Canada & Progressives

[Tom O'Donnell]

1) Agreed about one world government. I think it is impractical. I also like the idea that people can choose from a variety of different cultural practices where they want to live.

I think it is also impractical to have a set of common norms that are acceptable to everyone, or even say 95% of people world-wide.

Take something like female genital mutilation (FGM). There was a case in Michigan a few years ago where a doctor was performing this. Should this be a crime? If that's a crime, what about circumcision? You will never get people to agree on this world-wide.

2) The goal of free trade is to increase "happiness" (admittedly an inexact word, maybe an economist would use satisfaction or improved situation or ...?). In the FGM case above, someone paid the doctor to do this. The doctor presumably got money and the parents of the girls got what they wanted. If a country allows this, even if you or I think it is barbaric - I certainly do - then people pass laws to disallow it. But expecting every country to do this is unlikely and I am not going to judge the standards of other cultures, so long as those practices are not performed here.

In the case of something like green energy, if demand for say windmill farms or nuclear power plants is great enough, if there is money in it, someone will supply it.

3) In the general case, capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than anything in human history. If you strive for perfection, presumably you have to meet people's basic needs first. This will involve people making errors about how capital is allocated. Trying and failing is the precursor to trying and succeeding, most of the time. There is no person, or group of people, so intelligent that they can predict what works and what doesn't in all cases, which is what central planning attempts but fails to do. Perhaps some sort of computer will eventually be able to do it, but as it stands now you can wish that people had this level of foresight but that's all it is, wishing.

[Pargat Perrer]

......

1) When I wrote "assuming there is no law against it" I meant that there are some things that a particular society might consider so detrimental overall that they collectively decide to outlaw it. An example might be someone trying to sell heroin or a bioweapon. Each country would have different laws. What might be okay in one country (e.g. marijuana) might be strictly prohibited in another. I've yet to meet a Libertarian who thinks there should be no laws.

This relates to our previous discussion about borders. The increasing fragmentation of the world into countries, each with their own set of laws, seems to create chaos. I am not advocating for one world government, BUT some things need to be agreed to UNIVERSALLY.

The U.S. Constitution is often cited as the best example so far in human history of this ideal set of universal principles.

Something that increases value to an individual also increases overall value to the country. .....

No person or group of people are capable of determining on a case-by-case basis if any particular transaction is of value to the society as a whole.

THESE TWO STATEMENTS SEEM TO STRONGLY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

The first statement is an absolute fallacy.

The second statement is not true in practice even in modern democracies. In PRACTICE, we allow our elected governments to tell us what transactions are of value to society as a whole. As one example. Trump voters and supporters seem to agree that green energy transactions are NOT beneficial to society as a whole. How did they decide this? Probably because Trump said it.

Billions and billions of tiny, voluntary transactions will incrementally increase the overall value to the society.

If this were true, we would be heading towards perfection here on Earth and every increase in population, by the mere fact of increasing these billions of voluntary transactions, must be improving society.

In fact, the reverse has now become the case.

The only way we can know is by the revealed preference of people spending their money on goods and services at various price points. For example, if John Doe spends $500 on a widget it is reasonable to conclude that he values the widget more than the $500. If he didn't buy the widget yesterday at $600 it is also reasonable to conclude he values the widget less than $600. The value to Doe of the widget can only be determined by how he chooses to spend his money. There is no other way, is there?

And sure, there will be misjudgments as businesses misallocate capital. Even experts in their specific fields make errors. There is no system that can solve that problem, nor would we want to, imo. Without making these errors society also misses out when companies create things whose approximate net value isn't determined until decades later.

Again, when you say "misses out" you are supposing that the overall trend is towards perfection. Misallocation of capital is a HUGE problem, as China is currently discovering. China is in a downward tailspin economically because of such misallocation.

We definitely SHOULD want to solve that problem as much as humanly possible.

[Dilip Panjwani]

When I wrote "assuming there is no law against it" I meant that there are some things that a particular society might consider so detrimental overall that they collectively decide to outlaw it. An example might be someone trying to sell heroin or a bioweapon. Each country would have different laws. What might be okay in one country (e.g. marijuana) might be strictly prohibited in another. I've yet to meet a Libertarian who thinks there should be no laws.

The Natural Law would cover the problem you describe, as it would most problems. A lot of specific laws are not only unnecessary, but often become contradictory, making lawyers play around with them preventing the ones harmed from obtaining justice...

[Tom O'Donnell]

Okay, let's clarify a couple of things:

1) When I wrote "assuming there is no law against it" I meant that there are some things that a particular society might consider so detrimental overall that they collectively decide to outlaw it. An example might be someone trying to sell heroin or a bioweapon. Each country would have different laws. What might be okay in one country (e.g. marijuana) might be strictly prohibited in another. I've yet to meet a Libertarian who thinks there should be no laws.

2) Something that increases value to an individual also increases overall value to the country. Billions and billions of tiny, voluntary transactions will incrementally increase the overall value to the society.

