[Jason Vines]

In Sim's thread, "German libertarians going social," I said:

Jason Vines said:

Any system that takes from someone to give to another person isn't "good." If you could not, in a state of nature, ethically force someone to give you his property, then that power is not yours to give the state.

Sim replied:

Sim said:

You won't be surprised when I tell you that I do not think it's bad when the state takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

This topic is so interesting, it warrants its own thread, IMO.

I don't think many people would contest my proposition above that, in the absence of government, for an individual forcibly to take other people's things for his benefit would still constitute an ethical wrong. But, if that's the case, then how could a mass of individuals rightly do that very thing?

One could easily see how individuals could transmit to a group their rights and privileges, but from where could the group obtain rights and privileges its members wouldn't possess on their own?

Whence comes the government's authority to redistribute wealth just for the sake of doing so?

Some people might respond "democratic legitimization," but that doesn't answer my question. I'm asking what makes that a valid concept from the start.

If "democratic legitimization" could make actions "right," then a democracy could ethically do anything from enact racial segregation to commit genocide. (Of course, wealth redistribution isn't as bad as such evils, but the reductio ad absurdum applies nevertheless.)

[Bondo]

Jason Vines said:

Any system that takes from someone to give to another person isn't "good." If you could not, in a state of nature, ethically force someone to give you his property, then that power is not yours to give the state.

In answer to the title question; I doubt it, but groups of people can make it seem ethical, because the organization provides rhetorical cover and material support for the individuals.

Quote

Some people might respond "democratic legitimization," but that doesn't answer my question. I'm asking what makes that a valid concept from the start.

Part of my problem with government is it is not a voluntary association. If you join a club that requires dues, you have no reasonable objection to prevent payment. But the government compels taxes from you because of your accident of birth (or in the case of non-citizens, regardless of birth).

Quote

If "democratic legitimization" could make actions "right," then a democracy could ethically do anything from enact racial segregation to commit genocide. (Of course, wealth redistribution isn't as bad as such evils, but the reductio ad absurdum applies nevertheless.)

Yes, and that already happens in some forms: If Alberto Gonzales was alone, he couldn't get away with the things he does, or the likely politicization of DOJ. But he has people in his corner (particularly the president) which gives him support. And on the small-d "democratic" legitimization front, there are those that think the president has the right and duty to remake the entire federal government and its employees in his image, regardless of it means hiring cronies in career (not political) positions.

Radio personality Don Imus got away with saying inflammatory things as long as he had support within CBS and NBC, as well as pundit support. Civil Rights activist/preacher Al Sharpton gets away with many of his missteps because he has a base of support centered in the religious and especially the African-American community.

That doesn't make it ethical, but it does make it appear ethical, and it keeps them in positions of power.

[Sim]

Jason Vines, on May 15 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

I don't think many people would contest my proposition above that, in the absence of government, for an individual forcibly to take other people's things for his benefit would still constitute an ethical wrong. But, if that's the case, then how could a mass of individuals rightly do that very thing?

One could easily see how individuals could transmit to a group their rights and privileges, but from where could the group obtain rights and privileges its members wouldn't possess on their own?

To drop a few names, Plato, Hobbes and Rousseau described how the "common good" of society is not necessarily the same as the interest of individuals. A state has to take that into account. Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate a Platonian utopia where private property is banned for the common good, or a Leviathan-like total state that strips all its members of its individual rights. But I do believe the state has the right to limit individual rights of its citizens, in order to create a situation that benefits its members, and balances its interests.

When you declare private property as an absolute right that must never be limited, you got capitalism. But capitalism in its nature means the rich oppress the poor, exploit them, push them into poverty. We know that since Marx received and refined the discovery of surplus value: In capitalism, the employee doesn't get paid for the value of his work, but for his capacity to work only. That inherent flaw of capitalism, which is polemically called "legalized theft" by socialists, is a fact. No criticism of Marx since then could debunk this observation.

So you got a situation where the economic system, when protected by law, constitutes a situation where private collectives (the capitalist owning the means of production) can enhance his freedom on the freedom of others -- or more specifically, enhance his wealth on the cost of the wealth of others. As much as you can call it unethical when one individual takes possessions from another, you may ask if a system that inherently protects capitalism is unethical.

The only answer I can think of is a collective that corrects this "legalized theft" by private collectives: The state. While private collectives, such as corporations or enterprises enjoy no democratic legitimation and are "tyrannies" for its employees, the state is democratically legitimated and controled, and may constitute a platform for the structurally disadvantaged to voice their opinions and interests. As such a platform, it is suited to balance the tyranny of private collectives, which no individual employee could do on his own.

Quote

Whence comes the government's authority to redistribute wealth just for the sake of doing so?

Some people might respond "democratic legitimization," but that doesn't answer my question. I'm asking what makes that a valid concept from the start.

If "democratic legitimization" could make actions "right," then a democracy could ethically do anything from enact racial segregation to commit genocide. (Of course, wealth redistribution isn't as bad as such evils, but the reductio ad absurdum applies nevertheless.)

I'd go with Rousseau claiming the "common good" is different from the sum of all individual interests. That is why the state enjoys rights as a collective individuals do not enjoy: Individual rights are limited by the rights of other individuals. That is why theft is unethical, because one individual enlarges his rights on the cost of another. Only when theft is illegal, there is a maximum of freedom for each individual.

The legitimation for the state to redistribute wealth is the same: Capitalism needs a correction in order to create a maximum of freedom for everybody. And because there is no freedom without a minumum of equality, the state may redistribute some wealth, violating individual rights for the common good (which is different from individual interests). Only when legalized theft is balanced out, there is a maximum of freedom for each individual.

[I am Da Man]

On this note, is there a law compelling you to pay income taxes?

http://questforfairt...h.blogspot.com/

Very interesting, taking a stuff that should be in Iraq to put a citizen under siege for asking to see the law? Something has got to be wrong with that.

[Jason Vines]

Sim said:

To drop a few names, Plato, Hobbes and Rousseau described how the "common good" of society is not necessarily the same as the interest of individuals. A state has to take that into account.

I don't think name-dropping Plato, a proto-communist, and Hobbes and Rousseau, two proto-fascists,¹ helps your case.

¹ Rousseau's conception of the "general will" supplanting the wants of individuals contributed to the excesses of the French Revolution and to the ideas that coalesced into fascism a century later. The anti-liberalism of Rousseau explains why the American Founding Fathers ignored his writings when crafting the Constitution.

Sim said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate a Platonian utopia where private property is banned for the common good, or a Leviathan-like total state that strips all its members of its individual rights.

I believe you. But then why cite those ideas?

Sim said:

When you declare private property as an absolute right that must never be limited

Straw man; such a position lies within the sparsely populated realm of anarchocapitalism.

Sim said:

But capitalism in its nature means the rich oppress the poor, exploit them, push them into poverty.

You have yet to prove that. (Care to rejoin that discussion?)

Sim said:

We know that since Marx received and refined the discovery of surplus value: In capitalism, the employee doesn't get paid for the value of his work, but for his capacity to work only. That inherent flaw of capitalism, which is polemically called "legalized theft" by socialists, is a fact. No criticism of Marx since then could debunk this observation.

Marx's idea of surplus value makes no falsifiable claims. Instead, it arbitrarily deems capitalist wages for labor to be insufficient. That automatically debunks "surplus value" as worthy of consideration.

Sim said:

While private collectives, such as corporations or enterprises enjoy no democratic legitimation and are "tyrannies" for its employees

Not so. Employees can leave, investors can sell their stocks, and customers can take their business elsewhere. That's even more potent "democratic control" than elections that are years apart and see a +98% incumbent retention rate.

Sim said:

the state is democratically legitimated and controled, and may constitute a platform for the structurally disadvantaged to voice their opinions and interests.

You're question-begging, treating "democratic legitimation" as its own justification, when the validity of "democratic legitimation" is under dispute.

Sim said:

That is why the state enjoys rights as a collective individuals do not enjoy: Individual rights are limited by the rights of other individuals.

That is incoherent. If the state derives its power from the need to protect individual rights, then it cannot assume control over individuals they themselves couldn't rightfully exercise over each other in a state of nature. Doing so would violate individual rights, which the state exists to shield in the first place.

Sim said:

And because there is no freedom without a minumum of equality

Actually, inequality--the capacity for individuals to bear different traits, possess different talents, and follow different paths--is what makes freedom mean anything. The pursuit of equality leads to the diminishment of freedom.<sup>2

2</sup> No, I am not demeaning equitable application of the law, which is a distinct concept from "equality."

[Sim]

Jason Vines, on Jun 29 2007, 05:11 AM, said:

I don't think name-dropping Plato, a proto-communist, and Hobbes and Rousseau, two proto-fascists,[/font]¹ helps your case.

It does, since their ideas are still valuable today, and worthy of consideration, as much as i.e. Locke's ideas are worthy of consideration although he was a proto-anarchocapitalist, and Montesquieu's ideas are worthy of consideration, although he was an anti-democratic monarchist. Although, of course, it would be fatal taking them to the extreme.

Quote

¹ Rousseau's conception of the "general will" supplanting the wants of individuals contributed to the excesses of the French Revolution and to the ideas that coalesced into fascism a century later. The anti-liberalism of Rousseau explains why the American Founding Fathers ignored his writings when crafting the Constitution.

But his observation that the general will is different from the sum of the individual wills is an important one.

Quote

Straw man; such a position lies within the sparsely populated realm of anarchocapitalism.

Didn't your question -- may a community do something (theft) individuals must not do -- imply that you think of any kind of distribution of wealth as questionable? Please clarify. Because when you believe there are reasons to justify limiting private property, you'll find the answer to your own question.

Quote

You have yet to prove that. (Care to rejoin that discussion?)

