism isn't really ideological in the sense that we normally use that word. And from many a leftist this is levied as a criticism. I can only speak for myself, but I think one of the best summaries of my conservative principles (as opposed to ideology) is in an updated form of the Sharon statement.
+ Show Spoiler +The Sharon Statement In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths. We, as young conservatives, believe: That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force; That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom; That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice; That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty; That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power; That the genius of the Constitution—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government; That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs; That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both; That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies; That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties; That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with, this menace; and That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States? https://www.yaf.org/news/the-sharon-statement/
It's obviously a little outdated but it gets to the core ideas.
On February 27 2023 19:44 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2023 13:13 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2023 07:28 ChristianS wrote:
“Pro-work” is exactly perfect. It’s always about “jobs,” isn’t it? Not wages, not benefits, not purchasing power, it’s always about jobs. No matter how much economic progress we have, how many years in a row we grow GDP by 3% or w/e, we never work any less, do we?
These days you don’t hear a lot of Hayek from the right. Partly because they’d rather talk trans panic than economics, partly because the literacy level of discourse has fallen a lot in general, but mostly, I think, because libertarian/free market/free trade isn’t really where people are at, are they? It’s protectionism, it’s populism, it’s using government power to punish their enemies. None of that’s very Hayek.
A few years ago Tucker Carlson ran a segment arguing that self-driving cars are just around the corner, and we need to have regulations ready to protect the jobs of truckers. Around the same time people were advocating deregulation (or even subsidies!) to protect the jobs of coal miners. That’s certainly “pro-work!” We’re gonna keep people driving 18-wheelers across the country or breathing coal dust, even when it isn’t necessary! Even when it’s a net loss in value for society!
Of course, I’ve always gotten the impression you’re more of a National Review conservative, where I’m sure Hayek is still held in very high esteem. But even over there, nobody’s really arguing for going back to lassez-faire, are they? It’s still all culture war and grievance, with a more patronizing tone; just now I saw the impossible-to-parody NR headline “On the Childishness of the ‘Woke’ .”
I mean, in recent years (say, the last decade or two), economic trends have been toward rising cost of living pricing people out of cities (especially on the coasts), while good-paying jobs disappear in rural areas (especially in middle America). Either way, it makes people desperate. Are we gonna tell them “You’re desperate because the free market says you’re not pulling your weight”? Because both parties seem more inclined to say “You’re desperate because somebody is screwing you, and we’re gonna figure out how to fix it.” To be perfectly honest I think you are a little ahead of yourself, but of course we could say all those things you mentioned are in fact a part of free exchange, but I'm sure we don't need to state that explicitly as that idea is well known and hotly contested by the left. Moreover, depending on your time scale we absolutely work less and less hard than before. Compare to, say, people 100 years ago. As for the right, there has always been tension within what might be called "the right" just as there has been on the other side. But the vast majority of people who would call themselves right-leaning would accept the basic idea of dispersed decision making being better than centralized decision making. Where it gets into the weeds is over what happens to people whose jobs become obsolete (but are otherwise willing and able to work) and about balancing our desire to make sure we have the resources to defend ourselves while also making the taxpayer's dollar go the furthest. And both sides have a debate over this type of thing. For example, Biden is out here continuing Trump's idea that we should buy "made in America!" for as much government infrastructure as possible. This is despite the fact that we are going to get far, far less for our trillions because of such a rule. And of course no one is arguing for a regulation-free market, in these last two posts I have been laying out what the types of tradoffs that conservatives consider. There's no rush to throw out anything in particular. But I've been trying to make that point in this thread for a long time. Conservatism takes seriously the idea that there is no such thing as perfect and that scarcity is real, so things are considered as a balancing act, not an attempt to bring about Utopia. For your final paragraph, see Conservatives, religious or not, know that people do in fact fall on hard times, and