No person or group of people are capable of determining on a case-by-case basis if any particular transaction is of value to the society as a whole. How would it be possible to determine this?

The only way we can know is by the revealed preference of people spending their money on goods and services at various price points. For example, if John Doe spends $500 on a widget it is reasonable to conclude that he values the widget more than the $500. If he didn't buy the widget yesterday at $600 it is also reasonable to conclude he values the widget less than $600. The value to Doe of the widget can only be determined by how he chooses to spend his money. There is no other way, is there?

And sure, there will be misjudgments as businesses misallocate capital. Even experts in their specific fields make errors. There is no system that can solve that problem, nor would we want to, imo. Without making these errors society also misses out when companies create things whose approximate net value isn't determined until decades later.

[Pargat Perrer]

Let's deal with this part first. Lots of things create no value to me. An example: I don't own a television. It would not hurt me at all if there was no television. If you gave me a free television I would not take it unless I could sell it.

However, just because I derive no value from something doesn't mean they shouldn't be sold to people who want it. If there's a market for something then, assuming there is no law against it, buyer and seller can try to come to a fair price.

No one is forcing anyone to buy things. Except when the government taxes you; if you don't "buy" what they are "selling" you go to prison.

So, lottery tickets, astrologers, there was even a person who bought a piece of art that was literally nothing:

An Italian Artist Auctioned Off an ‘Invisible Sculpture’ for $18,300. It’s Made Literally of Nothing

Should this person be forbidden for selling this? Should the buyers (note: the final sale price was based on competitive bidding) be prevented from buying it? No, as long as both parties understand what they a selling/buying. I think it's nuts, but my opinion is irrelevant. The transaction has nothing to do with me. If someone wants to buy something voluntarily this implies that they value the good/service more than the money, again assuming they are informed about what they are buying.

When I mentioned pet rocks, I wasn't suggesting it should be illegal to ATTEMPT to sell pet rocks since that product doesn't do any harm to society.

I guess there are 2 types of value in this discussion: (1) value to individuals or individual entities, and (2) value to society as a whole.

If all we have is free market capitalism with no government regulation, we end up with lots of (1) and very little of (2).

[Tom O'Donnell]

Let's deal with this part first. Lots of things create no value to me. An example: I don't own a television. It would not hurt me at all if there was no television. If you gave me a free television I would not take it unless I could sell it.

However, just because I derive no value from something doesn't mean they shouldn't be sold to people who want it. If there's a market for something then, assuming there is no law against it, buyer and seller can try to come to a fair price.

No one is forcing anyone to buy things. Except when the government taxes you; if you don't "buy" what they are "selling" you go to prison.

So, lottery tickets, astrologers, there was even a person who bought a piece of art that was literally nothing:

An Italian Artist Auctioned Off an ‘Invisible Sculpture’ for $18,300. It’s Made Literally of Nothing

Should this person be forbidden for selling this? Should the buyers (note: the final sale price was based on competitive bidding) be prevented from buying it? No, as long as both parties understand what they a selling/buying. I think it's nuts, but my opinion is irrelevant. The transaction has nothing to do with me. If someone wants to buy something voluntarily this implies that they value the good/service more than the money, again assuming they are informed about what they are buying.

So ... pet rocks provide value to other people.

...

[Dilip Panjwani]

You mention inflation due to printing money....

But before that, you mention more jobs and less people to do them, leading to greater remuneration, and LOL "everyone becomes richer".

No -- greater cost of production leads to inflation.

In Libertarianism, the effect of better wages is counterbalanced by disappearance of obscene profits and increased efficiencies because of increased competition, and hence inflation does not occur...

[Dilip Panjwani]

... the insults were directed at YOU and were done with EXTREME PREJUDICE.

One of the reasons why decent Chesstalkers have stated that you need to be kicked out of Chesstalk...

[Pargat Perrer]

....
Capitalism allows everyone to enrich themselves as much as they want by providing value to other people.

So ... pet rocks provide value to other people.

I wish I could think of many more examples, but Letterman and Leno did their bit to expose the uselessness of many capitalist products on their late night shows. For example, "Things we found on eBay".

The point being, capitalism produces a lot of GARBAGE that ends up floating in the Pacific Ocean.

Even Trump just referenced this notion ... he said his tariffs will cause Western families with young girls to have "2 dolls instead of 30 dolls".

Government, on the other hand, often allows people to enrich themselves without providing value to anyone.

Now in comparison, you suggest ONLY government does this and does it often. Well ... quantify that. HOW OFTEN? HOW OFTEN COMPARED TO CAPITALISM?

Even if it's true, government still does one major service that capitalism doesn't: It provides value and services that no capitalist would dare touch, but which is still necessary to make a much better functioning society.

[Pargat Perrer]

Hey Nasty Troll PP, you did not point out anything wrong with Libertarianism... you just insulted those who supported Libertarianism...

Actually, I did BOTH and the insults were directed at YOU and were done with EXTREME PREJUDICE.

You just won't admit to anything being wrong with Libertarianism, you wear rose coloured glasses.