It's a basic fact that's so obvious it doesn't deserve further discussion. History lessons in high school should enable you to see that.

But I won't deny you an answer here: Capitalism only considers the material value of people, regardless of their normative value as human beings. Capitalism is a system to distribute goods and money efficiently, which means those people who are of no value for the system will fall off.

You see that in countries with capitalistic systems, you got rampant inequality and poverty; the more so the less there are social systems to balance it. Inequality is a situation where some people are stripped off their rights on the benefit of other people.

Quote

Marx's idea of surplus value makes no falsifiable claims. Instead, it arbitrarily deems capitalist wages for labor to be insufficient. That automatically debunks "surplus value" as worthy of consideration.

Obviously, you haven't even understood this theory.

It's based on the idea that the work you do is your property -- even John Locke will agree here. So there is nothing "arbitrary" about the observation that the employer steals part of the possession of the employee.

Quote

Not so. Employees can leave, investors can sell their stocks, and customers can take their business elsewhere. That's even more potent "democratic control" than elections that are years apart and see a +98% incumbent retention rate.

Companies don't exist in a vaccuum, but within the capitalistic system. Within this system, most of these mechanism are disabled: The employer cannot leave, unless he wants to be unemployed and starve. Customers rely on the companies if they want certain goods, so they are facing the choice of either not buying a good, or buy under the conditions by the companies.

Just study the situation of low-qualified workers and you'll see they have absolutely no choice but accepting the worst work conditions and low payment if they don't want to be even worse off.

Also, you have to consider that more money translates to more power. Rich people can legally buy politicians, by legal funding. They have ultimately more power than less wealthy people, and their individual interests count more than the individual interests of less wealthy people. Rich people can also buy the media; this way, they control the independant information in a republic. That is an entirely intolerable situation, considering the ideal that people are supposed to be equal within a republican system.

Quote

You're question-begging, treating "democratic legitimation" as its own justification, when the validity of "democratic legitimation" is under dispute.

I consider democracy as a norvative ideal we should strife towards, because it is based on the idea the people should control its fate. Of course there are limits to that ideal, such as the protection of individual freedom, as republics define in their constitutions. But apart from that limit, democracy is a good ideal.

People should not only be equal in front of courts, but their voices should also be equal when it comes to decisions.

Quote

That is incoherent. If the state derives its power from the need to protect individual rights, then it cannot assume control over individuals they themselves couldn't rightfully exercise over each other in a state of nature. Doing so would violate individual rights, which the state exists to shield in the first place.

It's not incoherent. You didn't listen: The sum of individual interests is not the same as the general interest. So it's necessary to limit the rights of certain individuals, for that there is a maximum of freedom for all individuals.

Of course that is a tightrope walk, because no individual must be limited too much in the process. But I don't think a reasonable taxation with the goal of redistributing wealth is too much of a limitation, because it only takes away excess luxury for some, in order to allow others to enjoy even the most basic rights.

Quote

Actually, inequality--the capacity for individuals to bear different traits, possess different talents, and follow different paths--is what makes freedom mean anything. The pursuit of equality leads to the diminishment of freedom.[font="Tahoma"][size=1]²

That's a hyper-ideological definition of "freedom". Where is the freedom for someone so poor he cannot even make a living? He has no freedom at all, because all his steps and deeds are dictated by the hunt for survival. Your definition of "freedom" is Orwellian, because it basically declares a state of legal wage slavery to "freedom".

[Jason Vines]

Sim said:

It does, since their ideas are still valuable today, and worthy of consideration, as much as i.e. Locke's ideas are worthy of consideration although he was a proto-anarchocapitalist, and Montesquieu's ideas are worthy of consideration, although he was an anti-democratic monarchist. Although, of course, it would be fatal taking them to the extreme.

I would dispute that Locke resembled an anarchocapitalist; he didn't call for the dissolution of government, after all.

In any event, what does "worthy of consideration" mean? I would think you must either accept some or all of their ideas, or not accept them.

Sim said:

But his [Rousseau's] observation that the general will is different from the sum of the individual wills is an important one.

It's one that has fostered the deaths of millions of people and sparked two worldwide conflicts, the Napoleonic Wars and World War II. So, yes, in that sense, it was an important idea. But it's not one a freedom- and peace-loving people should embrace.

Sim said:

Didn't your question -- may a community do something (theft) individuals must not do -- imply that you think of any kind of distribution of wealth as questionable? Please clarify. Because when you believe there are reasons to justify limiting private property, you'll find the answer to your own question.

Taxes for the maintenance of society are a limitation on private property. Eminent domain, necessary to eliminate the "sole holdout" problem, also is a limitation on private property. Neither of these constitute theft: forcibly taking from somebody to enrich someone else.

People in a state of nature could rightfully band together to finance a military or a road. They couldn't rightfully form a mob to raid someone else's dwelling for goodies.

Sim said:

It's a basic fact that's so obvious it doesn't deserve further discussion. History lessons in high school should enable you to see that.

In other words, you can't prove your assertions, and you know it.

Sim said:

Capitalism only considers the material value of people, regardless of their normative value as human beings. Capitalism is a system to distribute goods and money efficiently, which means those people who are of no value for the system will fall off.

You ignore comparative advantage. In short, here's how comparative advantage works: Let's say Person A is both an excellent web coder and a good painter. Person B is worse than Person A at each of these things. But, web coding pays a lot more than painting, so for Person A to focus on coding while letting Person B paint benefits both parties.

This mechanism allows all people to contribute to a capitalist system if they but try. No one in a capitalist society lacks value.

Sim said:

You see that in countries with capitalistic systems, you got rampant inequality and poverty...

Prove it.

Sim said:

It's based on the idea that the work you do is your property -- even John Locke will agree here. So there is nothing "arbitrary" about the observation that the employer steals part of the possession of the employee.

But the employee is compensated for his labor. It is not stolen. Even Marx's notion acknowledges this. The quibble is over whether said compensation is fair. And Marx's surplus value idea arbitrarily deems the compensation unfair.

Sim said:

Companies don't exist in a vaccuum, but within the capitalistic system. Within this system, most of these mechanism are disabled: The employer cannot leave, unless he wants to be unemployed and starve. Customers rely on the companies if they want certain goods, so they are facing the choice of either not buying a good, or buy under the conditions by the companies.

What!? This is nothing like capitalism.

Employees and customers both can migrate to other companies if one company does not satisfy them. This happens all the time.

Sim said:

Just study the situation of low-qualified workers and you'll see they have absolutely no choice but accepting the worst work conditions and low payment if they don't want to be even worse off.

With the way you perceive these things, Bill Gates could one day be considered impoverished, so I'll take this with a grain of salt.

Sim said:

Rich people can legally buy politicians, by legal funding.

Less wealthy people can buy them, too, by contributing to lobby groups and labor unions. This isn't a good situation, but it's hardly one of an elite few buying access for themselves and shutting out everyone else. (Jonathan Rauch's Government's End: Why Washington Stopped Working is essential reading on this topic.)

Sim said:

Rich people can also buy the media; this way, they control the independant information in a republic.

That's not true, either. Many newspaper and magazine owners and publishers are not multimillionaires. Also, the Internet has emerged as the most powerful tool for disseminating information mankind has ever known, and driving that are the individual efforts of millions of users, not a few rich big-wigs.

Sim said:

It's not incoherent. You didn't listen: The sum of individual interests is not the same as the general interest. So it's necessary to limit the rights of certain individuals, for that there is a maximum of freedom for all individuals.

Yes, it was incoherent, and it remains so. You justify "the general interest" with the need to protect individual rights ("for that there is a maximum of freedom for all individuals"). And you can't protect individual rights by violating individual rights. That's like "destroying the village in order to save it."

Sim said:

Where is the freedom for someone so poor he cannot even make a living? He has no freedom at all, because all his steps and deeds are dictated by the hunt for survival.

That characterizes no one in the West with sound mental capacity.

It does, though, describe the plight of millions of people in the Third World who live in countries with weak property protection and little economic freedom.

[Sim]

Jason Vines, on Jul 4 2007, 03:29 PM, said:

In any event, what does "worthy of consideration" mean? I would think you must either accept some or all of their ideas, or not accept them.

Yes, I mean embracing *some* of their ideas. Much like you probably embrace *some* of Hobbes' ideas, without embracing his whole concept.

Quote

It's one that has fostered the deaths of millions of people and sparked two worldwide conflicts, the Napoleonic Wars and World War II. So, yes, in that sense, it was an important idea. But it's not one a freedom- and peace-loving people should embrace.

I think it's intellectually dishonest to construe a connection between Rousseau's ideas and even Nazism. That's a simplification unworthy of anybody who claims to be intellectual.

Anyway, I do believe the liberal, utilitarist idea according to which the maximum of happiness of the whole is the sum of maximum individual happiness is obviously flawed; or rather, that the impulse of individuals strifing for individual happiness is often in conflict with the common good.

Quote

Taxes for the maintenance of society are a limitation on private property. Eminent domain, necessary to eliminate the "sole holdout" problem, also is a limitation on private property. Neither of these constitute theft: forcibly taking from somebody to enrich someone else.

You have to consider that the legal frame of a capitalistic system is legalized theft. Employees are not paid for the possession they sell, their labour -- but only for the capacity of doing labour. So I'd argue it wouldn't constitute theft to allow for a certain redistribution of wealth, but it's only a compensation. The reason why I don't advocate genuine socialism is because history has proven it comes with side effects that create more injustice than it would solve.

Quote

People in a state of nature could rightfully band together to finance a military or a road. They couldn't rightfully form a mob to raid someone else's dwelling for goodies.

It's also a normative question: How do you want society to look like?

