Dear Free Trade activists - thank you putting America at risk of foreign manipulation

[Roxanne Appleby]

"Originally Posted by ccnyman: Yes, because laissez-faire economics necessitates people freely enter into transactions. It requires a democratic government impervious to pressure form interest groups plus a willingness for people to be responsible for their actions. Both require a great deal of courage and commitment."

You're describing a perfect world. That ain't gonna happen as long as we're human beings. Courage and commitment don't even come close to what's needed here.

Here's what mystifies me about people who have such huge faith in the efficacy of government: It is run by human beings subject to all the follies and weaknesses that they lovingly described when manifested in the private sector. The difference is, they have possession of an instrument with the power of coercion. Private institutions can't kill you, take your freedom or your property; government can. Yes, powerful private interests sometimes get the government to do those things on their behalf. (Can you spell "Kelo?") But note - it's the government that performs the taking.

And yet, the faith in this institution seems bottomless. I think it's because people look to it as a source of hope. There looking in the wrong place, though, because the the hallmark of government is not hope, but dishonesty, imcompetence and disappointment. (Some specific examples here. The reason isn't because the people involved are necessarily bad or dishonest, but the very structure of the thing. Specifically, two characteristics of it, I think: Bureaucracy and the mutually conflicting policies that are the inevitable outcome of a political process.

Government is at root bureaucracy (backed by coercion.) Bureaucracies are capable of performing routine, repetitive functions that can be laid out in a legal code or manual. Max Weber described one of them (the legal system) as "a vending machine into which the pleadings are inserted together with the fee and which then disgorges the judgment together with the reasons mechanically derived from the Code."

But we have asked bureaucracies to do much, much more, something they are inherently incapable of because it's impossible to break down into routines: We've asked them to solve social problems and meet complex human needs.

And that points to the second reason looking to government as a source for hope guarantees disappointment. The laws that give bureaucracies those impossible missions are themselves filled with contradictions that sabotage the effort from the very start. That's because those laws are created in a political process that balances demands and limits from many different directions. The result is called a "compromise," and it means a program that can't work.

An example those here will appreciate: Yes, we provide welfare, but in amounts small enough to guarantee that no recipient will get really ahead. We insert a trap door - if you make more than X amount the welfare stops. Then we try to counter all these perverse incentives by imposing an intrusive bureaucracy and regulations over these people's lives. (BTW, if you’re response is, “Yeah well we should raise the benefits” – fine. Double them. Nothing fundamental changes, and you create a bunch of new problems. The inherent contradictions make all efforts to "make it work" circle-squaring, baloon-squeezing exercises.)

The bottom line is, we have learned in the past century that government is incompetent, helpless, at dealing with complex human needs. Only with a naive statist faith - yes faith as in belief in face of contrary evidence - can one still believe that the solution is to tinker with the welfare state in all the ways that candidates on all sides propose.

 

[gauchecritic]

Very very long post.

Can we look at the word 'government' for a second? I think by doing so we may be able to pin down just exactly where freedom is curtailed by Government and so find some kind of bargaining point between 'absolute freedom' and 'Socialist slavery'.

In a simple, one horse town, there is a sheriff, a doctor, a smith, a farmer, a bartender and a general store keeper. (I have no idea what the rest of the population are doing for jobs, possibly cowboys or farmworkers or such.)

Now Sheriff is an elected office, by consent of the people. Simple town, simple people.

Oh, and no school Marm. The kids either follow their daddy's footsteps or they git.

All the other jobs are open to anyone with the wherewithal to start up. So at this point we've probably invented banking. (In a James Stewart voice: Aa-aa-I don't have your money, Joe has your money in his new hotel, and Harry? Charley has your money in his new homestead)
Now we've introduced external money, because even though the supply is limited by the size of the town, there are exports and fancy French imports of real Champagne.

The Smith, makes shoes for the one horse. He charges whatever price he likes. Another smith comes to town and we get a bit of competition, a price war. Free trade. Then the horse owner finds that the second smith's horse shoes are inferior quality. He goes back to the original smith and the original smith's prices rise accordingly. Not so much that the owner will go back to the other smith and pay more often for inferior quality but still pay no more overall, but enough to make a better profit. The other smith either moves out of town or diversifies into door hinges, wagon wheels rims etc.

Simple Adamsian, Keynesian, anybodian economics. No government. Absolute freedom of (limited or Hobson's) choice. And supply and demand reigns supreme.

The same situation applies to the bartender, storekeeper and farmer. (although the farmer is in a slightly different situation given land supply etc).

