Question Regarding Political Philosophy

[Munkii]

Okay, I'm taking a Philosophy class right now, and we are focusing on politcal philosophy as that is what my professor has more knowledge in.  He has presented the "usual suspects" Locke, Hobbes, Marx, Mills, and Rawls.  Doing all this reading has gotten me thinking about some of the practices in our country today and how they are interpreted.  I would like to start a civil discussion regarding some idea's on what is taking place today in society and how it fits in with the philosophy's.

I'd really like to get Miko involved, as he usually presents well thought out arguements, whether you agree with him or not.  Another person I would be interested in hearing from is Martlet, he generally ask's for sources, but since this is all based upon your interpretation of the other sources, none are needed.  Since there is no right or wrong answer, I do expect a flame war to eventually erupt, but I hope to pick the brains of a few of you before that happens.

Now lets look at society today.  We supposedly live in a democracy, in reality is more a Federalistic Republic, but we all know how the US is supposed to work.  (Most of my discussion will be laced with youthful ignorance, which is the reason for writing this.)  If we look at society today though, we have more of a federalist government, that has semi-socialistic tendencies, especially in the economic section.  I propose this because I think that, similar to Marx, all free trade/capitalism leads to communisum or socialism.  I differ in my opinion, because I don't necesarrily believe that all socialism is good, nor do I believe it is all bad.

Socialism in America leads to better wages, more competition between companies, and better worker safety.  Most of these things come from the organization of workers, and government intervention.  (Anti-Trust laws, OSHA)  These things, do not necesarrily mean true socialism, because there is the basis of capitalism at work (private owned companies instead of state controlled, and skilled laborers having to find work instead of being pushed into it through the state) and this makes free trade even more profitable to most involved.

The economics of the situation is astounding, but I do feel that most benefit at least a little bit from this intervention by the government in the free trade of America.  The working class (through unions and other organizations for skilled laborers) has given itself better wages and better working conditions, and has also increased the profits for other companies, because a lot of them own stock in the very company they work for.  Therefore they make themselves worth more the harder they work.

I think this is a good enough start for a discussion, but I have a lot more I would like to debate.

[miko2d]

Hi, Munkii.

 I see you want to do a serious studying here, so I would not do the subject justice if I try to educate you here.

 The purpose of my posts here was not so much as to provide good and complete answers but to address readers who did not know there are questions and set them on the way of independent discovery.
 If you are already interested, your time would be much better spent reading a couple of introductory books by authors with much better command of the language. You can read a book by a great author in five hours or spend them arguing one simple issue with me here - and I cannot guarantee good participation with second baby and other stuff going on in my life.

 For the very beginners, "Economics in one Lesson" by Harry Hazlitt is a classic. A bit more thorough introduction is "Economics for real People" by Gene Callahan. Those are not large books.
 Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" and "The Fatal conceit - The Errors of Socialism" are great on the political implications of faulty economics.
 If you really want to get floored, read "Democracy, th egod that Failed" by Hoppe.
 Check the book catalog of http://www.mises.org if you have trouble finding them elsewhere.

 The perceptions and even language of modern political discourse is based on so many levels of misconceptions and patent absourdities that it is basically impossibe to pose a meaningfull question, let alone provide a meaningfull answer.

 So I will address the issues briefly without explanations.

We supposedly live in a democracy

 Democracy is just the way how the curent caretaker of the government is selected.
 Government is a territorial monopolist on use of violence and ultimate decision making (jusridiction) in a territory.
 The membership in such state is usually non-voluntary - certainly in US after 1861.
 As with any monopoly, the quality and quantity of services (justice and protection of rights and property) tends to decline and costs to rise.
 In case of democracy, the tendency or state to become a tyrany is strongest and hardest to overcome, compared to any other form of government.

I think that, similar to Marx, all free trade/capitalism leads to communisum or socialism

 Not really. Marx's statements on that effect are completely bogus and self-contradictory. In fact, he developed the bogus theories of August Compte and Hegel about some kind of historic spirit that drives the development of society.
 Besides supernatural and mystic perception of history, the rest of Marx's theory is based on false labor theory of value. Without those all his writings are just so much nonsense - and yes, I've read Capital twice and many other of his works.

Socialism in America leads to better wages, more competition between companies, and better worker safety. Most of these things come from the organization of workers, and government intervention.

 On all your examples it is the opposite that is true. Whatever progress happened, happened due to the accumulation of capital and comparition, despite socialist tendencies.

 As you can see my views are so radically different that I would have to either write a book on each point or say nothing at all. As I've said, the time you spend with those few books would be much better investment of time for us both.
 I would be happy to answer any specific questions or discuss more general things you encounter reading them.

 Good luck with your studies. You may wish not to let your teachers know you are reading that stuff, at least if you are concerned about grades.

 miko

[Munkii]

Actually, I think are views are a lot similar than you perceive, its just I have a problem forming the way I like things to go, plus it is blatant ignorance on my part in some area's.  I'll go through and address your statements one by one, and check out those books.  A 5 week debate on here wouldn't bother me in the least, because I enjoy the interactive learning.