I'd argue a society with huge inequality, which keeps less wealthy people from practizing their rights, is not compatible with my normative idea of a good society, based on the principle that every human being has the same value and deserves the same rights. The inequality inherent to capitalism is in direct conflict with these ideas, because it devides people in "valuable" and "not valuable" people, the latter are then stripped of all rights.

Quote

In other words, you can't prove your assertions, and you know it.

You can't tell me you are that disconnected from society that you don't even know in what hardship some people in your country have to live. Just read a few reports about low-wage employees, people without health ensurance, illegal workers -- in your ivory tower, you probably don't even have a remote grasp on what some people in your country have to endure.

When I find the time, I'll dig up some examples.

Quote

You ignore comparative advantage. In short, here's how comparative advantage works: Let's say Person A is both an excellent web coder and a good painter. Person B is worse than Person A at each of these things. But, web coding pays a lot more than painting, so for Person A to focus on coding while letting Person B paint benefits both parties.

This mechanism allows all people to contribute to a capitalist system if they but try. No one in a capitalist society lacks value.

There are simply some people who are not good at anything, who are only qualified for the simplest tasks. There are also handicapped people, or ill people relying on expensive treatment. There are low qualified people, there are single mothers with several children they have to feed, and so on and so on. All of these people are of no value for the market and will fall off.

Also, when there is not much demand for a certain labour, but a surplus of people qualified for that job, employers will push the wages and some people will still end up unemployed. Sometimes, only 5 workers are needed, but 10 apply for that job (and they can't easily switch to another job).

Your theory sounds nice on the paper, much like socialism sounds nice on the paper, but it's nothing but liberal ideology entirely disconnected from reality.

Quote

But the employee is compensated for his labor. It is not stolen. Even Marx's notion acknowledges this. The quibble is over whether said compensation is fair. And Marx's surplus value idea arbitrarily deems the compensation unfair.

Uhm, once again, nope, you haven't understood it. The compensation the employee gets is not the value of his labour, but only the value of his capacity to work. Thus, part of his possession is stolen by the employer. Much like when someone robs a piece of gold from you that is worth $10, but only gives you $2 as "compensation".

Quote

What!? This is nothing like capitalism.

Employees and customers both can migrate to other companies if one company does not satisfy them. This happens all the time.

But when the system puts pressure on people, for example in a situation of high unemployment, companies use this situation to blackmail potential employees: There will be a wage spiral downwards, the higher the supply of labour and the lower the demand for that labour is. See above: The employer will only be "compensated" for his capacity to work, but not for the value of his possession, his labour.

This is inherent to the capitalist system, not the fault of a single company.

Quote

With the way you perceive these things, Bill Gates could one day be considered impoverished, so I'll take this with a grain of salt.

Look at the numbers and then tell me how many empoverished people ever make as much money as Bill Gates.

Are you telling me a low-qualified person with no brilliant idea such as Bill Gates is worth less than him, and deserves to live in the dirt? That's the implication of your statement, and it is not compatible with my normative ideas regarding the value of human life.

Quote

Less wealthy people can buy them, too, by contributing to lobby groups and labor unions. This isn't a good situation, but it's hardly one of an elite few buying access for themselves and shutting out everyone else. (Jonathan Rauch's Government's End: Why Washington Stopped Working is essential reading on this topic.)

But rich people ultimately have a better position in this struggle for influence. It's simply more purchasing power per individual in case of rich people. So their voice will be overrepresented.

Quote

That's not true, either. Many newspaper and magazine owners and publishers are not multimillionaires. Also, the Internet has emerged as the most powerful tool for disseminating information mankind has ever known, and driving that are the individual efforts of millions of users, not a few rich big-wigs.

That's true, but only marginal exceptions from the rule, according to which "traditional" media still holds the highest market share. There is hope, though, the internet will change this situation, or at least relativize it.

Quote

Yes, it was incoherent, and it remains so. You justify "the general interest" with the need to protect individual rights ("for that there is a maximum of freedom for all individuals"). And you can't protect individual rights by violating individual rights. That's like "destroying the village in order to save it."

No, it's a tightrope walk: You have to limit certain rights, in order to protect even more important rights. Much like you limit the murderer's right on freedom by imprisoning him, in order to protect the right to life of his potential victims.

Quote

That characterizes no one in the West with sound mental capacity.

It does, though, describe the plight of millions of people in the Third World who live in countries with weak property protection and little economic freedom.

Probably you are not even aware of the hardship poor people in your country have to go through. But there are plenty of people who are in severe fear for existance.

I'll try to dig up some reports on it when I find the time, as example, for that you get an idea of the hard conditions some people even in developed countries have to face.

This post has been edited by Sim: 05 July 2007 - 06:54 AM

[Merlinus Ambrosius]

Quote

Employees are not paid for the possession they sell, their labour -- but only for the capacity of doing labour.

Thats demonstrably untrue. If you were paid only for your capacity to do labor, then in the event that you are laid off for being unable to do your job, your employer would not have to compensate you for the work you had already done, since you no longer have the capacity to do labor for them.

If I work someplace for a week and my employer decides its not working out, he still owes me a weeks worth of pay.

Quote

There are simply some people who are not good at anything, who are only qualified for the simplest tasks.

Just because a task is simple doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Driving a garbage truck and picking up trash is a simple job, and doesn't require much in the way of education beyond being able to push a button and not drive into parked cars. Yet the garbage men around here make a fair bit of money because they do a job that nobody else wants to do.

The Janitor at the office has a simple job, but that job still has value. The guy who paints numbers on the sidewalk to identify houses has a simple job that has value.

Quote

But when the system puts pressure on people, for example in a situation of high unemployment, companies use this situation to blackmail potential employees: There will be a wage spiral downwards, the higher the supply of labour and the lower the demand for that labour is. See above: The employer will only be "compensated" for his capacity to work, but not for the value of his possession, his labour.

I think you misunderstand how labor is assigned a value. Value for any item is not constant. It fluctuates based upon supply and demand. Labor is not an exception to this. So when you have a surplus of workers who can perform a certain job, the value of the labor they provide is going to drop. Thats not blackmail. Thats simply supply and demand at work. And you have options to deal with it. Unionization, for example, can attempt to drive wages up through collective bargaining. Or you can find another line of work that requires a different skill set. Dig ditches instead of flipping burgers.

I had relatives who survived in the Great Depression because they understood the concept of how labor is valued, and they used that to their advantage. Yeah, it was ridiculously hard because unemployment was so high, but they dealt with it. And they survived.

[Jason Vines]

Sim said:

I think it's intellectually dishonest to construe a connection between Rousseau's ideas and even Nazism. That's a simplification unworthy of anybody who claims to be intellectual.

How one could not see the connection is beyond me. Rousseau describes the general will thusly (source):

The Social Contract said:

In reality, each individual may have one particular will as a man that is different from-or contrary to-the general will which he has as a citizen. His own particular interest may suggest other things to him than the common interest does. His separate, naturally independent existence may make him imagine that what he owes to the common cause is an incidental contribution - a contribution which will cost him more to give than their failure to receive it would harm the others. He may also regard the moral person of the State as an imaginary being since it is not a man, and wish to enjoy the rights of a citizen without performing the duties of a subject. This unjust attitude could cause the ruin of the body politic if it became widespread enough.

So that the social pact will not become meaningless words, it tacitly includes this commitment, which alone gives power to the others: Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be forced to obey it by the whole body politic, which means nothing else but that he will be forced to be free. This condition is indeed the one which by dedicating each citizen to the fatherland gives him a guarantee against being personally dependent on other individuals. It is the condition which all political machinery depends on and which alone makes political undertakings legitimate. Without it, political actions become absurd, tyrannical, and subject to the most outrageous abuses.

Mussolini says of fascism (source):

What is Fascism said:

For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Both men champion the sublimation of the individual to the state and for the suppression of individual rights, odious concepts that have sparked the deaths of millions in the 19th (French Revolution, Bonaparte Wars) and 20th centuries (World War II, Holocaust, Soviet Union, China). So I think connecting Rousseau to totalitarianism is quite appropriate.

Sim said:

It's also a normative question: How do you want society to look like?

But now you're begging the question of whether groups have privileges individuals do not. If the answer is no, then how we want society to look is irrelevant. We couldn't rightfully force other people to conform to our societal designs.

Sim said:

You can't tell me you are that disconnected from society that you don't even know in what hardship some people in your country have to live. Just read a few reports about low-wage employees, people without health ensurance, illegal workers -- in your ivory tower, you probably don't even have a remote grasp on what some people in your country have to endure.

As I said here, "Actually, when I lived with my mom as a little kid, we were so poor, we had to live in a trailer. And life was fine: I ate enough flood, I slept under a sound roof, I enjoyed safety from the elements, I watched TV, I played with toys, I ran around with other trailer park kids, etc. We definitely weren't as well-off as other people, but we hardly suffered."

Sim said:

There are simply some people who are not good at anything, who are only qualified for the simplest tasks. There are also handicapped people, or ill people relying on expensive treatment. There are low qualified people, there are single mothers with several children they have to feed, and so on and so on. All of these people are of no value for the market and will fall off.

Thanks to comparative advantage, no one is "of no value for the market." A stupid person can do physical labor. A handicapped person can work at a desk or from home. Everyone can find his niche.

Sim said:

Also, when there is not much demand for a certain labour, but a surplus of people qualified for that job, employers will push the wages and some people will still end up unemployed. Sometimes, only 5 workers are needed, but 10 apply for that job (and they can't easily switch to another job).

The market regulations and ample welfare Europeans prefer drives their unemployment rates sky high. So are you sure you really want to bring up that topic?

Sim said:

The compensation the employee gets is not the value of his labour, but only the value of his capacity to work. Thus, part of his possession is stolen by the employer. Much like when someone robs a piece of gold from you that is worth $10, but only gives you $2 as "compensation".

