Laura/Margaret/Greg: A conflict in core beliefs

[Edward Britton <fremin@geocities.com>]

Laura, Greg, et al.

After reviewing your disparate arguments--and myriad others of similar ilk
on other lists--I am here to tell you all that you will never reach a
resolve regarding this most basic of "economic contentions."

This issue boils down to a basic conflict in the core belief systems of
both sides of the debate. Whereas "free market" partisans cannot accept
relative poverty in a socio-economic scheme as being caused by anything
other than the sloth of those who suffer from same, "collectivist"
partisans cannot fathom the "nobler" atributes of social Darwinism. Whereas
one group insists that such hybridized systems which blend socialism and
capitalism can work together for the good of all, the other will continue
to relentlessly tout the merits of rugged individualism. The two modes of
thought are, sadly, immiscible.

Edward   ><>


At 02:15 AM 2/14/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Greg,
>
>A few pertinent comments,as if it will matter...
>
>>   I suppose we could go round and round on this. But here is an example of
>what I mean when I accuse you of ad hominem:
>>
>>You wrote:  "For all your flag-waving, philosophical waxing about the
>"true" free market, you and your free market theory friends and proponents
>sure don't seem to give a whit about the individuals, or people as a whole,
>or an entire culture/society.  All you seem to want is more, at the expense
>of anybody who doesn't fit into your narrow view of a free market."
>>
>>  What you attempt to do is divert the issue from a discussion of facts or
>economic theory to whether or not I and my "free market friends" "seem to
>give a whit about the individuals, or people as a whole, or an entire
>culture/society." The attempt is to change the subject from issues to
>motives, from claims of fact or evidence to claims of what I "want" or don't
>want, and how "narrow" you think my "view" is. That is ad hominem, defined.
>
>Well, I don't know how many points of reference, facts, figures, etc., you
>require to meet your defined terms to not "change... the subject", but I
>have always provided relevant information, statistics, background and
>references to back up what I am saying about why your vision of a "pure"
>free market system hasn't worked, can't work, and won't work.  I'm a little
>disappointed, actually, that even one of your own free market theorist's
>words  -- Heilbroner -- can't remove or change that "welfare state"
>mentality of yours, that you put Margaret and Lynn and me into.  This is
>precisely what I mean by tired rhetoric.  It's like McCarthy calling
>everybody who was an actor, and their friends, communists.  It's word
>baiting, at its worst.  We do not live in a "welfare state", Greg.  This is
>a phrase, coined and put to absolutely outstanding use by the 'Great
>Communicator', Ronald Reagan.  It's a pointless, useless, wasted, time-worn,
>overused, simplistic cliche, which has been (and is) used to divert
>attention from some very REAL problems we face in this pluralistic society.
>>
>>  Now, whether or not I care about individuals is irrelevant to the
>discussion. Do YOU care about individuals, about "people as a whole" or
>about "an entire culture/society?" If so, what exactly do you DO for those
>individuals? Who are those "people as a whole?" What do you DO for the
>"entire culture?" If you replied, "None of your damned business, Greg," you
>would be RIGHT. It IS none of my damned business. It is irrelevant to the
>discussion.
>
>Well, we do disagree, Greg.  So long as there are people out there, like
>you, who disbelieve the figures showing persistent income gaps between rich
>and poor, the growing number of poverty-level single parent households --
>most of which are headed by women, the skills and knowledge gap that exists
>between middle class/upper class whites and lower class blacks, inner city
>residents, immigrants; the way that corporations (refer to Margaret's recent
>post on what banks are up to) are finding ever more sophisticated ways to
>discriminate and close out those who DON'T HAVE money, we are going to
>continue to have economic disparity.  No type of economy anywhere in the
>world will take care of this unless there are checks and balances in place.
