Canada & Progressives

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[Dilip Panjwani]

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?

Hi Tom,
'One World, One Nation' would be impractical if we let politicians dictate over the citizens (other than enforcing the Natural Law, which, incidentally, would cover the issue of FGM. Circumcision does have medical benefits, and hence does not violate the Natural Law).
It would work very well if citizens were free to do what they chose, and choose to join others with similar 'cultural practices', forming their circles, so long as they do not harm anybody...

[Bob Armstrong]

Poverty Alleviation

Tom O'Donnell & Bob Holliman: "In the general case, capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than anything in human history."

Bob Armstrong: "The lifting of millions out of poverty has also been achieved in China from the time of the revolution under Mao Zedong to the present (Xi Jinping) - old-style USSR Communism (Now altered by some integration of capitalism within the new Chinese Communism).



Note: Capitalism's roots are not in the masses. It is the eventual creation of the era of Kings, the Lords, and finally Oligarchs - is it surprising that now the system provides the most benefit to the elite? Is it surprising that, of necessity, capitalism involves an ever-widening wealth/income gap.......wider now than ever in the history of capitalism!! It is inherently unsustainable.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Poverty Alleviation

Tom O'Donnell & Bob Holliman: "In the general case, capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than anything in human history."

Bob Armstrong: "The lifting of millions out of poverty has also been achieved in China from the time of the revolution under Mao Zedong to the present (Xi Jinping) - old-style USSR Communism (Now altered by some integration of capitalism within the new Chinese Communism).



Note: Capitalism's roots are not in the masses. It is the eventual creation of the era of Kings, the Lords, and finally Oligarchs - is it surprising that now the system provides the most benefit to the elite? Is it surprising that, of necessity, capitalism involves an ever-widening wealth/income gap.......wider now than ever in the history of capitalism!! It is inherently unsustainable.

Bob A

Students of History know very well that the Mao Zedong era, the 1950s-1970s, was a disaster for China's economy and society, with all the misery one always sees in Marxism. However in the 1980s, China started privatizing its economy, and wealth production began to improve. It was then that the USA had to resort to cheap imports from China in huge amounts, and that led to a great resurgence in Chinese economy. The especially good thing was that it happened in a Libertarian manner, in which the smart and hard working individuals even without huge capital of their own could privately increase production because of governmental policies valuing the common man.
The reason why Capitalism is unsustainable is that the holders of Capital are able to bribe the politicians into passing a myriad laws discouraging competition from those without their own capital, even when they are smart and hard-working, from starting businesses of their own. This gradually leads to huge and ever-widening wealth inequality and society's collapse. Libertarianism is the solution, as it provides easy access to capital and guarantees ease of starting businesses, thereby increasing wealth production with efficiency, and without price-gouging, given the huge competition...
So, to sum up, Marxism destroys the economy rapidly, making everyone poorer, Capitalism increases wealth production and makes many people rich for quite a while, but huge and ever-widening wealth inequality eventually takes its toll on the society, while Libertarianism is the best solution for permanent increases in the society's wealth...