That still doesn't make sense. If the market value of the gold is $2, then on what basis could you claim the gold is really worth $10? None. That's why Marx's theory of surplus value, as you present it, is arbitrary.

Sim said:

Look at the numbers and then tell me how many empoverished people ever make as much money as Bill Gates.

Are you telling me a low-qualified person with no brilliant idea such as Bill Gates is worth less than him, and deserves to live in the dirt? That's the implication of your statement, and it is not compatible with my normative ideas regarding the value of human life.

You have misunderstood me. My point is, relative inequality isn't an appropriate basis on which to judge someone "poor," because then someone who lives like Bill Gates does today could be "poor" in the future. Obviously, any standard that could ever make Bill Gates "poor" is faulty.

Sim said:

No, it's a tightrope walk: You have to limit certain rights, in order to protect even more important rights. Much like you limit the murderer's right on freedom by imprisoning him, in order to protect the right to life of his potential victims.

No, there is no tightrope walk. If something is a right, then everyone has it, and it cannot conflict with anyone else's rights. (Otherwise, it would be a privilege.)

In the situation whereof you speak, the murderer's rights are not limited. Instead, he has forfeited some rights altogether by infringing on the rights of someone else. No balancing of rights is happening.

Sim said:

Probably you are not even aware of the hardship poor people in your country have to go through. But there are plenty of people who are in severe fear for existance.

Horse hockey. A lot of people in the West might have hard lives, but they don't struggle just to stay alive.

[Sim]

Jason Vines, on Sep 10 2007, 01:28 AM, said:

Both men champion the sublimation of the individual to the state and for the suppression of individual rights, odious concepts that have sparked the deaths of millions in the 19th (French Revolution, Bonaparte Wars) and 20th centuries (World War II, Holocaust, Soviet Union, China). So I think connecting Rousseau to totalitarianism is quite appropriate.

Ok, I grant you that, the similarities are obvious.

Quote

But now you're begging the question of whether groups have privileges individuals do not. If the answer is no, then how we want society to look is irrelevant. We couldn't rightfully force other people to conform to our societal designs.

So maybe the answer then is "yes". I believe that humans are not just individuals, but social animals. If you want or not, you live in a community with other humans; that is part of the human nature. Isolation can even kill humans, as experiments have shown. So when living in a community, together with other humans is part of human nature, it becomes self-evident that a certain behavior within these communities is required. The individual has certain obligations towards that community, and receives in return the benefits of community. And when one individual enjoys the benefits of community, but on the other hand refuses to fulfil his or her obligations, there must be the possibility to force him or her in his place.

This is what already happens and is considered as common sense, when it comes to crimes and legal persecution. It is also the rationale for the institution of draft, that existed and still exists in many countries. And it is the reason for laws punishing treason.

I believe it is an ethical imperative that members of a community help each other, according to their capacity, in case of need. So in my opinion, forcing greedy or uncompassionate people to help others financially in case of need to fulfil their ethical obligations is no different.

So the question is: When support for others who are in need is a moral imperative, because refusal of support causes damage, hardship and even death, isn't it a crime to refuse support?

Quote

As I said here, "Actually, when I lived with my mom as a little kid, we were so poor, we had to live in a trailer. And life was fine: I ate enough flood, I slept under a sound roof, I enjoyed safety from the elements, I watched TV, I played with toys, I ran around with other trailer park kids, etc. We definitely weren't as well-off as other people, but we hardly suffered."

Then either your standards are surprisingly low, or you weren't that bad off afterall. But I can't help but find certain social conditions, that do exist in Western countries, unworthy of human beings.

Quote

Thanks to comparative advantage, no one is "of no value for the market." A stupid person can do physical labor. A handicapped person can work at a desk or from home. Everyone can find his niche.

That is nothing but absurd liberal ideology totally disconnected from reality, and it once again exemplifies your lack of imagination. There are millions of ill or handicapped people who are of absolutely no value for the market: People tied to the bed who can neither do physical nor desk work, mentally ill people, and many more whose treatment and medication is much more expensive than the payment they get for their work, and so on and so on.

Because these people were of no value for society, the Nazis murdered them as "parasites". In a free market society, they cannot make enough money to pay for their survival, and they are denied support because property is valued higher than human life. The effect is the same, and this is the reason why capitalism is similar to fascism, because both models devalue human life and dignity by reducing it on its financial value.

The free market knows no ethics, no morals, but blindly measures the value of human life according to its value on the market. That is most unethical, in my opinion, because I believe human life and dignity is worth much more than its price on the market. That is why allocating money for those in need is an ethical imperative. And this is also a reason why the idea of a genuinely free market is not suited as an quasi-ethical yardstick, as liberals do.

Quote

The market regulations and ample welfare Europeans prefer drives their unemployment rates sky high. So are you sure you really want to bring up that topic?

Yes. Because unemployment is not a phenomenon limited to rather social democratic societies. Nice attempt at distraction, though.

Quote

That still doesn't make sense. If the market value of the gold is $2, then on what basis could you claim the gold is really worth $10? None. That's why Marx's theory of surplus value, as you present it, is arbitrary.

The point is, the thief will get 10$ for the gold on the market, but only gives you 2$ for it when he is robbing it from you.

And as I told you already (which you still ignored): Don't you agree that the value of your work ought to be connected to the value of your product on the market? Because that is not the case in capitalist systems.

Quote

You have misunderstood me. My point is, relative inequality isn't an appropriate basis on which to judge someone "poor," because then someone who lives like Bill Gates does today could be "poor" in the future. Obviously, any standard that could ever make Bill Gates "poor" is faulty.

Bill Gates will never be considered "poor". And fact is, there are only so many well paid jobs in any society. No society could exist without someone doing the dirty work. And while it has to do with your efforts if you get a well paid job, it also has a good lot to do with mere luck. Imagine literally everybody went to law school -- then lawyer would no longer be a well paid job. Considering this simple fact (that luck plays an important role in the kind of job you get, and that there will always be "low" jobs to distribute), I believe it would be unethical to deny certain people a fair share of the cake, just because they were unlucky.

Quote

No, there is no tightrope walk. If something is a right, then everyone has it, and it cannot conflict with anyone else's rights. (Otherwise, it would be a privilege.)

In the situation whereof you speak, the murderer's rights are not limited. Instead, he has forfeited some rights altogether by infringing on the rights of someone else. No balancing of rights is happening.

So you believe the right to life, for example, is not an inviolable right, but can be forfeit? That is rather alarming...

Quote

Horse hockey. A lot of people in the West might have hard lives, but they don't struggle just to stay alive.

Many people do, for example ill people who cannot afford the necessary treatment. And also, you don't need to literally fear for your life to live in hardship and constant struggle.

[Jason Vines]

Sim said:

Then either your standards are surprisingly low, or you weren't that bad off afterall.

As "trailer trash," I was amongst the poorest of the poor in American society. And, indeed, compared to the majority of the world's population today, and most of it throughout history, I wasn't that bad off. That's my point: Western poor are still amongst the wealthiest people in human experience. Kings have lived worse than them. So no grounds exist to pity them.

Sim said:

Bill Gates will never be considered "poor".

By your standards of relative inequality, he could be. After all, the contemporary poor enjoy luxuries not even Andrew Carnegie could have dreamed of having:

Age of Abundance said:

And consider, as further reinforcement, the following comparisons between households below the official poverty line in 2004 and all households in 1971. Among poor households in the mid-nineties, 72 percent had washing machines, compared to 71 percent of all households in 1971; 50 percent had clothes dryers, up from the 45 percent figure for all households in 1971; 98 percent had a refrigerator, while in 1971 only 83 percent of all households did; 93 percent had a color television, more than double the 43 percent of all households a generation earlier; 50 percent had an air conditioner, up from 32 percent of all households in 1971; and 60 percent had a microwave oven, a device fewer than 1 percent of all households possessed in 1971.

(Source: The Age of Abundance, p. 282)

Thanks to these technological marvels, today's poor live in more comfort than the richest Gilded Age industrialists could have imagined. Yet you consider them paupers because they don't have as much other people.

So why would you not ever consider Bill Gates poor? Such a judgment would be ridiculous, but it would also be consistent with your jaw-gnashing over the "plight" of modern Westerners below the poverty line.

Sim said:

And also, you don't need to literally fear for your life to live in hardship and constant struggle.

No sane, able-bodied person in the West experiences "hardship and constant struggle."

Sim said:

In a free market society, they cannot make enough money to pay for their survival, and they are denied support because property is valued higher than human life.

Rubbish. Before the advent of the welfare state, which taxed away much of societal wealth, the people of their own accord established charities, mutual aid societies, and fraternal orders to help each other. These organizations, with millions of participants, were often more effective than the government programs that replaced them because: 1) they were nearer to problems, so they could target responses better; 2) they could withhold help in the event of bad behavior; and 3) they were composed of recipients' friends and family, so the recipients were less likely to malinger and cheat.

In modern times, an inverse relationship exists between welfare spending and charitable giving. When the welfare state expanded during Lyndon Johnson's administration, charitable contributions declined. When Americans perceived a reduction in welfare spending during Ronald Reagan's administration, charitable donations increased.

This is all compatible with people doing what they want to in a free economy. Social democrats confuse that notion with everyone pursuing naked self-interest, but that gloomy view of human nature has no justification. People are social creatures, and they do have concern for their fellow man. They will help each other of their own accord, if they see the need.

Sim said:

The free market knows no ethics, no morals

The free market is just an aggregate view of the billions of interactions humans choose to have with each other every day, absent coercion. So what the above really means is, people have "no ethics" and "no morals."

Sim said:

The point is, the thief will get 10$ for the gold on the market, but only gives you 2$ for it when he is robbing it from you.

And as I told you already (which you still ignored): Don't you agree that the value of your work ought to be connected to the value of your product on the market? Because that is not the case in capitalist systems.