>You've said it yourself: businesses/corporations are in it for themselves
>and for the money, the profits, the shareholders' -- absolutely nothing
>else.  You may believe that in your free market utopia, business actually
>will do the right thing -- honoring contracts; that businesses will be
>created to fill the niche for the not-so-wealthy consumers.  I worked for
>many years as a union organizer, a community organizer, as a policy
>development specialist, hoping and retaining optimism that once businesses
>and corporations found out that all people really want is to be treated
>fairly, respected, paid equitably for the work they do, to be able to
>provide for themselves and their families, they'd "do the right thing".  It
>has yet to happen.  It isn't because they're being strangled by regulation
>or laws or taxes or union contracts.  It's because most of them have taken
>their cues from the early Rockefellers (at the turn of the century) -- who
>couldn't stand competition with them in the newly-emerging oil business, so
>they burned, strong-armed and shoved small independent oil producers out of
>the business; they worked deals with their rich friends in Congress and
>elsewhere to buy the railroads and transportation into and out of the oil
>and coal refineries.  From this perspective, Greg, businesses haven't
>changed one whit from 100 years ago.  If anything, they've become more
>sophisticated in how they get what they want.  Now, it's through
>mega-mergers.  Do you really think these mergers are made as ways to
>separate the wheat from the chaff?  I don't think so.  They're made to
>ensure that THEY will have the stranglehold on consumers, workers and
>potential consumers well into the next century.  It's frightening to me.
>This isn't "free market" economics, Greg.  It's warfare against every
>freedom and ideal that our country's founders believed in.  It's the new
>form of an old system: Corporate Monarchism!
>>
> I would claim that you are a hypocrite because while you talk a nice line
>about caring for and about people, you don't really DO anything for them and
>you advocate public policy that works to their destruction. And of course,
>both claims would be equally valid. Which is to say, neither has any
>validity at all. It goes nowhere. It's irrelevant.
>
>Then, stop using the cliches, Greg.  "Welfare state", "public policy that
>works to their destruction",  "extensive government welfare net".  PLEASE
>either stop and think about the terms you're using and how tired and
>overused and ABUSED they are, and think a little bit about "welfare state".
>Good god, Greg.  If you want to get into a word match, fine.  What really
>gets me is that you don't even 'get' what I'm saying to you.  Do you see
>that your phrases, cliches, hackneyed expressions are tools of
>Libertarianism/Republicanism -- do you get that it's the "isms"????????
>I've never denied my Democratic and liberal beliefs.  But even I don't use
>terms like this.  Most of my friends and colleagues ARE working to solve the
>problems that exist in our society.  Yes, I do believe that public policy,
>union contracts/binding
>arbitration, federal/state/local legislation works to the advantage of the
>people, of individuals.  It's fascinating to me that, just when affirmative
>action programs and policies have started to make an impact, corporations,
>individuals, state legislatures have decided to abandon them.  This has
>nothing to do with corporations, schools or contractors being fettered by
>regulations, laws or rules.  They simply don't want to comply; they don't
>want anybody even suggesting how they make their workplaces fairer, less
>segregated, safer.  Hell, garment workers would still be locked in their
>factories, with no windows, no restroom breaks, and no safety factors, if
>legislation and unions hadn't come in and broken the lock the garment
>industry had on workers!
>
>Long live free enterprise, free market capitalism!  Hail to the almighty
>dollar!  And to hell with anybody -- including those who are making our
>$$ -- who gets in our way!
>
>>  Can we give each other the benefit of the doubt and believe each other
>when we each claim that we are interested in seeing the greatest amount of
>good for the greatest amount of people? We simply approach it from different
>directions.
>
>Sure, if you stop using Reagan simplistics...
>>
>>  You think that the best way to help people is to provide an extensive
>government welfare net to take care of people and relieve them of the
>uncomfortable responsibility of having to take care of themselves and take
>responsibility for their decisions (for example, having a baby as a single,
>teenage mother, which accounts for 75% of all people below the poverty
>line).
>
>You know, what Greg.  I've talked to probably hundreds of teenage mothers.
>95% of them would rather be working, in school, doing anyting but getting on
>the dole -- in spite of your narrow-minded view of them.  The problem is,
>Greg, people like you who buy into these myths help contribute to the
>problem, not solve it.  Why?  Because it's easier to buy into the myth.
>After all, just kick the most convenient group/class/individuals, right?
>This is what you're doing by continuing to strut them out as examples time
>and time again.  Here's a little factoid for you:  hope you can swallow this
>as easily as you can the above: the MAJORITY of people on "welfare" (your
>word that, I guess, is supposed to be a catch-all for governmental
>assistance of any kind...) are white!!!  Most of them aren't single parents.
>I did a piece on this about 1 year ago, so have the stats.
>>
>>  I claim that the best way to help people is to demand that they be
>>responsible for their decisions and their own lives. I claim that when
>you>do that, people develop support systems that are far more effective,
>efficient and compassionate than the government, centrally planned approach.
