Difference between revisions of "David Brin/The Other Foe of Free Enterprise"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with '{{David Brin/Political Totemism/navbox|2006-05-17 The Other Foe of Free Enterprise}} <b>The fall of Communism came at an opportune time.</b> Few can recall when this militan...') |
(reader comments) |
||
| Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
If only we give ourselves a chance. | If only we give ourselves a chance. | ||
| + | ==Reader Comments== | ||
| + | ''from the original posting at LRC'' | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=196 Kristan Overstreet] wrote at May 18, 2006 1:37 PM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>This one isn't bad, but it seems to fall just short of where it needs to go... and spends a lot of words doing it.</p> | ||
| + | <p>The core of your argument is that the freedom of the wealthy to use their power to entrench themselves and exploit the rest of us must be restrained... never gets -stated,- not openly. You go on about the pyramid v. diamond social structures, about the balancing act, about the urge to aristocracy, but you never actually come out and say that there need to be safeguards against concentration of power in private individuals, just as in government.</p> | ||
| + | <p>You do make points about how a free society needs fine adjustment rather than radical change. That's nice, but in this case I think it detracts from the core issue- which, again, you never quite get to. That core issue, the issue that forms the title of the piece, is so contrary to the groupthink of the Objectivists and purists in the LP that it needs to be shouted from the mountaintops. Instead you edge up to it, then edge away, then edge up again.</p> | ||
| + | <p>The ground has been well beaten; now hit the bush.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=464 Kyle Supe] wrote at May 18, 2006 5:50 PM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>This is the first one of these essays that has actually kept my attention. I'm not sure why, but the other articles in this series have been too much for my tiny brain to handle. This speaks more at my level I guess.</p> | ||
| + | <p>Also, it has given me the libertarian arguement against the obscenely wealthy that I have been looking for. I have been searching for a way to reconcile some of my left leaning economic opinions with the libertarian philosophy and this article pinpoints what I have been unable to rationalize to myself and others.</p> | ||
| + | <p>Having said that I agree with Kristan in that the article seems reluctant to come out and say what it really wants to for fear of really riling up the purists perhaps.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=633 David Johnson] wrote at May 21, 2006 2:15 AM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>I find it odd that someone with such a wealth of historical knowledge fails to understand why aristocracies destroy freedom. The problem with plutocrats is not that they are wealthy, but that they rule. Intrusive government is bad regardless of whether it is run by the rich or by the poor.</p> | ||
| + | <p>When he says <i>"For when aristocrats own and operate government for their private benefit, shall we continue to defend those aristocrats against the supposed evils of government?"</i>, the libertarian answer is simple: no man, rich nor poor, may own and operate government for their private benefit.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=196 Kristan Overstreet] wrote at May 21, 2006 4:23 PM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>The problem is that, in the absence of a government, the wealthy and powerful shall create a new government- one wholly subservient to them.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=190 John Shuey] wrote at May 22, 2006 10:03 AM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>The problem is well stated.</p> | ||
| + | <p>Unfortunately, in stopping there, we are left to imagine solutions, as can be seen in the responses above. Each political philosophy can and will offer or impose their own solutions, and NONE are perfect...even the Libertarian one.</p> | ||
| + | <p>The closest I can come to an outline for a solution is that government must be left strong enough to thwart abuses, transparent enough that abuses and abusers are exposed, democratic enough that complaints and solutions can come from any part of the populance, and libertarian enough that the freedoms essential to prosperity, creativity, and liberty are not shackled.</p> | ||
| + | <p>See how easy it can be? I will, however, leave it to someone far brighter than I to design and implement the means to reaching this Shangri-La.</p> | ||
| + | <p>I would add one caveat, however - Real danger lies, as it always has, in the concentration or power, not necessarily in the concentration of wealth. The two are not synonymous. Don't forget, our Constitution and Bill of Rights are the products of America's earliest economic aristocracy.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=568 Michael Coffee] wrote at May 22, 2006 11:05 AM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>In the absence of government, the people who can mobilize the most force to impose their control, will rule. Kinda like an ideal democracy. In other words, there is no such thing as 'the absence of government'. It is a vacuum which will always be filled. The idea, and the challenge, is to HAVE a government which -prevents- that kind of abuse from happening.</p> | ||
| + | <p>I agree; wealth is not a social evil, as long as transactions between honest, peaceful people is voluntary.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=633 David Johnson] wrote at May 25, 2006 1:38 AM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>Who said anything about an "absence of a government"? This is the Libertarian Reform Caucus. We are not the diehard anarchists. Besides, if we ever did get an absence of government, there's no one with the power to regulate wealth. As long as we have a government kept small and firmly reined in, I fear no concentration of wealth.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=568 Michael Coffee] wrote at May 25, 2006 4:21 PM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>Does anyone have the right to 'regulate' the wealth of someone else?</p> | ||