do need help. You might be poor by an accidental circumstance, but it might also be the result of your own freely taken decisions. The issue is addressing the former without encouraging the latter. Living on the dole sucks, but simply subsidizing obsolete work is bad in the moment and it's bad for the future as well. The way our ports are run is a perfect example of this. Or even train jobs. We could do things better, less work, safer, etc, but unions fight because they want members. So I agree that both sides have people they want to protect, despite the downsides. I'm not sure if you want some rule when all I am giving are forces in tension. The right has always had a more nationalist side, for lack of a better word. And for what it's worth, the left's concern for the local and the citizenry used to be much more pronounced. could you be any less vague? like give examples of the principles you laid out in action? anything resembling a real life impact of anything you stated? It's all well and good to theorize about your principles, but if we never see them in action they're kinda moot, especially because you're talking about having to balance different interests (e.g. jobs vs. automation). What tradeoffs have conservatives considered and on what basis has the decision been taken in whose interest? Who is subsidising obsolete work (you mean coal miners?)? And how are conservatives managing the issue, including the fallout from the end of subsidisation? Explain for example how exactly the Unions are making rail transport more dangerous? What are examples where without Unions anything was better and in adherence with the law of the land? (including conservative views like thou shalt not kill anyone (by overworking or directly killing them due to unsafe work environments))
Arguably the material wealth of the modern world is an example of the broad principles a generally free-market conservative may have. I assume you don't want use to simply go through the Code of Federal regulations.
If you want an example of something specific I mentioned, like ports...well we have the experience of countries that have continued to automate their shipping and those that haven't (us). The issues we had during COVID brought those problems into sharp relief. But is fair to say, as ChristianS has, that people on the right have their own protected classes.
Of course one of the biggest, and those most hotly contested by the left, ways in which conservatives have gotten traction is in tax reform. Or foreign policy. Or conservative criticism of the welfare state that panned out. Or the problem with letting criminals walk free. But of course all these are contested, anything small enough to not be debated would probably be dismissed as too insignificant to be evidence. Even COVID, red states valued letting people keep their jobs and businesses and I would argue handled it and the tradoffs much better using these emphases. But again, to almost everyone here, such an assertion is controversial.
|
I think most days I would just focus on pointing out just how far from that type of fusionism modern Republican politics is. NR conservatives talk about Hayek and Buckley and stuff like that Sharon statement, but they’ve shown a willingness to ignore violations of pretty much every aspect of that in recent years with no apparent loss in support for Trump et al. I’m sure there are interesting pragmatic arguments to be made here, but those pragmatic arguments amount to an acknowledgment that adherence to those ideals isn’t actually all that important to them. The ideals are a nominal ideology; the *actual* ideology (the one that actually determines their opinions) would seem to be something else.
But we’ve gone back and forth on that before. Right now I’m more interested in this: I read statements like “political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom” or “[government] accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty,” and I have to ask: if the US government accumulating enormous power over our lives diminishes our freedom, isn’t the same true of, say, Amazon?
I mean, an unbelievable amount of economic power has been aggregated into a pretty small set of corporate overlords. They don’t have democratic controls or a system of checks and balances or a Bill of Rights restricting them; in fact, they’re generally pure top-down command structures, not unlike those “international Communists” (the Soviets, presumably) that were apparently the greatest threat to our liberties back in 1960. There are differences, obviously; but doesn’t their enormous power restrict our economic freedom? The same economic freedom our political freedom, apparently, can’t exist long without?
|
On February 28 2023 14:52 ChristianS wrote:
I think most days I would just focus on pointing out just how far from that type of fusionism modern Republican politics is. NR conservatives talk about Hayek and Buckley and stuff like that Sharon statement, but they’ve shown a willingness to ignore violations of pretty much every aspect of that in recent years with no apparent loss in support for Trump et al. I’m sure there are interesting pragmatic arguments to be made here, but those pragmatic arguments amount to an acknowledgment that adherence to those ideals isn’t actually all that important to them. The ideals are a nominal ideology; the *actual* ideology (the one that actually determines their opinions) would seem to be something else.