Democracy is just the way how the curent caretaker of the government is selected.

With this are you saying that it is the way the U.S. was selected or all governments in general?  By that standard is the "Democratic" governments setup in Afghanistan, and the one being setup in Iraq democratic?  I would concider them more of a colonial democracy at best, one just going through the motions until the people actually get used to it, and find that it is to the benefit most of the time.

Marx's theory is based on false labor theory of value.

Would you say that even though his idea's have been debunked, (I agree with that statement) that some of the idea's of labor unions that came about show a little into his theories?  I think that the labor unions alone turned most of the industrial section around.  Now that we are a more commercialistic country, they don't have as much of an impact, and are generally concidered nuisances by the public.  I think that generally comes from employers trying to get their profit margins back up by dissolving the unions again.

Whatever progress happened, happened due to the accumulation of capital and comparition, despite socialist tendencies.

How would you address the issue of worker safety?  Would you leave it up to the employee's and employers to weed out the issue of workplace safety and health?  If there were no government intervention, are you suggesting the dissolving of patents and anti-trust?  From the looks of things without either of those, they would either counter-balance each other, by means of competition on every level, or they would throw everything askew because of industry espionage.

As you can see my opinion is still being formed, and I have never studied this in great detail but have the desire to learn.  If anyone else as anything to add, please feel free.

BTW congrats on the 2nd Miko

[-sudz-]

How soon they forget me

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by -sudz-
How soon they forget me

Who the hell are you?

[miko2d]

Munkii: With this are you saying that it is the way the U.S. was selected or all governments in general?

 As far as governments come, it can be completely privately owned - hereditary monarchy, completely publicly owned - direct democracy, or anywhere in between - oligarchy, limited-franchise, republic, etc.

 As with any privately owned institution. the owner owns the capital that he can pass to his heirs, so he is interested in increasing the capital value at the cost of reducing the private consumption. His time horison is expansive.

 With publicly owned instituition, you have a tragedy of the commons. The current caretaker does not own capital value but only the current income stream - so there is always a tamptation to increase it at the expense of capital decumulation. That is what's hapening with most democracies - taxes and debt raise.

that some of the idea's of labor unions that came about show a little into his theories?

 He was radically against labor unions. He believed that capitalism should eb allowed to rung theough it's development fastest and social-democrats just prolong it by any intervention. Of course it was in his 1863 program, not in the 1848 program.

 Labor unions are nothing but monopolies on labor. As any monopoly they benefit some workers at the expense of consumers and other workers, not capitalists.

 How would you address the issue of worker safety?

 There is no issue. People commonly select riskier jobs for greater rewards based on their personal preferences. In a free market capitalism there is a competition for resources - including labor. mistreat your workers and they would leave.

are you suggesting the dissolving of patents and anti-trust

 They are not effective. The only viable monopolies are those enabled by the state.

BTW congrats on the 2nd Miko

 Thanks.

 Oh, almost forget - go to http://www.mises.org - there is a wealth of information there, you can get education and access to many books on-line. If you read the daily article archives, you will know ecomonics better than your professors - though it's probably hard to know it worse, considering the mainstream doctrine is completely bogus.

 miko

[Saurdaukar]

No Mach?

[Munkii]

No Mach?

Actually no, my professor deliberatly excludes concepts he either didn't like, or didn't fully understand.  He totally sidestepped the issue's that most of the class wanted to discuss in the religious sections of the text. (PSR and its role in the Cosmological Argument)  I've done a little research on Mach on my own, but not enough to discuss anything he has theorized.

I'll reply to your post later Miko, I have some more questions for you, but I must study for my finals..

[Otto]

You'd be better served taking a course in Accounting.  Trust me...

[Saurdaukar]

Some validity to Otto's post.

I majored in Political Science because I enjoyed it but I ended up working in the financial field - go figure.

Great at cocktail parties and when you find someone who understands the world beyond "No war for oil" but unless you have teaching aspirations (Master's minimum) or wish to work on a campaign, as an aide, or for a lobbiest group look elsewhere.

Still - I might go back for a Doctorate and teach at a small university when Im close to retirement - plenty of years to plan that approach.

Either way - good luck.  If you ever get any Mach, Sun Tzu, or Clausewitz in one of your classes look me up - wrote my thesis on them.  

[wrag]

We supposedly live in a democracy ??????

wow!  This just keeps coming up!  NO NO NO NO NO

IMHO We do not live in a democracy, furthermore it was never intended that we live in a democracy....

Someone i'm sure is gonna say so what's the big deal?  

Words mean something.  When I was young the dictionaries available showed the words Murder and Kill were basically of the same meaning ... in that it meant taking the life of an innocent person.  Where as Slay meant to take the life of another in mortal combat.  

The difference?

An innocent individual had done no harm to you or any other, had offered no punishable offense to the same, and was defenseless or unready to defend themselves or unaware anyone intended to harm them our use violence upon them.

