Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, entrepreneurship is is a pretty important part of the free market.

I edited this to point out this interesting piece on WHY entrepreneurship is so important: http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007 ... of_in.html

And I should say that I do not consider myself a capitalist. I dislike the term because it has some negative connotations and is, I think, being used as an excuse to allow bad behavior on the part of the individual by, in essence, blaming the system. While I won't go so far as to call myself an anarcho-capitalist (since I think that idea is just as ludicrous as something like socialism--actually, probably more so just because it completely strips any sense of universal regulation from business transactions, and involves just as much faith in human goodness as socialism), I will call myself a staunch believer in the power of the freedom to choose.

I don't quite know how to explain this idea of mine yet, but let me bounce it off you for try. I think that capitalism is an economic system while the free market is more of a legal structure. And so while capitalism really can't work without a free market, I think you can find an economic system that encompasses the tenents of natural law with the fact that business is in business to make money. I am thinking of something like capitalism with a conscience---oh, that sounds so cheesy!--but well, I don't know how else to say it.

I believe in helping the poor; my family has been on welfare for a few years while my dad built his business (and now we are paying more in taxes than we earned last year!), but it was CHURCH welfare, as in members of the church opted to pay into a welfare program, and my dad (actually, our family) did a few hours of service every week when we could, and we had help with food and money and even Christmas. THAT is, I think, where we are making our mistake. Instead of publicising everything like that, we ought to really EDUCATE people as to why it is beneficial to help the needy, not just pass the buck until people feel there is no choice but to legislate moral behavior.

Does that make sense?

Last edited by dexkaden on 31 Jan 2007, 12:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

Capitalism with a conscience? That does sound cheesy phrased like that. I do understand your idea.... I am not necessarily certain as to the capability of creating a conscience though. We can argue that people naturally have a conscience but to instill or maintain it seems like a possible difficulty as a wave of a social darwinistic culture can wipe that out unless we come up with consequentialist framework to support it. We can also try to put the idea in schooling but there could always be rebellion towards the idea, especially given that those who give to charity are essentially doing so at some loss and if the moral subsidy they give themselves for that behavior(perhaps I might be using bad terminology but I think you get the idea I am trying to advance) weakens then the system gets weaker. If we push forward consequentialist framework though, I'd argue then that some governmental effort must be put in place in order to push the idea forward or otherwise the amoral will simply act as free-riders, we could advance ideas such as allowing for a welfare voucher system to allow for private choice on what charities get voucher money which would advance choice, private efforts will more likely be run by those with more concern, and we still deal with the externality although it may have problems with discrimination as can be found with some religious charities, or the we could advance EITC, or something of that nature.

I am perhaps more cynical of the ability of people to do something that does not relate to their baser interests than you are I suppose.

Ah, it is terribly cheesy, I admit it.

I don't think we can create a conscience, so much as I think everyone has the same basic "moral" code---and I think that helping others out actually IS looking after base, personal self interest IF you look further down the road than tomorrow or even the next year. And of course there will be rebellion. This is the tricky part of things, since I don't think that man will act outside his own selfish means unless he believes in something like a higher power, or a higher code, or a higher something other than himself. But I am not a religious person (family is, but not me), and I don't really know how to explain it. And when I talk about it, it sounds as if I am supporting some kind of cult or religious dogmatism, or even "the common good," but I think that you can, if you teach correct principles based on natural law (and again, I am only hypothesizing here) convince someone that it IS in his own best interest to take care of the needy.

Well, the name you give it definitely is cheesy, although, I have heard that before from british economist Adair Turner, who argues for free markets, but intervention to help the poor and technology subsidies in order to promote growth.

I don't think that the moral code is necessarily basic though, all morality essentially stems from premises and in my mind there is nothing absolutely saying that the premises are the same as in fact, I think that one's teachings can make them somewhat different although, I think that egoism is a common trait to all people. I also think that you won't be able to effectively doing that, especially given that helping the needy for one's interest as one person giving will have no effect(unless they are incredibly rich) and thus only be a drop of water in the macro view, while the loss is a micro one as it will be directly felt. So, the tendency towards shirking the macro responsibility will exist, due to cynicism, greed, and whatever else have you. I suppose part of the difference in stance, is that I don't believe in objective natural law, but rather that many of the ideas similar lead to positive effects and as such fall into the consequentialist category as I see natural rights as a measure to promote my freedom, the freedom of others, and economic growth.

I actually did just notice this edition. Apparently you haunt the economics blogs as well. I will admit that I tend to follow Mankiw's blog relatively closely as his blog seems less biased than his articles and because he frequently has economic news updates and links to the ideas of others. What blogs/articles do you recommend, keeping in mind that we already share one site in common, given my comment on 24.