But we’ve gone back and forth on that before. Right now I’m more interested in this: I read statements like “political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom” or “[government] accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty,” and I have to ask: if the US government accumulating enormous power over our lives diminishes our freedom, isn’t the same true of, say, Amazon?
I mean, an unbelievable amount of economic power has been aggregated into a pretty small set of corporate overlords. They don’t have democratic controls or a system of checks and balances or a Bill of Rights restricting them; in fact, they’re generally pure top-down command structures, not unlike those “international Communists” (the Soviets, presumably) that were apparently the greatest threat to our liberties back in 1960. There are differences, obviously; but doesn’t their enormous power restrict our economic freedom? The same economic freedom our political freedom, apparently, can’t exist long without?
It is an ideological question. For the right, the rich deserve to be rich and to have power, so taking orders and even being suppressed by a rich, big company is acceptable.
You can even flip it on its head. For the far left, they absolutely hate taking orders from captalist owners and managers, but being on the mercy of a very powerful government party is acceptable.
I feel most people are somewhere in the middle, and can get equally upset with both. In some instances, the goverment teams up with captialists and can get criticism from all over the spectrum to protect a certain holy cow branch of industry.
|
On March 01 2023 05:52 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2023 14:52 ChristianS wrote:
I think most days I would just focus on pointing out just how far from that type of fusionism modern Republican politics is. NR conservatives talk about Hayek and Buckley and stuff like that Sharon statement, but they’ve shown a willingness to ignore violations of pretty much every aspect of that in recent years with no apparent loss in support for Trump et al. I’m sure there are interesting pragmatic arguments to be made here, but those pragmatic arguments amount to an acknowledgment that adherence to those ideals isn’t actually all that important to them. The ideals are a nominal ideology; the *actual* ideology (the one that actually determines their opinions) would seem to be something else.
But we’ve gone back and forth on that before. Right now I’m more interested in this: I read statements like “political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom” or “[government] accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty,” and I have to ask: if the US government accumulating enormous power over our lives diminishes our freedom, isn’t the same true of, say, Amazon?
I mean, an unbelievable amount of economic power has been aggregated into a pretty small set of corporate overlords. They don’t have democratic controls or a system of checks and balances or a Bill of Rights restricting them; in fact, they’re generally pure top-down command structures, not unlike those “international Communists” (the Soviets, presumably) that were apparently the greatest threat to our liberties back in 1960. There are differences, obviously; but doesn’t their enormous power restrict our economic freedom? The same economic freedom our political freedom, apparently, can’t exist long without? It is an ideological question. For the right, the rich deserve to be rich and to have power, so taking orders and even being suppressed by a rich, big company is acceptable. You can even flip it on its head. For the far left, they absolutely hate taking orders from captalist owners and managers, but being on the mercy of a very powerful government party is acceptable. I feel most people are somewhere in the middle, and can get equally upset with both. In some instances, the goverment teams up with captialists and can get criticism from all over the spectrum to protect a certain holy cow branch of industry.
Yeah, but does the right actually feel that way? They sure seem pretty upset when a social media tries to stop them from saying racial slurs or w/e.
Is there a potential consensus to be built here that giant corporations have way too much power over our lives (let alone our politics)? If so, what can be done about it?
|
On March 01 2023 08:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2023 05:52 Slydie wrote:On February 28 2023 14:52 ChristianS wrote:
I think most days I would just focus on pointing out just how far from that type of fusionism modern Republican politics is. NR conservatives talk about Hayek and Buckley and stuff like that Sharon statement, but they’ve shown a willingness to ignore violations of pretty much every aspect of that in recent years with no apparent loss in support for Trump et al. I’m sure there are interesting pragmatic arguments to be made here, but those pragmatic arguments amount to an acknowledgment that adherence to those ideals isn’t actually all that important to them. The ideals are a nominal ideology; the *actual* ideology (the one that actually determines their opinions) would seem to be something else.
But we’ve gone back and forth on that before. Right now I’m more interested in this: I read statements like “political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom” or “[government] accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty,” and I have to ask: if the US government accumulating enormous power over our lives diminishes our freedom, isn’t the same true of, say, Amazon?