So far, no government. Everyone has perfect freedom. They can chop down the nearest trees, build their homes, go hunting, shooting and fishing for their food etc, etc. No government. No Government. Perfectly laissez faire economy. In its own economic vacuum.

Now we come to the doctor. He didn't learn his doctoring at some fancy high faluting university. No, he learned doctoring at his pappy's feet and through the soles of his shoes. He's still learning. Someone comes to him with a fever, he found that a herb that grows close by will often cool a fever. He even knows that he doesn't always have to saw off a splintered leg if the veins are all intact.

Then along comes his competition. With his fancy book-learning, his anti-pyrexic concoctions his splints and his traction. And everybody in town soon learns that if the old Doc don't know then the new Doc definitely has a cure.

Being smart people the two doctors don't engage in a price war, they join forces. Their prices reflect the patient's ability to pay, their costs and a small profit. After a while the home remedies are abandoned (quite a high mortality rate in home remedies) and the doctors need to build a hospital.

So no altruism there, just a requirement to make a living wage and a little honest profit. OK Roxleby? MiAmico?

They borrow a little from the bank and the freedom loving townsfolk realise what a boon the hospital will be so they get together and have a good ole 'barn-raising'.
Still no government, just good old fashioned co-operation, each town person working towards their individual best interests.

(Little bit of socialism there, self-interest promoting the good of society.)

The hospital grows. Now they need nurses. More doctors. Midwives, cleaners, kitchen staff, porters, pharmacists et al. The original Doctors don't have all that much time for doctoring, they're busy counting costs, hiring and firing, collecting debts, commissioning ante and post natal clinics and geriatric wards and it's all getting a bit too much, so they promote some medical staff to positions of administration.

Now the original doctors find themselves guiding the whole hospital. Overseeing the complete works. In effect - governing.

First form of any kind of government so far. Any objections? No taxes paid (unless you count the barn raising as payment in kind) No restrictions on trade (except you have to pay when you visit the doctor) So, no objections to company government.

These towns are spread across the vast expanses of the good ole US of A.

Now, all these towns are self sufficient. They exist as economic microcosms. But they trade, obviously, with other towns. Even with towns in other countries. (which is where they get their real French Champagne and bright shiny diamonds)

Now some bright spark decides that this trade would be quicker and easier if we had roads. So he builds roads. He charges the townsfolk money for using the roads. The townsfolk see the advantage of the roads and pay their tolls instead of riding up and down rutted cart tracks. So now we got coms. Now the townsfolk of 'Cowtown' can trade their beef with the folk of sheepsville. Pre-slaughtered and jointed animals for ease of transport. No more stupid cattle drives or meadow destroying sheep where their not wanted.

Demanded and supplied communications. No Government interference. All profit driven enterprises.

No one is going to come along and build roads beside other roads and charge less for using them. The townsfolk already have a road out. The niche is filled.

OK. but now the savages and banditos have begun attacking and plundering the wagons. We need some safety here. The road builder only provides the road, there's no more security on the rutted tracks than on the road way so it's not his responsibility.

A small militia is what's required. (and you don't have to bunk them in your house as guaranteed by the third amendment. oops, sorry, no government, no constitution.) So each town forms a militia to protect the roads. Wait a minute, what if these militias are the very people that were attacking the traffic in the first place? Looks like someone's invented the protection racket.

So we have a national, or statewide 'militia' responsible for the safety of the roads. (or each town had a militia paid for by each individual and they all got bought up by larger militias) So if you're going to use the road, then you have to pay the toll to the road maker and pay a fee to the militia. This sounds an awful lot like a tax to me. Ah, but it's the companies that are paying it. So individuals have the relative freedom of not being protected by the militias in their travels.

But that's law enforcement. Right. Law enforcement. All the people of each town decide what the laws are. No killing. No robbery. All the usual stuff.

Let's go back to Cowtown and Sheepsville. In Cowtown it isn't illegal to kill sheep found wondering around. Cowtown is built on the cow industry. Sheep eat pastureland by pulling grass up by the roots, cows crop. So sheep are regarded as vermin. But you try killing even a lamb in Sheepsville and they'll hang you. (which is why it's better to steal sheep rather than lambs)

Now all anyone wants in life is a bit of consistency. The number of Cowtowners on death row in Sheepsville prison is getting ridiculous. So we could all bunch together and meet in one of those market towns that don't seem to produce anything at all and live by simply being a place to sell things, and make some common laws.

Now it's illegal to kill sheep anywhere. Someone goes round telling all the sheriffs this and they uphold it as a law. Who is this someone? This someone that goes round telling everyone what the laws are. Maybe making up some of the laws himself after noting that some places have quite opposite laws to others. Why he's judge. Now we have a judiciary.