>I claim that demanding individual responsibility helps people grow and
>develop self-esteem.
>
>Right -- Greg Peisert pulled himself up by his own bootstaps and g-d it, so
>can everybody else!  You really are very narrow minded, Greg.  Perhaps your
>own struggle with poverty and hardship have blindsided you to this, but it
>is narrow-minded, extremely arrogant and self-serving.  I know you hate to
>hear this, Greg, especially since you're also an atheist, but: We are our
>brothers/sisters keepers.  We're not here, alone, to get what we can and,
>everybody for themselves.  It's not a dog-eat-dog world, Greg.  Money is not
>the end-all, be-all, do-all, solve-all of the world's ills.  We have a
>system that exists that must be used effectively and fairly to make sure
>that all individuals have the same opportunities for economic success; the
>same tools to get there; the same opportunities for education and knowledge
>to get there.  And as long as I'm breathing, I will continue to fight for
>this -- working within and without our democratic, pluralistic system.  I
>will use every means except violence and terrorism.  This includes pulic
>policy, federal/state/local legislation, enforcement of that legislation,
>laws.  I'm not ashamed of this.  I've already seen changes because of the
>YEARS I have devoted to helping others, through this process.  And, yes, you
>and I are going to continue to clash -- because we disagree on very basic
>levels, about very basic issues and ideals.
>
>Laura
>
>The rest of your commentary is, unfortunately, a rehash of the same old
>stuff -- hackneyed phrases and 'mantras' included, so I find no need to
>respond to the rest of your individual points.  After awhile, they all run
>together as the same old, same old, anyway...
>>
>>  You view that as a calloused, uncaring, selfish attitude. I view your
>>welfare state approach as destructive, immoral and completely
>>counterproductive to its idealistic goals. You would claim that I don't
>>care about individuals. I would claim that my approach is the very
>>definition of true compassion, and that when you allow people to escape the
>>responsibility of their decisions and actions, you do them terrible harm.
>>You destroy them. I would ask rhetorically, "Is THAT how you CARE for them?
>>By destroying them, robbing them of their self-esteem and rewarding
>>indigence?"
>>
>>  These are not "libertarian mantras" or even "liberal mantras." They are
>>fundamental issues about the role of government and society. You see the
>>role of government as ensuring outcomes. I see it as ensuring the right to
>>pursue whatever outcome you, as an individual, dream of. You may claim that
>>is an oversimplification, arguing that government cannot "ensure the
>>freedom to pursue a dream" unless it guarantees the means  to achieve that
>>dream. I claim that such reasoning is a logical fallacy and that it doesn't
>>work. It is irrational. You would claim that I see it as irrational because
>>I'm just blinded by my selfishness and my narrow view of the world. (That
>>is, you resort to a moralistic ad hominem argument.) You might claim, as
>>Margaret did, that when I demand responsibility of others as I do of
>>myself, I have the emotional maturity of a 3-year-old. I claim that if you
>>believe that, you are a victim of the welfare state. I claim this notion of
>>"positive rights" is irrational because it is based on a flawed assumption,
>>that of a "closed system." You can't have a closed system in a free market.
>>Of course, you would probably disagree with that, and that's okay. You
>>would claim that the system is "closed" for many. I would claim that the
>>system is "closed" for almost no one, even if they ARE big, ugly and black
>>(Margaret's description). You may disagree. Fine. If so, I'll be happy to
>>discuss that. But don't attribute to me "narrow thinking" or a "closed
>>mind" or claim that I "don't care about individuals" because I make what I
>>believe to be a perfectly rational and defendable claim about free market
>>economics and the importance of personal responsibility.
>>
>>  I thought that incident up in Minnesota with Jesse Ventura and those
>>liberal students was superb. He must be the only politician in the world
>>today who is willing to confront those people, head on, and say it like it
>>is. "You made a decision. It is not the government's job to protect you
>>from the consequences of your decision." Amen, and amen. None of this, "I
>>feel your pain [nearly as much as I would like to feel your breasts], and I
>>think the government should be compassionate and help you through this, for
>>the sake of you and your child, and for our society." What helps our
>>"society" is when people get the message that they are not helpless victims
>>and that they must be adults and take responsibility for their lives.
>>Anything less is a terrible disservice.