I mean, an unbelievable amount of economic power has been aggregated into a pretty small set of corporate overlords. They don’t have democratic controls or a system of checks and balances or a Bill of Rights restricting them; in fact, they’re generally pure top-down command structures, not unlike those “international Communists” (the Soviets, presumably) that were apparently the greatest threat to our liberties back in 1960. There are differences, obviously; but doesn’t their enormous power restrict our economic freedom? The same economic freedom our political freedom, apparently, can’t exist long without? It is an ideological question. For the right, the rich deserve to be rich and to have power, so taking orders and even being suppressed by a rich, big company is acceptable. You can even flip it on its head. For the far left, they absolutely hate taking orders from captalist owners and managers, but being on the mercy of a very powerful government party is acceptable. I feel most people are somewhere in the middle, and can get equally upset with both. In some instances, the goverment teams up with captialists and can get criticism from all over the spectrum to protect a certain holy cow branch of industry. Yeah, but does the right actually feel that way? They sure seem pretty upset when a social media tries to stop them from saying racial slurs or w/e. Is there a potential consensus to be built here that giant corporations have way too much power over our lives (let alone our politics)? If so, what can be done about it?
I feel media companies are in a different category, hating them when they don't do what you want is a very right-wing thing to do.
It is harder to find other examples, which are not straight up fraud. They did call out SBF and the FTX crypto exchange, but they were even major donors to the Democrat party, so not much to lose. The real question imo was how it could get that far under the radar in the first place, but that was not really asked afaik.
|
On February 28 2023 14:52 ChristianS wrote:
I think most days I would just focus on pointing out just how far from that type of fusionism modern Republican politics is. NR conservatives talk about Hayek and Buckley and stuff like that Sharon statement, but they’ve shown a willingness to ignore violations of pretty much every aspect of that in recent years with no apparent loss in support for Trump et al. I’m sure there are interesting pragmatic arguments to be made here, but those pragmatic arguments amount to an acknowledgment that adherence to those ideals isn’t actually all that important to them. The ideals are a nominal ideology; the *actual* ideology (the one that actually determines their opinions) would seem to be something else.
But we’ve gone back and forth on that before. Right now I’m more interested in this: I read statements like “political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom” or “[government] accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty,” and I have to ask: if the US government accumulating enormous power over our lives diminishes our freedom, isn’t the same true of, say, Amazon?
I mean, an unbelievable amount of economic power has been aggregated into a pretty small set of corporate overlords. They don’t have democratic controls or a system of checks and balances or a Bill of Rights restricting them; in fact, they’re generally pure top-down command structures, not unlike those “international Communists” (the Soviets, presumably) that were apparently the greatest threat to our liberties back in 1960. There are differences, obviously; but doesn’t their enormous power restrict our economic freedom? The same economic freedom our political freedom, apparently, can’t exist long without?
I think to say that the right is particular un-principled is an opinion born of ignorance, accidental or willful. Voters often hold contradictory positions on things.
First, I would like to reiterate what I said about forces in tension and balancing different needs. If you want a totally open market with no government intervention go find the most extreme of libertarians. Conservatives know and agree with the idea that lawmakers get to pass laws, in a limited fashion, that set rules.
As for Amazon, it's actually not obvious to me that outside of whatever laws they may lobby for to help themselves, that they have undue economic influence. People use and like Amazon, that's why it has the power it does. Is it hard to dislodge them once they get where they are? Sure. It's basically the idea of inertia. And of course the idea that corporations don't have rules governing them is laughable, what's of more concern is that the laws that do govern them aren't written to their benefit. That's just another way of protecting a certain class, it's just that Amazon is less sympathetic than a dock worker or a coal miner.
And so again we go back around to the question "as opposed to what?" if we do this thing (say, break up Amazon) what are the consequences.... economically, governmentally, politically. Just worrying about Amazon without worrying about those same politicians and bureaucrats are going to do with their new power is myopic.