Now, at least you're making sense, but you're still wrong.

You are ignoring the contributions of the employer in making the goods: He provides the building in which and the machines with which to work. He supplies the resources his employees and machines fashion and use. He organizes and finances the enterprise, assuming the risks of its failure. The price of the goods on the market needs to cover all these costs, as well as the salary of the employer. So naturally the price of the goods will exceed the value of the raw labor that went into them. Otherwise, the employer would become the one suffering from thievery!

Given that neither the employer nor the employee could receive all of the money from the goods they sell, the question becomes what proportions of the price each should receive. No one should begrudge the employer covering operational expenses. After that, how large should the salaries of the employer and employee be?

You haven't pointed to any objective standard other than the market which could answer that question. Therefore, you have no basis for claiming market wages are "theft" (although we have arrived at a standard for affixing such a label to minimum wages!).

Sim said:

Considering this simple fact (that luck plays an important role in the kind of job you get, and that there will always be "low" jobs to distribute), I believe it would be unethical to deny certain people a fair share of the cake, just because they were unlucky.

"Fair" is a subjective term. I personally don't think a share of the cake obtained through violence (government action) is "fair."

Sim said:

I believe that humans are not just individuals, but social animals. If you want or not, you live in a community with other humans; that is part of the human nature. Isolation can even kill humans, as experiments have shown. So when living in a community, together with other humans is part of human nature, it becomes self-evident that a certain behavior within these communities is required. The individual has certain obligations towards that community, and receives in return the benefits of community. And when one individual enjoys the benefits of community, but on the other hand refuses to fulfil his or her obligations, there must be the possibility to force him or her in his place.

But community emerges through voluntary interactions, as individuals choose to pool together their resources and delegate many of their tasks to peers who can best handle them. But neither I nor anyone else could rightfully barge into an old man's shack and use violence to force him into giving away his stuff... so how could I properly then delegate that task to the community? How could I ethically have someone else do something I could never have the right to do myself?

You are right in that living in a community entails obligations to it. But those obligations are to pay for the work others do for me and to honor the agreements I enter into with other people. Those obligations do not include letting other people violate my rights or do anything else to me they couldn't ethically do in a state of nature.

Also: How is your summary of the relationship between the individual and the community different from Mussolini's conception of that relationship?

Sim said:

This is what already happens and is considered as common sense, when it comes to crimes and legal persecution.

That is not what happens. In a state of nature, people would have the right to defend themselves against criminals. In civilization, we have just delegated most of that task to the police.

So the group hasn't assumed any special authority people wouldn't have in a state of nature.

Sim said:

It is also the rationale for the institution of draft, that existed and still exists in many countries.

I wouldn't have thought you one for supporting slavery , which is exactly what the draft is: involuntary servitude.

Sim said:

refusal of support causes damage, hardship and even death

It does no such thing. Someone going successfully about his life does nothing to harm anyone else.

Sim said:

isn't it a crime to refuse support?

Rights are rights are rights. They apply all the time without contradicting each other, equally to everybody, unless he relinquishes them by violating the rights of others. Nobody can have a right to force others to act against their will, because that would entail violating other rights.

My "right to life" doesn't mean I have entitlement to your stuff. That would violate your property rights. All my right to life means is, you can't kill me unless in self-defense.

Sim said:

Yes. Because unemployment is not a phenomenon limited to rather social democratic societies. Nice attempt at distraction, though.

It's not a distraction. Social democratic policies drive up unemployment. So my response is, if you want as much employment as possible, dispense with those policies.

[Jason Vines]

This op-ed by Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar is apropos to the discussion: "Poor Don't Fret about Income Inequality".

[Sim]

Jason Vines, on Sep 11 2007, 12:22 PM, said:

As "trailer trash," I was amongst the poorest of the poor in American society. And, indeed, compared to the majority of the world's population today, and most of it throughout history, I wasn't that bad off. That's my point: Western poor are still amongst the wealthiest people in human experience. Kings have lived worse than them. So no grounds exist to pity them.

When you put it this way, you are right. But my personal convictions tell me that when the resources are there to provide these people with a better life, it's the right thing to let them participate accordingly. My conception of "social fairness" tells me that nobody in a society as rich as ours should have to live in trailers, be too poor to afford a certain degree of luxury considered mainstream or even proper health care. Our society *could* be different, that is the point. These people *could* have more, unlike in past centuries, when there resources simply weren't there.

Now I won't advocate absolute equality as a goal, for several reasons. Equality may be a nice ideal, so is the utopic idea of "to everybody according to his needs", but mankind simply does not display the necessary virtues to realize such a society. That is why I believe a certain inequality is both unavoidable and desirable. But I also believe this inequality must not go too far.

Quote

No sane, able-bodied person in the West experiences "hardship and constant struggle."

What about those who are not sane, and not able-bodied?

Sim said:

Rubbish. Before the advent of the welfare state, which taxed away much of societal wealth, the people of their own accord established charities, mutual aid societies, and fraternal orders to help each other. These organizations, with millions of participants, were often more effective than the government programs that replaced them because: 1) they were nearer to problems, so they could target responses better; 2) they could withhold help in the event of bad behavior; and 3) they were composed of recipients' friends and family, so the recipients were less likely to malinger and cheat.

These are good arguments in favor of private welfare. But I think there are good arguments for government-based programs:

First, private charity has only very limited resources; their resources depend on the willingness of the wealthy to contribute at each point in time. They cannot guarantee that enough money is constantly available to support those in need. In a good year, they may have enough, but in the next year, they are lacking money. It cannot be made sure everybody in need actually is covered, and neither can be made sure that the money avaible is distributed in a fair way. A state-run program, on the other hand, can systematically cover all people in need, according to certain creteria, and allow for a fair and equal distribution of the resources.

Also, private charity often has an agenda, be it church based or otherwise. They may refuse to donate charities to people who don't fit their arbitrary criteria. I don't think those in need should be forced to "prostitute" themselves spiritually, politically or in any other way in order to receive support.

So state run programs strike me as more fair and efficient regarding the goal of providing those in need systematically and in a fair way. But of course, the "devil lies in the detail" ... I'm sure you can organize such government programs in a bad way, as much as you can organize them in a smart way. It all depends on the details of the implementation.

Quote

In modern times, an inverse relationship exists between welfare spending and charitable giving. When the welfare state expanded during Lyndon Johnson's administration, charitable contributions declined. When Americans perceived a reduction in welfare spending during Ronald Reagan's administration, charitable donations increased.

This is all compatible with people doing what they want to in a free economy. Social democrats confuse that notion with everyone pursuing naked self-interest, but that gloomy view of human nature has no justification. People are social creatures, and they do have concern for their fellow man. They will help each other of their own accord, if they see the need.

In this instance, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't share your positive opinion of human nature. I'm not optimistic enough to assume that voluntary philanthropy could replace binding law.

Quote

The free market is just an aggregate view of the billions of interactions humans choose to have with each other every day, absent coercion. So what the above really means is, people have "no ethics" and "no morals."

The problem is, when people are given the choice between an ethical option, and an option that increases their profit, most people will chose the latter. Especially when the negative consequences of this option are not obvious, but only indirect or collateral. And in many cases, these negative consequences are indeed not clearly visible for the person making the decision, at the moment when he makes the decision. And often, a negative consequence cannot be traced back to one single decision by one single person, but is the result of collective ignorance. So it's very easy to ignore it. Greed indeed is an aspect of human nature. So many people will chose to make profit, and as long as they are not confronted with the negative consequences of their decision. Add competition to this, and the risk of losing market share by acting ethically, and you have a dangerous mix.

The market even gives incentives for merely profit-driving decions: A company that acts according to ethics instead of profit-maximation, in case both are in conflict, will rather go bankrupt than a company that doesn't. In capitalism, there are often situations when you simply "can't afford" ethics, if you want to survive the struggle. Even if you do, those who are more reckless and unethical than you have an advantage on the market. The very nature, the logic of free market gives incentives in favor of unethical behavior, and severely punishes ethical behavior. Philanthropy is the safest way to ruin your company and go bankrupt.

Examples:
- throwing your toxic waste into a river is more profitable than paying for appropriate disposal. Companies which do so have an advantage on the market, as long as the state and the law will not confront them with the negative consequences of their actions. Even a company owner with a good heart and ethics may be forced to do so, if he does not want to run the risk of losing against a competitor who is more reckless, and thus has cheaper production costs

- hiring less skilled, handicapped or even mentally challenged employees (= less productive humans) is ethical, but it is a risk for a company owner. Your competitor may reduce his production costs by not hiring such people, and drive you off the market.

- when you want to run your company most profitable, with the best position against your competition, you will fire women when they get pregnant, an employee who gets an illness or a handicap (maybe even as a result of the work he is doing) -- just the people who need your money most


I could go on and on with examples, but I think you get my point. In many cases, there are simply people who are much less productive than others. Some people (certain handicaps or illnesses) even have zero productivity. For these people, the market logic works against them. That is what I mean by "the market only knows money, it doesn't know ethics". The market even makes it difficult for ethical people to take ethical decisions, because its very logic gives them a disadvantage, at least in many cases -- and when there are no regulations, it's easy for you to ignore the indirect negative consequences of your actions.

Only regulation can force the private enterpriser to be confronted with the costs he caused for society, and with his responsibility for the good of the whole society.

Quote

Now, at least you're making sense, but you're still wrong.

You are ignoring the contributions of the employer in making the goods: He provides the building in which and the machines with which to work. He supplies the resources his employees and machines fashion and use. He organizes and finances the enterprise, assuming the risks of its failure. The price of the goods on the market needs to cover all these costs, as well as the salary of the employer. So naturally the price of the goods will exceed the value of the raw labor that went into them. Otherwise, the employer would become the one suffering from thievery!