[Pargat Perrer]

When there are more entrepreneurs, there are more jobs, and less people aspiring for those jobs, leading to greater remuneration for those who do the jobs. Everyone becomes richer. The opposite happens in Marxism. In Marxism, as happened in Chile under Allende, the government may create jobs and pay well, but these government-run enterprises generate a lot of loss, paid for by the government by printing money, leading to inflation, which reached about 150% in Chile under Allende, making everyone poorer...
And by the way, no one keeps working hard in Marxism, because all essentials are provided free by the government even if you do not work at all....

You mention inflation due to printing money....

But before that, you mention more jobs and less people to do them, leading to greater remuneration, and LOL "everyone becomes richer".

No -- greater cost of production leads to inflation.

Please take ECON 101 at your nearest university.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Voluntary trade is not a zero-sum or negative-sum exchange. If you want to make money you exchange your energy, time, and skills providing other people with something they want. If you can scale this to thousands or millions of people, you make money off of thousands or millions of trades.

A personal example: I own a computer. I use the computer to teach chess online. Without the computer, I cannot teach chess online. In exchange for paying every few years for a new computer, I can provide chess teaching for people who want it and make money. I do not begrudge the people who created the computer and sold it to me, even if they made billions selling computers to millions of people and made money off them. Without the exchange, I would be worse off, so instead of railing against how much they make, I thank them.

Capitalism works well with human nature. People have different levels of skills, of work ethic, of intelligence. Capitalism allows everyone to enrich themselves as much as they want by providing value to other people. Government, on the other hand, often allows people to enrich themselves without providing value to anyone.

Dilip (I know.....I said I wouldn't take the bait [sigh])

...

One example only: yes, in that, is the statement that entrepreneurs will be valued in a DM society for the same contributions they make to capitalism, though without exorbitant, obscene profits made on the back of society generally - to just show that you don't want answers.....you just want super-critical, unbased, monologue....your monologue.

...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Oh my god, the utter HYPOCRISY!!!!

THE UNMITIGATED HYPOCRISY !!!!

I pointed out all the problems with Libertarianism and got labelled by this piece of shit as a "nasty troll" in response. He was unable to answer the points raised which showed that LIbertarianism would be disastrous ....

WHAT AN UTTER PIECE OF HYPOCRITIC SHIT IS DILIP PANJWANI.

Hey Nasty Troll PP, you did not point out anything wrong with Libertarianism... you just insulted those who supported Libertarianism...

[Dilip Panjwani]

When there are more entrepreneurs, there are more jobs, and less people aspiring for those jobs, leading to greater remuneration for those who do the jobs. Everyone becomes richer. The opposite happens in Marxism. In Marxism, as happened in Chile under Allende, the government may create jobs and pay well, but these government-run enterprises generate a lot of loss, paid for by the government by printing money, leading to inflation, which reached about 150% in Chile under Allende, making everyone poorer...
And by the way, no one keeps working hard in Marxism, because all essentials are provided free by the government even if you do not work at all....

[Pargat Perrer]

......
FYI, smart and hard-working entrepreneurs do not make obscene profits; they work extremely hard to make a decent, comfortable living, with some savings for retirement, but your DM would forcefully snatch away more than 60% (?more than 75%) of what they earn, and so it would become more attractive for them to stop sweating (which they did not mind originally) and relax more, as health care, dental care, children's education, housing, travel, etc. etc. would all be free, leading to the society losing wealth creation by these entrepreneurs.
.....

What percentage of the general population is "smart"???

Let's say 25 percent. That's 1/4.

What percentage of the general population turns out to be "hard-working"?

[People who dig ditches for minimum wage are "hard-working", can we say the same for those who invent pet rocks and other useless paraphenalia that sell millions?]

Maybe another 25 percent. Another 1/4.

Then it would be /16th (1/4 x 1/4, basic math) of the world population that is smart AND hard-working. That's a best-case scenario, it assumes that 1/4 of the smart class are also hard-working, which is sure to be false because smart people tend to be lazy people, inventing ways to do LESS work.

So in the best case scenario, 15 out of 16 people in the world don't fit into Dilip's elitist world view.

Ok, so these 1 out of every 16 are smart and hard-working people. But now Dilip says that if they were taxed on their profits, they would CEASE to be hard-working.

So the smart and hard-working are hard-working ONLY AS LONG AS THEY EARN MAXIMUM MONEY FOR THEIR WORK. TAKE AWAY ANY OF THAT MONEY AND THEY CEASE TO BE HARD-WORKING.

This means that only smart people who are WELL PAID are also HARD WORKING.

Ditch diggers of the world, do you agree?

Tobacco pickers, do you agree?

Fruit and vegetable harvesters, do you agree?

Nannies, do you agree?

Homemaker women, do you agree?

I would argue that all of those people WHO ARE TAXED FAR MORE THAN MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES are more HARD-WORKING than anyone else. So Dilip ... the smart and hard-working class is the WORST class in the world, they only work hard out of pure selfishness while the lower classes work hard just to pay for food on their tables. and when they get taxed they KEEP WORKING HARD.