In mortal combat BOTH are aware of their purpose. BOTH are there for the same purpose. And enter into combat either willingly or unwillingly as it may be but ALL parties concerned KNOW what is happening.

Ya ya I know the explanation is incomplete but the purpose is to specify that words have meanings.

I'm trying to avoid the... if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.... thing yet it seems with the college people promoting the lie's all of us are going to loose in a very big way.


**************

DEMOCRACY
EXPLAINED
 _____________________________ _______________________

"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch."

Democracy - more honestly called "mobocracy" - is a political system based upon the concept that the majority always rules...

...because they outnumber the minority, and can beat them up.

Never doubt this: "Democracy" is rooted in pure brute force:

Every "fundamentalist" blue law imposed on a minority with differing beliefs assumes that the unbelievers will be forced to obey.

Every majority election of a politician forces unwelcome "representation" upon someone whose views that politician diametrically opposes.

Democracy assumes that three illiterate morons are somehow wiser than one Einstein-level genius... Simply because there are more of them; they outnumber him, and can force their wills upon him.

Democracy says it is acceptable to take money or property from a nonconsenting individual because he is outnumbered, a minority.

Democracy in its purest form is best illustrated by the robbery of a helpless, little, old lady by a gang of thugs. It must be okay: The gang "majority" out-voted the woman.



by TANSTAAFL Publications
Simon Jester Strikes Again!

************

The individuals that framed our system were very very much against democracy!  Read the Federalist papers, as well as the anti-federalist papers, and as well as the letters written by them contained in the Congressional Records.  The information is out there!

They created a Representative Republic with the intention that it would be protected by the Rule of Law!  

They further did all they could to avoid the Rule of Man.

However this thread recently came to my attention and I find it's content somewhat troubling re: the judicial system input further down the thread.  If the content is worthy of trust then we may very well now have an UH OH on the way.

http://www.sierratimes.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard//topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=194

and this

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Mancus/silveira.asp



Yo miko2d.... do you have a libertarian slant?

Yo Saurdaukar ... I find Sun Tzu fascinating.

***********************
Actually no, my professor deliberatly excludes concepts he either didn't like, or didn't fully understand. He totally sidestepped the issue's that most of the class wanted to discuss in the religious sections of the text. (PSR and its role in the Cosmological Argument) I've done a little research on Mach on my own, but not enough to discuss anything he has theorized.
*************************

Maybe you need a new professor?

Maybe this individual should not be called a "professor"?

Maybe you need to point out the meaning of the word "professor" to this individual?


Oops sorry I got a little carried away  If anything I would guess i'm politically a Constitutionalist as originally written and/or intended.

This was not intended as a thread hijack and you are welcome to request I delete it or edit it.  I will act upon you request.

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Munkii
If we look at society today though, we have more of a federalist government, that has semi-socialistic tendencies, especially in the economic section.  I propose this because I think that, similar to Marx, all free trade/capitalism leads to communisum or socialism.  I differ in my opinion, because I don't necesarrily believe that all socialism is good, nor do I believe it is all bad.

Think of government powers over business and personal wealth as a manifestation of J.S. Mill's liberalism, not as Marxism.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by wrag
We supposedly live in a democracy ??????

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Oh!  Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

Did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?

[miko2d]

wrag: We supposedly live in a democracy ?

 We are living in a democracy, my friend and what we are seing around us and in other countries are the natural outcomes of a democratic form of government in a state with unlimited powers.
 Of course the unlimited government is the major culprit but it is the democracy that makes it so bad - after with other forms of unlimited government people often did not lose fredoms and even gained them. You see, besides the low time preference of the private forms of government, the population is much less likely to resist infringment on the personal liberties and property when an entry into government is theoretically open to everyone.

Yo miko2d.... do you have a libertarian slant?

 I am probably as libertarian (with a small 'l') as they come.

 miko

[Munkii]

Wow.. so much to respond too. Finally some attention in my little thread.   Let's get right to it then

You'd be better served taking a course in Accounting. Trust me...

Okay this doesn't have much to do with the topic, but I'll respond anyways.  I'm majoring in Accounting/Finance, so I have plenty of classes in that area.   Philosophy and Politics are favorite subjects, and I enjoy the debates (notice I said debates, not flamewars) that can come about from discussing them.

This was not intended as a thread hijack and you are welcome to request I delete it or edit it. I will act upon you request.

This is exactly the kind of responses I was looking for.  Keep the input coming!

Think of government powers over business and personal wealth as a manifestation of J.S. Mill's liberalism, not as Marxism.

Upon further review, I would agree.  I should mention here, this is an intro class and we do not have alot of time to discuss each in depth.  My professor went over Marx the most, and I was able to pull a lot of parallels from them, real or percieved.


I was going to reply to your post Miko, but I realized that most of what you were saying made sense to me.  I do have some scenarios I would like to plan out further before I post them.  I had some other questions I would like to ask you, but I don't want to make a new thread.  If you don't mind answering them, could you email me at Munkii@cox.net ?