Given that neither the employer nor the employee could receive all of the money from the goods they sell, the question becomes what proportions of the price each should receive. No one should begrudge the employer covering operational expenses. After that, how large should the salaries of the employer and employee be?

You haven't pointed to any objective standard other than the market which could answer that question. Therefore, you have no basis for claiming market wages are "theft" (although we have arrived at a standard for affixing such a label to minimum wages!).

But basic logic tells me salaries should at least be connected to the profit the company makes -- when the company makes a lot of profit, salaries should be higher, when it makes lower profits, they should be lower. *IF* the employee is paid for his work, that is, not for his mere capacity to work. But as I said, in capitalism, the profit a company makes plays virtually no role in the amount of the salaries: Only the value of the worker on the job market plays a role. The actual value of his work is not playing a role, or at least is only one factor among many.

I don't know an objective standard either, which is why I am not a socialist. Socialists would say, based on the idea that everybody should be rewarded according to the labor he delivers, that you nationalize the company, pay the director a salary that is appropriate to the value of work he does, and divide the rest of the profit and distribute it among the employees. And while the amount of the salaries would be arbitrary to some degree, it would be more fair than in capitalism, because at least the value of the actual work is reflected, not the mere capacity to work.

Cooperatives use a similar model: The means of production are administrated collectively by the employees, the director in charge gets a certain salary, and the profit is fairly distributed among the employees.

It is obvious that the owner or administrator of a company should be rewarded as well, but I don't think the actual work he is doing is worth 100 times or even 1000 times as valuable as the work of an employee, as capitalism claims in many cases. Or take the example of people lending money -- they do no work at all, but let their money do the work for them, and yet some of them make profits many times higher than those of simple employees. These people are not paid for the value of their labour, in capitalism, with money they legally "steal" from the working people.

I can't help but see a huge deficit in capitalism here, regarding the fair distribution of property, according to the labour that is actually done. Capitalism does not only pay you for your labour, but for your possessions, with the money "stolen" from those doing the actual work.

As I said, I am no socialist, and I don't advocate nationalization of companies for various reasons. But I still see this fundamental flaw in capitalism: Salaries do not reflect the value of your work. If society was really fair, your income would reflect the value of your work, since your work is your property you trade for money. But your employer is legally in a position to steal part of your property (your labor), the surplus value.

That this is legal (the employer legally allowed to decouple salaries from the profit he makes), may be considered "legalized theft", and genuine Marxists may claim the laws legalizing that are not much different than the laws that legalized slavery in the past. Hence, your definition of "theft" you brought up in the initial posting, should be qualified. At some point in the past, slavery and serfdom were legal too, yet these laws were immoral.

I see the same ethical problem regarding the laws that legalize employers to deprive the employees of the surplus value. It may be legal today, as much as slavery and serfdom were legal in the past, but it is not ethical.

But as I said, I am no socialist. Nationalization is not the answer, as good as this idea is in theory, but history has proven that it brings more undesirable consequences than it cures. But this flaw in capitalism remains, and I believe it can be the basis of qualifying your claim that redistribution of wealth is "theft" -- because the way the wealthy acquired their wealth was "theft" already.

Quote

"Fair" is a subjective term. I personally don't think a share of the cake obtained through violence (government action) is "fair."

The owner of the means of production acquired his wealth through violence in the first place (see above): Disconnecting salaries from the profit the company makes deprives the employee of part of his property, yet it is legal and protected by the law.

Quote

But community emerges through voluntary interactions, as individuals choose to pool together their resources and delegate many of their tasks to peers who can best handle them. But neither I nor anyone else could rightfully barge into an old man's shack and use violence to force him into giving away his stuff... so how could I properly then delegate that task to the community? How could I ethically have someone else do something I could never have the right to do myself?

Neither would I consider arbitrarily "breaking into an old man's shack", when done in the name of community, a good thing.

There must be fair rules everybody has a say in about who has to pay how much for the good of community. Everybody must be part of this contract. If you broke into that man's shack, it would be arbitrary and the old man has no say in it. But when you both are part of a community, that agreed on certain collective services (as for example your right to receive bread from others in this community, in a bad year when your crop is rotten), and that agreed on certain rules of who has to give how much when others are in need, this is a different matter. So if your community, including you and the old man, have agreed in a contract that when you are about starving, the old man will provide you with some of his bread, it would be ethical if you came to him and took the amount of bread you agreed to, even if he refuses. Or if you called others from your community to help you wresting the agreed amount of bread from the old man. Deal is deal.

That is how I see government-based wealth distribution in democratic republics: Everybody has a say in this contract. You receive certain services (material support from your fellow countrymen in case of need), and in exchange, you have certain obligations. You also have a say in how exactly these services and obligations are defined, by voting in elections, in favor or against certain propositions. And when you are outvoted, you have to accept this decision by the whole of community.

Quote

You are right in that living in a community entails obligations to it. But those obligations are to pay for the work others do for me and to honor the agreements I enter into with other people. Those obligations do not include letting other people violate my rights or do anything else to me they couldn't ethically do in a state of nature.

As I said: Any redistribution of wealth that exists in a community must be defined in a contract everybody has a say in. If that is not the case, I agree with you, it would be unethical.

Also, I believe certain individual rights must be above the community. For example, the right to life is so precious, no contract a majority makes must violate it, or sentence you to death in the name of community. In these regards, I guess I'm in agreement with you, just that I would not define the right on property as inviolable as you do. I too agree that taking property arbitrarily from members of that community would be wrong, but when there are fair rules that apply to everybody, at least taking a limited part of individual property would be justified, in exchange for certain benefits (such as your right on help by the community, in case of need).

Quote

Also: How is your summary of the relationship between the individual and the community different from Mussolini's conception of that relationship?

Maybe it's not much different, just that I wouldn't go remotely as far as Mussolini. I'm not a collectivist, after all, and while I believe that being a "social animal" is part of the human nature, I believe individual liberty is as much a part of it. That is why there must be a right balance between protection of the individual and obligations for the community. Mussolini also denies that every member of that community must have a say in the contract, but he set up a system where non-legitimized "Führers" arbitrarily decided over the community.

Collectivists such as Mussolini, or genuine socialists, are over-emphasizing the "social" aspect, while genuine liberals overemphasize the "individual" aspect, in my opinion. Both are ignoring an important aspect of human nature. That is why I believe it's all about finding the right balance. You have to find the "golden middle way".

Quote

I wouldn't have thought you one for supporting slavery , which is exactly what the draft is: involuntary servitude.

I don't support draft, just the rationale behind it when applied to other aspects.

Quote

It does no such thing. Someone going successfully about his life does nothing to harm anyone else.

I disagree. When you are witness of an accident, for example, and a victim requires your help, just ignoring the victim and to continue "going successfully about your life" will cause the victim's death. Ignoring the victim would even be illegal, and you could be sentenced for "failure to render assistance". Rendering assistance is a moral imperative.

A lack of support for those in need is similar, in my opinion. Even when you don't immediately see the result of your inaction, your failure to render assistance, because those in need live in other quarters, or other cities, is just as unethical. But in this case, you cannot attribute the failure to render assistance to a single individual, but to the whole of society. Everybody who has enough money to help, but refuses to offer a fair share, is equally guilty. Why not reflecting this ethical problem with legislation directed against poverty?

This post has been edited by Sim: 29 September 2007 - 11:01 AM

[Jason Vines]

Sim said:

That is how I see government-based wealth distribution in democratic republics: Everybody has a say in this contract. You receive certain services (material support from your fellow countrymen in case of need), and in exchange, you have certain obligations. You also have a say in how exactly these services and obligations are defined, by voting in elections, in favor or against certain propositions. And when you are outvoted, you have to accept this decision by the whole of community.

That could apply to a small community wherein everyone's vote is significant and monitoring government activites is easy. But your scenario doesn't happen in large modern republics. Consider:

- Most people most of the time do not pay attention to government; they make their livings and raise their families. Many of them also reside hundreds or thousands of miles away from the centers of government, so they could hardly keep it under the closest observation even if they wanted to do so. This all exacerbates the principal-agent problem, meaning politicians have much latitude to ignore the interests of their constituents and promote their own instead.

- Kosh from Babylon 5 said, "The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." Voting alongside millions or even thousands of people is a comparable experience. Realistically, what you want doesn't matter in that circumstance. That's why the promise of republicanism is not everyone "having a say," but living in freedom. The Preamble to the United States Constitution says as much:

US Constitution Preamble said:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,* establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,** provide for the common defense,*** promote the general welfare,**** and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,***** do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As the Preamble explains, the Constitution establishes:

* a stable republic that
** maintains law and order,
*** defends itself,
**** enshrines no special privileges, and
***** protects liberty.

Nowhere does government acting at the behest of anyone appear in the Preamble.

Of course, the citizenry voting for their leaders serves as one of a republic's most important features. But that's because elections make government somewhat accountable (not completely, as I explained above) to the public as a whole. And, as Aristotle says, accountability helps ward off tyranny. Elections, however, cannot and were never supposed to furnish everyone with a "say" in government.

Only in the 20th century did the conception of people each "having a say" over a government that acted as the public's tool come into vogue. That brings us to...

- Within the sprawling and opaque bureaucracies that have developed since the 20th century, career personnel without accountability to anyone (not to the legislature, and especially not to the people) make circumstantial rules, try citizens for violating those rules, and then mete punishment for the alleged violations. Crushed underfoot are separation of powers, public oversight of government, and rule of law¹.