Your question
doesn’t their enormous power restrict our economic freedom?
is far too simplistic, it misses both how a corporation became what it is and what would happen if we tried to control it politically. So that's why from the beginning I've been talking about a balance. And corporations aren't the only entities or groups of people who will try to get their way at the expense of others.
|
Man, you're excellent at dismissively saying nothing.
|
There’s something so goofy about just responding to an opinion you disagree with saying “that’s an opinion born of ignorance, accidental or willful.” Presumably you’d say that about any opinion you disagree with? But whatever, I said I’m less interested in that subject and I meant it.
Are you familiar with some of Amazon’s more controversial business practices? I can try to enumerate some if that’s helpful, but I’m not sure if you’re saying you’re familiar and don’t think they qualify as “undue economic influence” or if you’re saying you’re not aware of the controversy. I mean, relatively mild example: there are whole industries that live and die by the Amazon search algorithm. They can have a great product that’s selling gangbusters and then some minor tweak to the algorithm and the product just never surfaces.
Another example: in order to participate in Amazon Prime (or at least some versions of it, it’s complicated) you have to basically provide Amazon with pretty involved details of your supply chain. Perhaps not coincidentally, Amazon is always looking for opportunities to introduce their own “Amazon Essentials” version of popular products, which (of course) is automatically included in Prime and gets favored in search results. So you’re basically forced to provide them with all the information they need to produce their own competitor and hide your product from customers.
That doesn’t sound like enormous economic power to you? All this “it’s a balance” talk sounds like you giving yourself permission to favor government taking a heavier hand if you decide something is a problem. So what would that take? And what would it look like, in your worldview, to do something? (Maybe break up Amazon? You brought that up, not me.)
|
On March 01 2023 16:06 ChristianS wrote:
There’s something so goofy about just responding to an opinion you disagree with saying “that’s an opinion born of ignorance, accidental or willful.” Presumably you’d say that about any opinion you disagree with? But whatever, I said I’m less interested in that subject and I meant it.
Are you familiar with some of Amazon’s more controversial business practices? I can try to enumerate some if that’s helpful, but I’m not sure if you’re saying you’re familiar and don’t think they qualify as “undue economic influence” or if you’re saying you’re not aware of the controversy. I mean, relatively mild example: there are whole industries that live and die by the Amazon search algorithm. They can have a great product that’s selling gangbusters and then some minor tweak to the algorithm and the product just never surfaces.
Another example: in order to participate in Amazon Prime (or at least some versions of it, it’s complicated) you have to basically provide Amazon with pretty involved details of your supply chain. Perhaps not coincidentally, Amazon is always looking for opportunities to introduce their own “Amazon Essentials” version of popular products, which (of course) is automatically included in Prime and gets favored in search results. So you’re basically forced to provide them with all the information they need to produce their own competitor and hide your product from customers.
That doesn’t sound like enormous economic power to you? All this “it’s a balance” talk sounds like you giving yourself permission to favor government taking a heavier hand if you decide something is a problem. So what would that take? And what would it look like, in your worldview, to do something? (Maybe break up Amazon? You brought that up, not me.)
I feel like a company with a footprint the size of Amazon wouldn't have an issue of making a knock-off product and sourcing manufacturing for it regardless if they have some supply chain details from the 3rd party seller on their platform. Pretty much everything on Amazon has a thousand knock offs and "Amazon essentials" and "Amazon basics" are just one of many. The other 999 didn't seem to struggle even without the privileged information.
Side note, I once got into the world of exchanging positive Amazon reviews for free products. I once bought an item and got an obscure email saying if I left a 5-star review they would refund my money. Then after that they told me more items to buy and leave reviews on for a full refund. Got like a free juicer, free vacuum food saver, etc. There's literally hundreds of listings for the same product all with different made up brand names. The person emailing me would try to be discrete and not tell me the brand name so they would say "when you search vacuum food saver it's the one on the 3rd page with the price of 54.99 and the coupon for 5% off" or something.
|
Norway28553 Posts
On February 28 2023 10:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2023 17:29 ChristianS wrote:
Honestly not sure what you mean by “all those things are in fact part of free exchange.” Which things? Working less? You mean wages, benefits, etc.? Yeah, of course, you negotiate with employers what wages and benefits you get. Interestingly, working less. At least in most industries, you can ask for more money and such, but you really can’t negotiate to, say, work 4 days a week instead of five. It’s just not an acceptable bargaining parameter.