>>
>>>
>>> No, Greg, whenever you're unhappy with what's said -- whether it be from
>>> experts or experience -- you end up turning things on their head,
>>accusing
>>> people of "attacking".  I'm just pointing out the obvious -- information,
>>> statistics, reliable evidence (if you'd be more open to it) about market
>>> theories.
>>
>>  Where was your "information and statistics"? I missed it.
>>
>>> I have NEVER said, in any of my postings, that I don't like the
>>> "quantitative" view of things.  What I HAVE said, repeatedly, in numerous
>>> ways is that success, economic well-being, prosperity, are NOT simply
>>> quantitative matters -- nor have they, as I pointed out in today's post
>>--
>>> ever been.
>>
>>  I quite agree. Indeed, I think it is an economic fallacy to measure
>>economic well-being on the basis of income. The only proper way to measure
>>economic well being is on the basis of consumption, standard-of-living. I
>>do make a distinction between "economic" well being and social or emotional
>>or psychological well being. If one depends on money or earning power to be
>>happy, one's life is empty indeed. But again, that is a different issue, at
>>least than the one I was discussing.
>>
>>> I also added that the fact that qualitative factors (e.g.,
>>> "people", touchy-feely aspects) that USED TO be included in economic
>>> models -- as far back as Adam Smith's time, are no longer included, and
>>pose
>>> a serious threat to long-term economic stability.  If Heilbroner is
>>saying
>>> this (and there have been others beside him who are questioning and have
>>> questioned the elimination of "human" factors into the economic
>>> equations) -- a man who is, by all regards, a respected free-market
>>> theorist, something ain't right!
>>
>>  You claim that Heilbroner is respected as a free-market theorist. It
>>would not appear that anyone who really understands a free market would
>>view him as a free-market theorist. According to one reviewer (Booklist):
>>
>>"From the point where psychology and daily life, philosophy and commerce
>>meet, Heilbroner offends left and right alike by hazarding only one
>>prediction: that the success of U.S. capitalism in the next century will
>>'hinge on the capacity to perceive the public sector . . . in terms of an
>>indispensable source of strength for a private economy, not as a wasteful
>>drag on it.'"
>>
>>  We are to perceive government as "an indispensable source of strength for
>>a private economy"?? Oooookaaay. Those are NOT the words of a "free market
>>theorist." They are the words of a collectivist.
>>
>>>
>>> Quality of life matters JUST AS MUCH, if not more than QUANTITY OF LIFE,
>>> Greg.
>>
>>  I could not agree more. Indeed, I would state it a bit differently, since
>>"quantity of life" could be understood to mean number of years, rather than
>>as I think you intended it, number of dollars. I would say that quality of
>>life matters MORE than quantity of life in years or quantity of stuff or
>>money one accumulates. I get a kick out of the image I seem to have on this
>>list as somebody who has a lot of money. Hah! Somehow I faked you all out.
>>I believe that money is to be enjoyed and spent...recirculated into the
>>economy. So, I spend too much, and I don't save "enough." But I thoroughly
>>enjoy my family and doing things together. (Not that any of this is
>>relevant. It's not.) But you see, we are in complete agreement on this
>>point. It is the quality of life, of one's relationships, of one's
>>loyalties and friendships, that is important to happiness.
>>
>>  The number of dollars one makes is quite independent of happiness.
>>Witness all the miserable rich people. It is interesting how, because I
>>believe in a different approach to helping society and people enjoy a
>>higher quality of life, you persist in impugning my motives. It is as if
>>one who believes in individual responsibility, liberty in every respect
>>(personal, economic, social...indeed I believe that liberty is a "whole"
>>and that if you take it away in one area, you take it away in all areas),
>>as one who believes in the "wisdom of the marketplace" and who deeply
>>distrusts the "stupidity of government" you thereby assume that I am
>>selfish, that I think only of money, that I measure everything in terms of
>>dollars, and that I don't give a whit about people. Amazing. Whatever would
>>lead you to believe such nonsense?
>>
>>
>>> I really thought that as a society, we'd evolved to the point of
>>> recognizing and accepting that NOT EVERYBODY prospers or becomes
>>successful
>>> or shares in the fruit of our economic wealth; and any economic model
>>that
>>> does not recognize the qualitative, "touchy-feely" aspects of
>>individuals'
>>> lives cannot in any way create a long-term stable economic environment.
>>
>>  I guess this is one of the points where you honestly lose me. I don't
>>think that "economic models" create anything. They try to describe what is.