Such is an inevitable development of government assuming responsibilities normal republican institutions--legislature, courts, executive--cannot handle and therefore delegate. Often the spark for this comes from social democrats who want government to do the "people's work"! Reality, sadly, careens in the opposite direction as Kafkaesque bureaucracies gain power.<sup>2

1</sup> As Friedrich Hayek explains in The Road to Serfdom, rule of law mandates government rules that:

- Apply generally and not to specific individuals or groups.
- Affect everyone without exception. (The above means government can't aim legislation at a subset of the population. This tenet means government can't exclude anyone from legislation that impacts almost everyone else.)
- Have stability and certainty, so citiziens can know whether they are acting lawfully.

² Hayek says this helps pave the road to fascism.

- People born after a constitution or a law is enacted could never have had a "say" in that. And, because of political and legal inertia, they have few viable options for changing it. (Hell, in Germany, seeking to change some parts of the constitution is illegal.)
________________________

Consequently, predicating government activity on the "say" everyone supposedly has in it compares to using a feather as a cane. You'll fall and break your neck.

Sim said:

So if your community, including you and the old man, have agreed in a contract that when you are about starving, the old man will provide you with some of his bread, it would be ethical if you came to him and took the amount of bread you agreed to, even if he refuses. Or if you called others from your community to help you wresting the agreed amount of bread from the old man. Deal is deal.

If the man literally signed a contract obligating him to that, then I would agree with you. Otherwise, for the reasons above, you're really organizing a mob to take bread from the man without his consent.

Let's ponder this, though: Suppose we're talking about a small community in which the old man does have a genuine say. He votes against the community providing bread to the poor, and he votes against taking the bread from people to accomplish this objective. Could the community ethically force the old man to give up his bread? No, because the result is the same: A mob takes the old man's bread for themselves without his consent.

Sim said:

But my personal convictions tell me that when the resources are there to provide these people with a better life, it's the right thing to let them participate accordingly. My conception of "social fairness" tells me that nobody in a society as rich as ours should have to live in trailers, be too poor to afford a certain degree of luxury considered mainstream or even proper health care. Our society *could* be different, that is the point. These people *could* have more, unlike in past centuries, when there resources simply weren't there.

Your criteria seem arbitrary, though. If nobody should have to live in a trailer (which many people in the world would love to have!), then why should anyone have to live in a small studio apartment? From there, the question becomes, why should anyone have to live in a tiny ranch house? In an apartment with a lot of noise? In a building without decent maintenance?

Once you set an arbitrary line below which you don't think people should live, then no reason exists not to grant anyone's wishes for comfort and security. Indeed, trying to satisfy more and more demands to increase living standards becomes one of government's primary functions. And people whose desires aren't met turn ire on government for not giving them what they want, increasing resentment of government and republicanism in general.

In any event, you talk about your conception of social fairness, but how that does justify anything? Why is your morality, your conception of how other people should act, any reason to use violence (i.e., expect government action)? What separates you from the religious zealot who thinks government should enforce his own views of how people should behave?

Sim said:

But I also believe this inequality must not go too far.

But what other than your own whim dictates how far is too far?

Sim said:

First, private charity has only very limited resources; their resources depend on the willingness of the wealthy to contribute at each point in time.

Not true. As I said, people established mutual aid societies and fraternal orders to help out each other. They often relied on themselves instead of on handouts from the wealthy... unlike what many people have no choice but to do today.

Sim said:

neither can be made sure that the money avaible is distributed in a fair way. A state-run program, on the other hand, can systematically cover all people in need, according to certain creteria, and allow for a fair and equal distribution of the resources.

But everyone has different needs; some people might require more or less help than others do. And how much assistance is necessary many times is not derivable from a formula based on income.

So, a "fair and equal distribution of the resources" could not efficiently and effectively address the unique needs of various individuals.

Sim said:

Also, private charity often has an agenda, be it church based or otherwise. They may refuse to donate charities to people who don't fit their arbitrary criteria. I don't think those in need should be forced to "prostitute" themselves spiritually, politically or in any other way in order to receive support.

Usually, though, the poor's own behavior has landed them in their circumstances. If aid does not depend on reforming one's behavior, then why should the alcoholic quit drinking? Why should the slothful embrace work? Why should the dissolute acquire restraint?

Private organizations were historically more effective because they could link assistance to self-correction of the tendencies that made people poor in the first place. Since public welfare lacks that mechanism, it tends just to chuck money into a black hole rather than help anyone escape poverty.

Sim said:

In this instance, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't share your positive opinion of human nature. I'm not optimistic enough to assume that voluntary philanthropy could replace binding law.

It shouldn't. By no means could private aid and charity replace cradle-to-grave government programs that funnel millions of dollars to people for years and waste millions more. Why would we want it to do so?

Anyway, in the modern era, I could see why you'd be pessimistic. Since government takes a lot of people's money, and because a lot of citizens think government will take care of whomever needs help, individuals today likely are prone to selfishness and license. They don't have the burden of aiding their fellow man, after all! They'll just do what they want.

History shows, however, people will voluntarily fulfill that role if government isn't interfering with it. And they'll do it better than government does. (That doesn't mean they'll do it more than government does. As a saying goes, "What matters is not how big it is, but how you use it.")

Sim said:

What about those who are not sane, and not able-bodied?

Hmmm. I'm looking for a word, it doesn't matter much these days... Oh, here it is! "Family." And there's another word... "Neighbors."

Sim said:

hiring less skilled, handicapped or even mentally challenged employees (= less productive humans) is ethical, but it is a risk for a company owner. Your competitor may reduce his production costs by not hiring such people, and drive you off the market.

In a society without minimum wages and costly regulations, wherein comparative advantage can operate at full efficacy, the people you mention would have a good chance at being hired. The chance would certainly be better than in a place like Europe, in which low-skilled and otherwise marginal workers have difficulty getting jobs.

Sim said:

when you want to run your company most profitable, with the best position against your competition, you will fire women when they get pregnant, an employee who gets an illness or a handicap (maybe even as a result of the work he is doing) -- just the people who need your money most

Actually, you will want to keep and attract productive workers. If you fire people who get pregnant or sick, then the skilled workers will flock to a more enlightened company. Plus, media attention would raise public outrage against your operation. You could go out of business.

Think about it: Would you work for a company with those policies? Would you buy anything from it? I would think your answer to both questions would be, "No." If so, then why do you think anyone else would behave differently?

Sim said:

In many cases, there are simply people who are much less productive than others. Some people (certain handicaps or illnesses) even have zero productivity. For these people, the market logic works against them. That is what I mean by "the market only knows money, it doesn't know ethics".

Your premises don't support the conclusion. Refusing to hire nonproductive people, or only hiring them if they'll work below a certain wage, isn't at all unethical. After all, otherwise, you'd be encouraging ignorance and laziness, while discouraging the challenge of personal limits. What's ethical about that?

Let me ask you: If your computer were broken, would you hire someone to fix it who'd do the job poorly and slowly? If your answer is, "No," would that make you unethical? If your answer is again, "No," then should the standards you apply to yourself not apply to other people as well?

Sim said:

throwing your toxic waste into a river is more profitable than paying for appropriate disposal. Companies which do so have an advantage on the market, as long as the state and the law will not confront them with the negative consequences of their actions. Even a company owner with a good heart and ethics may be forced to do so, if he does not want to run the risk of losing against a competitor who is more reckless, and thus has cheaper production costs

I never said markets were perfect. People aren't perfect, so why would markets be? My contention was with your assertion markets do not incorporate ethics at all.

Sim said:

Only regulation can force the private enterpriser to be confronted with the costs he caused for society, and with his responsibility for the good of the whole society.

I disagree that regulations--meaning, as per Merriam-Webster, "authoritative rules dealing with details or procedures"--are necessary at all to correct market imperfections.

In the case of pollution, for example, tax it heavily so it becomes unprofitable, and then let the market figure out how to minimize it.

Sim said:

But basic logic tells me salaries should at least be connected to the profit the company makes -- when the company makes a lot of profit, salaries should be higher, when it makes lower profits, they should be lower.

That's often what happens! If the company does well, then many of the employees who helped make it happen get bonuses and raises. If a company does poorly, then raises don't go through, wages might get cut, and other budget trimming might take place.

Sim said:

But as I said, in capitalism, the profit a company makes plays virtually no role in the amount of the salaries

It certainly does if a worker has contributed to said profit.

Sim said:

Only the value of the worker on the job market plays a role.

A worker's value on the job market reflects his accomplishments. That's why, say, a skilled and experienced web designer whose sites have made businesses a lot of money would command a much higher salary than an unproven neophyte designer.

So to insist workers don't receive compensation for helping companies do well just isn't right.

Sim said:

The actual value of his work is not playing a role, or at least is only one factor among many.

I don't know an objective standard either

(Emphasis mine.)

So, you know nothing that impugns the value the market sets for a worker, but you imagine something is wrong with it, anyway.

Sim said:

It is obvious that the owner or administrator of a company should be rewarded as well, but I don't think the actual work he is doing is worth 100 times or even 1000 times as valuable as the work of an employee, as capitalism claims in many cases.

Other than your gut feeling, do you have anything to support that position?

If 10,000 people have the organizational and financial skill to fill a position, and 1,000,000 people can fill another position, then why isn't the former position worth 100 times more than the latter position?

Sim said:

Or take the example of people lending money -- they do no work at all, but let their money do the work for them, and yet some of them make profits many times higher than those of simple employees. These people are not paid for the value of their labour, in capitalism, with money they legally "steal" from the working people.

Nonsense.

Modern civilization would not be possible without credit and lending institutions. Without them, most businesses could not launch capital-intensive ventures. Most students could not attend university. Most people couldn't buy homes. Most consumers couldn't purchase televisions, computers, automobiles, refrigerators, microwaves, or other amenities of contemporary life. The knowledge some individuals have of how wisely to direct wealth to other people--which is no simple thing to obtain--improves everyone's life. You had better believe their contribution to society is valuable!

(By the way, you should ruminate on the historical origins of contempt for moneylenders...)