You don’t owe me any hard rules, although I will say too much “forces in tension” and “there’s no perfect, it’s a balancing act” doesn’t make for a very coherent ideology. Critics might sometimes want to indict conservatives for a lack of internal consistency with their ideology, but is the defense going to be “we can’t be inconsistent with our ideology because our ideology is Calvinball”? If true, isn’t that… worse? Well obviously being able to negotiate and compromise isn't the same thing as getting exactly what you want. To your second paragraph, indeed there are those who contend that conservatism isn't really ideological in the sense that we normally use that word. And from many a leftist this is levied as a criticism. I can only speak for myself, but I think one of the best summaries of my conservative principles (as opposed to ideology) is in an updated form of the Sharon statement. + Show Spoiler +The Sharon Statement In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths. We, as young conservatives, believe: That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force; That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom; That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice; That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty; That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power; That the genius of the Constitution—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government; That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs; That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both; That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies; That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties; That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with, this menace; and That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States? https://www.yaf.org/news/the-sharon-statement/It's obviously a little outdated but it gets to the core ideas.
Shouldn't this - 'That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force' be a ringing endorsement of say, trans rights, or that of immigrants to freely migrate? I'd include abortion but I can see how the administration of justice would be in conflict with that, assuming one has the pov many conservatives presumably have.
But surely the poor Latin American has an equal amount of God-given free will and an equal right to use it, free from the restrictions of arbitrary force? Surely people choosing their own gender identity is not in conflict with this?
What I'm obviously getting at is that, at least from my outsidery perspective, it seems like the current republican party, with its focus on immigration and culture war issues, does in no way concern itself with 'maximizing free-will utilization', but rather on cementing a certain social order found in the glorious yonderyears - but that social order would really only 'maximize free will' for groups of people that today will generally be considered 'privileged'.
From a 'societal goals'-perspective, maximizing 'the ability of the individual to influence his or her own life' (a phrase I like more than 'god-given free will', but I'll happily consider them the same thing, effectively) is an admirable goal and one I am supportive of. However, what many, myself included believe, is that for this to actually be possible, the playing field must be level, and if it isn't, it must first be levelled.
|
On March 01 2023 16:06 ChristianS wrote:
There’s something so goofy about just responding to an opinion you disagree with saying “that’s an opinion born of ignorance, accidental or willful.” Presumably you’d say that about any opinion you disagree with? But whatever, I said I’m less interested in that subject and I meant it.
Are you familiar with some of Amazon’s more controversial business practices? I can try to enumerate some if that’s helpful, but I’m not sure if you’re saying you’re familiar and don’t think they qualify as “undue economic influence” or if you’re saying you’re not aware of the controversy. I mean, relatively mild example: there are whole industries that live and die by the Amazon search algorithm. They can have a great product that’s selling gangbusters and then some minor tweak to the algorithm and the product just never surfaces.
Another example: in order to participate in Amazon Prime (or at least some versions of it, it’s complicated) you have to basically provide Amazon with pretty involved details of your supply chain. Perhaps not coincidentally, Amazon is always looking for opportunities to introduce their own “Amazon Essentials” version of popular products, which (of course) is automatically included in Prime and gets favored in search results. So you’re basically forced to provide them with all the information they need to produce their own competitor and hide your product from customers.
That doesn’t sound like enormous economic power to you? All this “it’s a balance” talk sounds like you giving yourself permission to favor government taking a heavier hand if you decide something is a problem. So what would that take? And what would it look like, in your worldview, to do something? (Maybe break up Amazon? You brought that up, not me.)
Sorry, but with that first comment it was strange to me that one could possibly think the right had some unique issue with inconsistency. To me that displays a lack of introspection, at best.