>>I think we do recognize that one should not even think of "success" in
>>terms of dollars, albeit many in our society do. "Success" in life means,
>>to me, pursuing one's dreams, no matter what they be, and entirely
>>independent of income. Success means being happy in the _process_ of life,
>>for it is a process, not an end. I agree that it also has to do with being
>>compassionate, caring, with values and with character, with integrity and
>>love for one's family and friends. I believe that to some extent, everyone
>>shares in the fruits of economic prosperity, and those who do, do so to
>>differing degrees. The poor in the U.S. share in our prosperity. They do
>>far better than the poor elsewhere in the world. My only claim is that more
>>people are able to do better in a free market with limited government
>>intervention than are able to do it under any other scheme that has ever
>>been devised.
>>
>>>  I
>>> advise you to go back and re-read "The Worldly Philosophers", as I HAVE
>>> done.
>>
>>  Well, I never read "The Worldly Philosophers," but I took a look at it
>>and read some of the reviews. It looks very good! So, I ordered it tonight,
>>and I'll read it. Thank you for the suggestion Laura. (I mean that...I
>>appreciate it, in spite of my being crippled by my "narrow view" of the
>>world. ;-))
>>
>>>
>>> So, in response to your request to stop the "ad hominem" attacks, I would
>>> say this: don't bait people with rhetorical symbolism, if you don't want
>>to
>>> get intelligent responses back.  Then, after somebody HAS responded and
>>> stuck their neck out, twist, turn, rephrase, or play word games to make
>>it
>>> appear that this wasn't REALLY what you said!
>>
>>  I'm not playing games, and I'm not trying to twist what you say. I really
>>do think that we come at things from such a radically different perspective
>>that we are most likely both unable at times to understand what the other
>>means. I think I misunderstand your words, and I think you misunderstand
>>mine. Communication among those who share a common philosophical base is
>>very difficult and prone to misunderstanding. Communication between those
>>who have a very different philosophical base, as we seem to have, is even
>>more difficult. I'm really not trying to bait you with "rhetorical
>>symbolism". I think we just tend to see things in very different ways.
>>
>>>
>>> Re: your 'challenge': I have a life other than this list, which is why I
>>> haven't been posting comments recently.  I can't or won't agree to a
>>> deadline unless I know I can meet it.  Frankly, right now, I'm involved
>>in
>>> several other projects that require most of my time and energy.  As
>>always,
>>> I am intrigued with your suggested reading material and will do my level
>>> best to get to it in the next month so that I can respond.
>>
>>  Well, okay. I understand. I'm swamped myself. But, if you're like me,
>>you're always pretty backed up with projects and stuff to do. I must admit,
>>I _am_ a bit disappointed. I was hoping we could really do that...take a
>>book from the other's perspective, carefully read it, and write a
>>thoughtful review. It would be interesting. Maybe we could do it if we
>>relaxed the deadline, and say we will do it by around the first of June?
>>
>>>
>>> With re: your comments about my NOT having replied to the fair tax or
>>social
>>> security reform issues, refer to the above.  When I am able to spare a
>>> portion of my week and/or weekend, I will indeed get back to these
>>issues,
>>> although I think I already responded to the taxation question by saying I
>>> believed in a form of a flat tax system, essentially one that would also
>>tax
>>> corporations and the upper 1/3 income brackets fairly, and eliminate the
>>> loopholes and tax credits on some items.  If this is not a sufficient
>>> response for you, oh well...
>>
>>  Actually, I guess it is Margaret who challenged the FairTax ideas but
>>refused to address the specifics. I would support a flat tax. The problem
>>comes in with corporations. If you try to tax them on their profits, they
>>can work the books around to minimize their profits. That's why I like some
>>kind of sales tax, so that the government doesn't have to get involved, and
>>maintain a huge bureaucracy to support that involvement in corporate
>>accountancy.
>>
>>  Take care, and thanks for taking the time to write. I spend way too much
>>time at this. I wonder why I do it. But these issues are important to me,
>>and frankly, this list is the best one I've seen in terms of getting
>>challenged by some thoughtful, articulate people (even if you do
>>occasionally resort to ad hominem! ;-)).
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>  -- Greg
>>
>
>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
  "From the rage of today's downtrodden comes the revenge of tomorrow's
                    revolutionary force." Edward Britton   ><>
           http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5285/connector1.html
    Talk to the planet: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Reality_Pump2
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>