| + | <p>I've tried to read this several times. All my little brain sees is a tangled mess.</p> | ||
| + | <p>Is it saying that it is wrong for an 'independently' wealthy person to leave their estate to anyone? If the owner doesn't have the right to determine who gets their estate, then who does have that right?</p> | ||
| + | <p>Is it saying that it is wrong to 'retire' on the income of ones' investments? That is; to live on the income from investments? I mean; if I have figured out a way to invest my wealth and arrange things entirely through voluntary transactions and contracts in such a way as to not have to work any more; what is my crime?</p> | ||
| + | <p>All the hyperbolic rhetoric about people 'owning' people is just a red herring. Of course it's wrong to forcibly deprive anyone of their rights and liberty. Slavery is already illegal.</p> | ||
| + | <p>Apparently the author subscribes to the 'property is theft' philosophy. I subscribe to the idea that all rights are based on property rights, and you can only steal from someone that which they owned in the first place.</p> | ||
| + | <p>I hope we don't sign on to the idea of 'protecting' people from the possibility of other people prospering through voluntary transactions.</p> | ||
| + | <p>I mean; Sure, I'ld like to get my hands on rich peoples' money! But I haven't found a way to seize their wealth without it being theft to do so.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=196 Kristan Overstreet] wrote at May 26, 2006 12:51 PM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>The key is not to reduce or redistribute wealth, but to limit the ways in which wealth may be translated to power.</p> | ||
| + | <p>The Libertarian traditional strategy here is to reduce the power of government to benefit the wealthy, but this may not be sufficient in some cases- especially in cases of monopoly.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=3 Carl Milsted Jr.] wrote at May 26, 2006 4:39 PM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>It was a similar, much shorter essay in <i>LP News</i> that inspired me to look around for ways which increase liberty while evening the wealth distribution. You can find many of them at [http://www.holisticpolitics.org/ www.HolisticPolitics.org] ([http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.holisticpolitics.org/ contemporary archive]). Look at the red buttons on the left.</p> | ||
| + | <p>Most of the ideas have been around for a while. Some go back to the earliest books in the Bible. Some are in Adam Smith's writings. Others are found in the conspiracy literature. (That there are laws on the books that benefit "The Insiders" does not | ||
| + | prove that "The Insiders" have a coherent conspiracy going. However, I will give the conspiracy theorists credit for cataloging many instances of supposedly progressive programs which actually subsidize the rich.)</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=568 Michael Coffee] wrote at May 26, 2006 5:36 PM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>It starts off sounding like you want the government instituting regulation which would be better left as business decisions of the companies themselves. I don't think government should make business decisions for businesses. It -should- stop imposing artificial conditions which cause them to make decisions different from those they would have made without interference.</p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p>You make a good case for the idea that huge conglomerates are often such, even when they would not be so under a real free market; That they made decisions which made them bigger, under government 'duress', that they might not have made otherwise.</p> | ||
| + | <p>I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of simplifying the legal system. It was mostly produced by lawyers who were elected to legislate. I really see no good reason to justify the fact that you have to be able to afford a good lawyer in order to get justice in our courts.</p> | ||
| + | <p>The 'fair tax' would address most of the problems with the current very biased, corrupt and complicated tax system. Including improved savings and investment of smaller entities while reducing the tax advantage of both excessive reinvestment and excessive salaries for executives.</p> | ||
| + | <p>I don't like any kind of property tax. It isn't right for the government to just come along every year and skim a percentage of your holdings. If all I was doing was hanging on to my property; not making any money; then, the cut they repeatedly take would eventually transfer all my property to them. A consumption tax, paid on every transaction, is much preferable.</p> | ||
| + | <p>Contract law should be as straight-forward as possible. I shouldn't need a degree in contract law just to buy a home or business.</p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p>Current law makes it very difficult, sometimes impossible, for someone to start a small entrepreneurial business. There are a lot of ways we could reduce government interference in a way which would make the situation better in a natural way.</p> | ||
| + | <p>A lot of good ideas, there!</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=504 Gregory Southworth] wrote at June 4, 2006 10:49 PM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>This hits on the big elephant in the living room. My name is Greg and I am relatively new and this is my first post. This article is hopefully the first of many to acknowledge the emperor may have no clothes. Many of you raise another important part: the monetary and tax policy of the State is "rigged" to favor insiders. Personally, I, too, would be willing to go with a higher consumption tax on almost everything in lieu of abolishing property and other taxes. At least, it would be open and more transparent. I also have no problem with those who earn their way to wealth and applaud them for their efforts. One group has proposed an idea which starts to move in that direction and that is Capital Homestead Accounts (CHA) for all Americans. This builds on the ideas of the late [[Louis Kelso]] of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan and the Capitalist Manifesto. The CHAs are the brainchild of the [[Council for Economic and Social Justice]]--check their website. Don't let the name fool you. This is not your daddy's 1960s social justice group. These folks want to change the Fed to allow people to have capital accounts which can be invested into employee owned and community based businesses. But, it DOES NOT call for redistribution of wealth, just opening the doors to regular folks. Libertarian purists will not like it beacuse they believe the current system is at least "about right." CHAs also talk about ways to limit the power of the state. I think there is room for dialogue. We may not be able to undo all the evils of the past and present, but we can start a healing process which moves us toward a free and open society.