I'm saying Amazon has power because people like it. Will they try to leverage that power to further their own ends? Yes. So does every company. I am objecting to the assumption that seems to undergird your post which says that Amazon's power is ipso facto bad. Yes, Amazon has large influence in people's lives, but that didn't come from nowhere, and moreover it's not clear that using the tools of government to constrain it is a good idea long term. At least we would have to be careful.
All this “it’s a balance” talk sounds like you giving yourself permission to favor government taking a heavier hand if you decide something is a problem.
It's not "giving myself permission" it is literally what I've been saying the whole time. To take a less controversial problem, we can think of things like sanctions or rules about what foreign entities we can work with. National security concerns are, clearly a legitimate reason to "constraints the fre market." You ignored every other part of that statement where it talked about order or a just foreign policy. If you want to say that only an anarchist or extreme libertarian are principled then go ahead I guess.
Perhaps this is because no one else in this thread comes from a right leaning perspective, but the demand for this always applicable rule for every circumstance stance I would think should be obviously seen as unreasonable. I could walk down the road of left wing inconsistencies, especially by voters, but it's often not a useful exercise.
|
On March 01 2023 20:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2023 10:24 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2023 17:29 ChristianS wrote:
Honestly not sure what you mean by “all those things are in fact part of free exchange.” Which things? Working less? You mean wages, benefits, etc.? Yeah, of course, you negotiate with employers what wages and benefits you get. Interestingly, working less. At least in most industries, you can ask for more money and such, but you really can’t negotiate to, say, work 4 days a week instead of five. It’s just not an acceptable bargaining parameter.
You don’t owe me any hard rules, although I will say too much “forces in tension” and “there’s no perfect, it’s a balancing act” doesn’t make for a very coherent ideology. Critics might sometimes want to indict conservatives for a lack of internal consistency with their ideology, but is the defense going to be “we can’t be inconsistent with our ideology because our ideology is Calvinball”? If true, isn’t that… worse? Well obviously being able to negotiate and compromise isn't the same thing as getting exactly what you want. To your second paragraph, indeed there are those who contend that conservatism isn't really ideological in the sense that we normally use that word. And from many a leftist this is levied as a criticism. I can only speak for myself, but I think one of the best summaries of my conservative principles (as opposed to ideology) is in an updated form of the Sharon statement. + Show Spoiler +The Sharon Statement In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths. We, as young conservatives, believe: That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force; That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom; That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice; That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty; That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power; That the genius of the Constitution—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government; That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs; That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both; That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies; That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties; That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with, this menace; and That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States? https://www.yaf.org/news/the-sharon-statement/It's obviously a little outdated but it gets to the core ideas. Shouldn't this - 'That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force' be a ringing endorsement of say, trans rights, or that of immigrants to freely migrate? I'd include abortion but I can see how the administration of justice would be in conflict with that, assuming one has the pov many conservatives presumably have. But surely the poor Latin American has an equal amount of God-given free will and an equal right to use it, free from the restrictions of arbitrary force? Surely people choosing their own gender identity is not in conflict with this? What I'm obviously getting at is that, at least from my outsidery perspective, it seems like the current republican party, with its focus on immigration and culture war issues, does in no way concern itself with 'maximizing free-will utilization', but rather on cementing a certain social order found in the glorious yonderyears - but that social order would really only 'maximize free will' for groups of people that today will generally be considered 'privileged'. From a 'societal goals'-perspective, maximizing 'the ability of the individual to influence his or her own life' (a phrase I like more than 'god-given free will', but I'll happily consider them the same thing, effectively) is an admirable goal and one I am supportive of. However, what many, myself included believe, is that for this to actually be possible, the playing field must be level, and if it isn't, it must first be levelled.
Hmm, you picked a touchy example lol. I will say this, most conservatives are ok letting adults, fully informed of what they are doing, make their own decisions. Children are another story and the desire to make everyone else recognize something that to them is self-evidently false is... problematic.