Alright, here is a list of the RSS feeds I subscribe to. I use Bloglines as an aggregator, and get about 124 different feeds all nicely separated for me to read at my leisure. I do like Mankiw's blog, although I disagree about his Pigouvian stance. (I am againsts taxes as a rule.) Okay:

http://econlog.econlib.org
http://www.rtable.net/index/rt/economics/recent/
http://www.econlib.org/
http://www.economist.com/
http://www.institutional-economics.com/ ... ion/index/
http://www.argmax.com/mt_blog/
http://steveweber.typepad.com/steve_web ... itics_and/

I like the economics roundtable one especially since it takes postings from all different economics sites and collects them, so I only have to subscribe to that one feed, and I get about fifty more. Also, I would recommend Walter Williams' site (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/) 'cause he's got some interesting stuff, too, and I really like what he writes.

I know; I am almost ashamed to have used it.

Egoism is common. And by "moral" I do not mean religious, I just mean the basic code of ethics that every human posesses. To kind of get what I am saying, and he explains what I am trying to say much better, I would read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Don't read it from the religious perspective, since I didn't, but it kind of explains this idea a little better. Also, [url=http://mises.org/journals/jls/4_4/4_4_3.pdf"]this[/url] kind of explains it, too. Also, Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" does, too.


Well, I think that if EVERYONE helped one person as much as they could, it would make a HUGE effect, an exponential ripple effect. And I don't understand what you mean by the "macro responsibility." If everyone is helping on the micro level, it seems logical to deduce that the macro would be taken care of as a result. That being said, I also understand how difficult it is to get around this egoism, cynicism, greed, etc.



Not quite sure what you mean by that.

Also, are you thinking about Mises University summer program? I am not sure if I am ready, but it sounds like something I would love.

I just don't necessarily buy the idea that certain moral ideas are really that deeply possessed, well, I can buy some of our social aspects however I tend to see individuals as taking their morality more like a tabula rasa gets written on by the world. The relatively large number of differing moralities one can see in this society and throughout history seems to indicate that to me.

Macro responsibility meaning that the effects of one individual helping will not be felt much or lost much, therefore that individual may not really feel a direct reason to help. The reason I state this is to point out that without some powerful moral force driving people, the possibility that the macro will die seems to be high as donating individuals will not receive much additional personal benefit for their individual efforts. Just think of it like a game theory model, if I shirk but others don't then I get the benefits from the donations while not having to do one myself, but this can easily lead to everyone shirking.

What I mean is that I see some of the ideas espoused by natural law to be a good idea, but that natural law itself is more of a practical guideline than an absolute foundation. Most certainly we want to have rights and such, however, I can buy the idea that such is an imperfect absolute guide to things as some plain utilitarianism tends to be in order. In my mind, it seems that government itself is a rejection of absolute natural rights being necessarily perfect.

I don't think I am taking the program, it is somewhat expensive is it not? Not only that but it may be difficult to justify to others for me going off and learning from one of the groups responsible for anarcho-capitalism.

How come people FLEE from socialist 'paradises' to the 'decadent' world of capitalism? Last I checked no one is banging down the doors to get into Cuba, North Korea, China, Viet Nam, Venezuela, etc.

Yes, that is the million dollar question. Why? If something is SO GOOD, why does no one willingly participate, why does it require force?

To add to that, proponents of socialist systems rarely come from those countries themselves. You will see "party leaders" claiming how great it is. You will find Hollywood stooges and fatcats who have not known what it is to go hungry in a while (by this i concede, there may be actors, athletes who were poor in childhood but today are well off) saying those systems are great. You will find people in capitalist democracies saying those systems should be emulated. But the "common man" they refer to so much is the first one trying to escape those systems.

Yes, and what you see is that these "revolutionary" leaders ALWAYS get their education in a free society, pursue their dream from a free society, and then, once they succeed in "freeing" the "oppressed," they do not hesitate to create a free society for themselves while holding society as a whole to a different standard of "free."

The nation owns resources at first. People get their own share, to a certain limit, which they buy with credits. Independence of what you buy for yourself. The government is an all-enveloping entity, the nation itself.

So people get personal choice, only they get choose from what you offer them?

Part of this is that the nation did deal with an aspect of resource ownership at first as the nation granted titles and still does own some resources, but people bought those resources with money and then traded in order to deal with optimal usage of those resources. The issue I have with the government being an all-enveloping entity is that governmental authorities show little incentive to stream-line processes and strive for efficiency in an effective manner while corporate entities focus continually on such processes.

Plus, then you have the tragedy of the commons, wherein everyone thinks everyone else will take care of it---as there is no incentive to take care of it individually.