Sim said:

But your employer is legally in a position to steal part of your property (your labor), the surplus value.

Once more, you haven't shown that.

Sim said:

Nationalization is not the answer, as good as this idea is in theory

I don't think taking freedom is a good idea in theory.

Sim said:

Also, I believe certain individual rights must be above the community. For example, the right to life is so precious, no contract a majority makes must violate it, or sentence you to death in the name of community. In these regards, I guess I'm in agreement with you, just that I would not define the right on property as inviolable as you do.

Your sentiments here are arbitrary, though. Just why shouldn't the right to life be as subject to violation as you hold the right to property?

A society that devalues some rights has no reason not to scorn other ones.

Sim said:

I don't support draft, just the rationale behind it when applied to other aspects.

Why wouldn't you support drafting for military service if you advocate drafting for economic service?

Sim said:

When you are witness of an accident, for example, and a victim requires your help, just ignoring the victim and to continue "going successfully about your life" will cause the victim's death.

No, the accident caused the victim's death.

Sim said:

A lack of support for those in need is similar, in my opinion.

We're not talking about people starving to death, so it's not similar at all.

[Jason Vines]

Friedrich Hayek shares interesting thoughts on this subject in Constitution of Liberty:

Constitution of Liberty pp. 16-17 said:

Neither of these confusions of individual liberty with different concepts denoted by the same word is as dangerous as its confusion with a third use of the word to which we have already briefly referred: the use of "liberty" to describe the physical "ability to do what I want," the power to satisfy our wishes, or the extent of the choice of alternatives open to us. This kind of "freedom" appears in the dreams of many people in the form of the illusion that they can fly, that they are released from gravity and can move "free like a bird" to wherever they wish, or that they have the power to alter the environment to their liking.

This metaphorical use of the word has long been common, but until comparatively recent times few people seriously confused this "freedom from" obstacles, this freedom that means omnipotence, with the individual freedom that any kind of social order can secure. Only since this confusion was deliberately fostered as part of the socialist argument has it become dangerous. Once this identification of freedom with power is admitted, there is no limit to the sophisms by which the attractions of the word "liberty" can be used to to support measures which destroy individual liberty, no end to the tricks by which people can be exhorted in the name of liberty to give up their liberty. It has been with the help of this equivocation that the notion of collective power over circumstances has been substituted for that of individual liberty and that in totalitarian states liberty has been suppressed in the name of liberty.

The transition from the concept of individual liberty to that of liberty as power has been facilitated by the philosophical tradition that uses the word "restraint" where we have used "coercion" in defining liberty. Perhaps "restraint" would in some respects be a more suitable word if it was always remembered that in its strict sense it presupposes the action of a restraining human agent. In this sense, it usefully reminds us that the infringements on liberty consist largely in people's being prevented from doing things, while "coercion" emphasizes their being made to do particular things. Both aspects are equally important: to be precise, we should probably define liberty as the absence of restraint and constraint. Unfortunately, both these words have also come to be used for influences on human action that do not come from other men; and it is only too easy to pass from defining liberty as the absence of restraint to defining it as the "absence of obstacles to the realization of our desires" or even more generally "the absence of external impediment." That is equivalent to interpreting it as effective power to do whatever we want.

This reinterpretation of liberty is particularly ominious because it has penetrated deeply into the usage of some of the countries where, in fact, individual freedom is still largely preserved. In the United States it has come to be widely accepted as the foundation for the political philosophy dominant in "liberal" circles. Such recognized intellectual leaders of the "progressives" as J. R. Commons and John Dewey have spread an ideology in which "liberty is power, effective power to do specific things" and the "demand of liberty is the demand for power," while the absence of coercion is merely "the negative side of freedom" and "is to be prized only as a means to Freedom which is power."

[Sim]

Ok, I will take a step back by addressing what I think are the fundamental differences in our philosophies first, instead of replying to each of your points. I hope my explanations will enable you to see where I am coming from.

I think your conception of freedom is based on a severe ideological overestimation of the freedom of will. You suppose the individual needs to be free to chose, and the more freedom he or she enjoys, the more happy will he or she be. So you make freedom, as you understand it, absolute. And you suppose man is capable of choosing freely.

But your strong idealism -- the supposition of the power of thought -- ignores an important aspect: Materialism qualifies the freedom of will. Man is not as free as you suppose, but is shaped by his environment to a certain degree, and his behavior depends not on thought and ideology only, but on social factors. If that wasn't the case, the entire scientific disciplines of sociology and psychology would be void: These disciplines are dealing with the relations between social and psychological factors on one side, and human behavior on the other -- to a certain degree, it's predictable, and man is not much more than a machine that will yield a certain output, when a certain input is given.

Of course, setting this approach absolute would be just as wrong as setting idealism absolute: Even when psychology and sociology find statistic correlations, these correlations hardly ever reach 100% -- a certain leeway for idealism remains. Take this example: Psychology found that when someone was abused as a child, he is much more likely to commit abuse himself than people who haven't been abused (for example, there may be a correlation of 80% or so) -- anyway, there is a clear statistical correlation. Yet there are some people who have been abused as children, but still do not become abusive themselves -- they "break the circle" by using reason, they defeat their statistically proven psychological predisposition with the power of will. So idealism cannot be discarded entirely, much like materialism cannot be ignored (empirical findings on various fields are proof of that!).

But while you say "consciousness shapes reality", I would add that the opposite is just as much true, to a degree: Reality shapes consciousness. Human behavior is not simply the result of his mind, ideas and free choices, but there are many factors the individual does not control, which will shape his behavior. By loading the philosophical burden of an absolute freedom of will on people, and thus absolute responsibility for all their actions and behavior, you overextend many people, I believe. Social and psychological factors the individual cannot control, but suggest a certain behavior, qualify personal responsibility, to a degree.

That doesn't mean I set this aspect absolute, which would result in a total negation of personal responsibility in general -- but I do say, however, that the leeway of freedom of will is smaller than you assume. For example, when someone has a psychological problem resulting in severe pessimism, depression and emotional distress (post-traumatic stress disorder, for example) -- can you then blame this person, when he or she gets fired from his job because of low productivity, and will you condemn this person to suffer the consequences of his "choice" not to work? That would be the consequence of your conception of "freedom".

Can you really lay the full blame for their choices on people, when sociology and psychology have found that they have a predisposition to chose according to a certain scheme? I don't think so. Some may be strong enough to "break the cycle" with power of will, but many are simply too weak, and will behave as their predisposition suggests, and as scientists have predicted, at least with a certain statistical probability.

The conclusion I draw from that is that it is both possible (thanks to scientific findings in sociology and psychology) and normatively desirable to attempt altering social and psychological factors in order to yield a more favorable outcome for society. Just appealing to the alleged "freedom to choose" of the individual is too few, because this approach is a reduction of human nature to cognitive aspects, which even overextends man because it is too exacting, which ignores reality shaping man's consciousness.Man is not as free by nature, as you assume he is.

This is why I don't believe for creating a society worth living in, a fair society that offers fair chances for everybody to strife for happiness should stop at the point where freedom, as you understand it, is the goal -- no, we have to go beyond that. My normative claim is that we need emancipation. Emancipation of man from factors which keep him unfree, factors he cannot realistically be expected to overcome by mere freedom of will. "Freedom", as I understand it, cannot be achieved without emancipation.

Let me demonstrate this, and contrast it with your approach, with a fictive example:

Given sociologists have found a multitude of correlations which state that the social situation of low-income families works against the chances of their children to achieve, or climb the social ladder (at least statistically): The parents have to work in multiple jobs, resulting in less time to raise and educate their kids and giving them love, resulting in lower social and intellectual skills of the kids and possibly frustration leading to social integration problems and delinquency, resulting in a disadvantage of these kids at school, resulting bad grades. And this although other empirical findings suggest these kids are not any less intelligent than kids from middle or high income families!

Your approach would run out by claiming "they should just try harder". You expect these kids, deprived of love and proper raising by their parents, to reflect their situation, to map a solution and to finally "break the cycle" by mere power of will. You expect them to overcome psychological predispositions (such as tendency to anger and rudeness, for example, due to lack of loving care by their parents) and social factors (such as rejection by classmates and teachers, because of their behavior deficiencies) working against them, by mere power of will.

But I think you cannot realistically expect people to be strong enough of doing that. Sociologists may even tell you, exactly to the point, how many of them you can expect to be that strong: Be it 10% or 20% or whatever. Now I believe you are too strict on these people, you ask too much from them.

So why should a society, striving towards the goal of creating a maximum of freedom (as I understand it: there is no freedom without emancipation!) for everybody, not attempt to create a situation which will lower the factors of pressure on these structurally disadvantaged people? For example, by paying state support and/or welfare to low-income families, in order to enable them to spend more time raising their kids in love? (I'm not saying public support is necessarily the best way in order to achieve this goal; it depends on the details of the problem, the scientific findings and so on to determine the best possible course of action towards the goal of easing structural disadvantages).

You will likely bring up a good argument now: By doing so, we discourage people to overcome their own misery by power of will, but sponsor their inactivity instead. People won't have the incentive to even try. I agree that this is a problem. That is why I say a good middle ground has to be found: While equality of chances, by equalization of structural disadvantages, has to be guaranteed, incentives have to remain. Either extreme -- suggesting absolute freedom of will vs. assumption of absolute determination by social and psychological factors -- is equally bad. Because obviously, both approaches reflect reality to a certain degree, both momentums exist. That is why I reject both, a liberal/libertarian approach over-emphasizing freedom of will, and a materialistic-socialist approach ignoring idealism. Again, the "golden middle" will be the most appropriate answer to reality.


So much for the philosophical core of our discussion. I will now get more into the details, by trying to explain the implications of my normative claims on the political system.

(I'll post the continuation soon!)