Wrt immigration that’s another one of those places where radical libertarians would disagree with conservatives. Part of self-determintion is choosing who joins the body politic. I don't see how it's necessary for a the that right to encompas the right to move into an already existing community, if we could call it that.
From a conservative worldview doing things in extremes is simply bad for the stated goals. Thomas Sowell would call this the tragic vision, that the world is filled with flawed people so we try to improve on things as we can while not throwing out what we have. In an idea would we like someone to be able to move wherever they want? Sure. But are we convinced that in this world, such an ability actually makes everyone better? Certainly not. It may be better on balance that countries get to say no.
So I guess this applies to what ChristianS said as well. If we are trying to "maximize" something that means we have to find the conditions that will do so. Those conditions might actually require constraint. He has a chemistry background it seems, he knows that if you want to synthesize something you don't just put a bunch of chemicals in a beaker and shake it around. It requires the right ratio of constituents, the right temperature, a certain amount if time, ans maybe some catalysts. It may also take many steps and you may lose significant yield as you go.
Do not, of course, mistake this for a Marxist interpretation!
Insert reference to Chestrton's fence here also 
|
On March 01 2023 23:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2023 20:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:On February 28 2023 10:24 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2023 17:29 ChristianS wrote:
Honestly not sure what you mean by “all those things are in fact part of free exchange.” Which things? Working less? You mean wages, benefits, etc.? Yeah, of course, you negotiate with employers what wages and benefits you get. Interestingly, working less. At least in most industries, you can ask for more money and such, but you really can’t negotiate to, say, work 4 days a week instead of five. It’s just not an acceptable bargaining parameter.
You don’t owe me any hard rules, although I will say too much “forces in tension” and “there’s no perfect, it’s a balancing act” doesn’t make for a very coherent ideology. Critics might sometimes want to indict conservatives for a lack of internal consistency with their ideology, but is the defense going to be “we can’t be inconsistent with our ideology because our ideology is Calvinball”? If true, isn’t that… worse? Well obviously being able to negotiate and compromise isn't the same thing as getting exactly what you want. To your second paragraph, indeed there are those who contend that conservatism isn't really ideological in the sense that we normally use that word. And from many a leftist this is levied as a criticism. I can only speak for myself, but I think one of the best summaries of my conservative principles (as opposed to ideology) is in an updated form of the Sharon statement. + Show Spoiler +The Sharon Statement In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths. We, as young conservatives, believe: That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force; That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom; That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice; That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty; That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power; That the genius of the Constitution—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government; That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs; That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both; That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies; That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties; That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with, this menace; and That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States? https://www.yaf.org/news/the-sharon-statement/It's obviously a little outdated but it gets to the core ideas. Shouldn't this - 'That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force' be a ringing endorsement of say, trans rights, or that of immigrants to freely migrate? I'd include abortion but I can see how the administration of justice would be in conflict with that, assuming one has the pov many conservatives presumably have. But surely the poor Latin American has an equal amount of God-given free will and an equal right to use it, free from the restrictions of arbitrary force? Surely people choosing their own gender identity is not in conflict with this? What I'm obviously getting at is that, at least from my outsidery perspective, it seems like the current republican party, with its focus on immigration and culture war issues, does in no way concern itself with 'maximizing free-will utilization', but rather on cementing a certain social order found in the glorious yonderyears - but that social order would really only 'maximize free will' for groups of people that today will generally be considered 'privileged'. From a 'societal goals'-perspective, maximizing 'the ability of the individual to influence his or her own life' (a phrase I like more than 'god-given free will', but I'll happily consider them the same thing, effectively) is an admirable goal and one I am supportive of. However, what many, myself included believe, is that for this to actually be possible, the playing field must be level, and if it isn't, it must first be levelled. Hmm, you picked a touchy example lol. I will say this, most conservatives are ok letting adults, fully informed of what they are doing, make their own decisions. Unless its any of the things they don't like. Then adults shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions about who they want to love, or marry. Or chose how they dress or any of the other things where they try to use the government to enforce their values on others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