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=810 Eric Downes] wrote at August 25, 2006 9:31 PM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>These CHAs sound very interesting. Unfortunately I cannot find a website for the Council for Economic and Social Justice you mention. Could you point it out? Thanks. -Eric</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=810 Eric Downes] wrote at September 15, 2006 5:37 PM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>If anyone else didn't find the CHA stuff Greg was talking about, it's here:</p> | ||
| + | <p>http://www.cesj.org/homestead/summary-cha.htm</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=803 Tim Crowley] wrote at February 1, 2007 9:42 PM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>Show me a social system without 'insiders'.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20071011182115/http://www.reformthelp.org/forms/profilePopup.php?userId=955 Michael McNeil] wrote at May 5, 2007 3:17 PM | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | <p>These evil aristocrats cheat the system through the avenues of government. If we shrink these paths to cheating,(instead of widening them into wasteful 8 lane highways with taxpayer funds) the aristocrats will have no unfair advantage.</p> | ||
| + | <p>The issue of birthright wealth is something natural, part of human nature, like you said. Therefore, it's not our duty to get involved. Imagine Molly, a girl born to a poor single mother who never finished high school living in a trailer somewhere in southern Mississippi. (my old stomping grounds) In our society, she begins attending public school at age 5, taken to and from it by bus. She gets older, but since her mother has to work two jobs, she doesn't have much time to be responsive or authoritative with her daughter, and is what psychologists would call a "negligent parent." In the third grade, Molly fails with a low D, but since schools are not allowed to retain kids, because it's "discriminatory," Molly continues on. She realizes very quickly that academic success means nothing, and that she will continue to slide through the system regardless of how much effort she puts out in school. A lower than average IQ caused by negligent parenting in combination with a family of low socioeconomic status puts Molly at very high risk for dropping out of school. During her second go at 9th grade, (the first time she's ever actually been held back a grade, though she's failed almost every year) Molly decides to drop out of high school. She gets a job at a local laundromat and becomes addicted to nicotine and alcohol. Because of a life that never held her accountable, Molly becomes pregnant at age 15. Her mother pressures her to get an abortion. She does. Meanwhile, Molly's mother has bore two more fatherless sibling for Molly. During her third childbirth, Molly's mother dies. Molly inherits all of her mother's money. We'll end the story there.</p> | ||
| + | <p>Gary is the son of a two older, wealthy traders. He is nine years older than his only brother, Mark. At age 16, his father dies from a heart attack, and at age 24, his mother dies from a stress-related stroke. Enormous societal pressure urged his mother to divide her estate equally in the will she made shortly before her death, but in the style of traditional aristocrats, she passed her entire estate to her first son.</p> | ||
| + | <p>Both of these children face the problem of raising younger siblings. Gary's parents did have a huge advantage, with education, better parenting, and money for their children's education, but this advantage does not inherently hurt people of lower socioeconomic status.</p> | ||
| + | <p>How does Gary's higher socioeconomic status hurt Molly?</p> | ||
| + | <p>Solutions like government schools and universities, death taxes, and other advantage-restribution tactics are too invasive and go about solving the problem in the wrong way.</p> | ||
| + | <p>A pure market system is not flawed- it's just unattainable. When you're buying a car, how can you know about every listed car and price? Same thing goes for auto insurance, loan rates, and any other product. Perhaps this is one thing we should regulate. With prices easily available, prices would drop across the board and companies would be forced to be more competitive. When an item is pulled up on the service, it would be listed by price, with random listing for equal prices. Any vendor could put her product on the government service.</p> | ||
| + | <p>This would be a step to help everyone- across the board. However, in any free system, there will be casualties. Molly's family will be cursed by her past. However, with the same strong work ethic of her mother, perhaps aided by a freer and more incentive oriented school system, (i.e. private schools) and unhampered by government religious interference like abstinence only sex education, Molly will have the opportunity to better the lives of her children.</p> | ||
| + | <p>And slightly better lives of her children will set off an infinite chain reaction of better and better outcomes for all of her descendants.</p> | ||
| + | <p>When Thomas Jefferson imagined slight tampering in the future America, I'm sure that he couldn't fathom the huge interference of federal government that has occured. Even if you believe that government interference is the solution, is should occur at the state level.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||