Re: Laura/Margaret/Greg: A conflict in core beliefs

["Laura Walker" <LJW6626@worldnet.att.net>]

Edward,

All I can say to this is WELL SAID.  I believe that capitalism and socialism
can blend...

Laura
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Britton <fremin@geocities.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY <noprivacy@essential.org>
Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 2:12 PM
Subject: Laura/Margaret/Greg: A conflict in core beliefs


>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
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>