Well that's not government. Judiciary and Government are entirely separate entities. Alright then, we'll leave out the semantic arguements. But yo umay have noticed that the townsfolk of the different places are acting in a socially responsible way. They are maintaining social morals by agreement.

OK. We have industry, we have communications, we have individuals and we have society. Everything required to be able to predict economics.

For example: Irontown has a mining disaster and the supply of steel is shortened. The smith can't make as many shoes so the price goes up. A flood makes the road between Cowtown and Sheepsville impassable. Both beef and lamb prices soar. You get the picture. Simple economics.

Everybody goes about their business and free trade flourishes. No government. (Except the guys at the hospital. And the Judges. And the militias)

Now if you haven't actually inferred what has happened because my illustrations didn't actually say it let me make this clear.

Each occurrence of economics has led and been illustrated by and to the next. One example has laid down the pattern for each successive example. The smiths price war led to the doctors' co-operation (you will note I didn't say monopoly) The hierarchy of the hospitals apply equally to the road guy's company. The sheriff led to the militias and ultimately to the same hierarchy due to size. and etc.

So the hospital, the roads, trade and law have all naturally escalated into governing bodies. The simple co-operation required by each individual town and each individual within those towns has led to common consent.

Now please, MiAmico, for the love of god, tell me that you understand that this collection of townships is effectively being 'governed' by consensus.

If you can do that then the tiny, tiny leap, not even a leap just a small hop, to actual government is inevitable, is in fact natural and that the complexity of actual society is unattainable without government whether formal or ad hoc. It's just easier and more useful to have government than not.

And Roxleby. These townships fit your brand of supply and demand equably. As a matter of fact are what your Adams and your Keynes base their economics on. But they do not and cannot be applied to what the economic world has become. Supply and demand do fit townships, but they can't be applied to the stock exchange or globalism in any meaningful way. Monetarism is a whole nother animal and is unfortunately now how the world turns.

Classical economics applies to a classical world and though he would be loath to admit it MiAmico's imagined freedom from government is only applicable there too.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Some people call me a cynic because I do not share the statist faith that government can deal with complex human needs. Some look down on me because they assume this must mean I don't care if complex needs are not dealt with.

Consider for a moment that I care just as much as you. If that is the case, ask yourself what must be going through my head. If I care just as much as you then I wouldn't be able to just shrug and turn my back at the sight of complex human needs not being dealt with, would I? So I must have some alternative in mind.

I do. It's called civil society. It's a philosophical discussion that's much bigger than this thread. Many will say that I am moved by a faith that has no more foundation in reality than the faith in the ability of government to deal with complex human needs. That's fine, and I'll never convince most here to join my “faith.” But consider one more thing: There is a vast amount of evidence disproving the statist faith, and still you hold it, because you do care about those unmet needs, and yet can't imagine any other way to meet them on such a massive scale. But there's one thing that can be said for my "faith": It's never been tried in an affluent post-industrial society, so I'm not holding it in spite of evidence that it doesn’t work.

Consider, then, the possibility that I'm the very opposite of a cynic. I'm someone who refuses to hold onto a broken faith, and so picks up a hopeful new one.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Can we look at the word 'government' for a second? I think by doing so we may be able to pin down just exactly where freedom is curtailed by Government and so find some kind of bargaining point between 'absolute freedom' and 'Socialist slavery'. . .

Good essay, Gauche. (BTW, my previous two posts were cross-posted with this one - our discussion seems to have arrived at the point where great minds return to first principles. ) (Your essay would be better with half as many words, though, but I understand that would take twice as long to write.)

A couple points. You start using the word "government" way too early, applying it to when the hospital grows and requires complex admin. But it's not government, because it does not exist through coercion. What you have described is a charitable institution of civil society. Such things make everyone involved feel good because, lacking the power to coerce, they exist only through voluntary cooperation. The day we all took off work for the "barn raising" was a joyous one, even though we lost a day of work. If instead you'd sent out men with guns to force all of us to help or contribute, we wouldn't have felt so good about it. Also, the hospital wouldn't perform as well, and that admin would turn into topheavy bureaucracy, because it could and human nature would push it that way, enabled by the fact that it wouldn't have to please and convince us, just send out more men with guns.

You didn't describe government until you came to the part about posses and protection rackets. And there, you made the case of limited government, which I believe is a useful thing, and is why I'm not an anarchist.

Government is coercion. Yes "coercion" is a loaded term, but let's not be squeamish. When we are honest about the nature of the thing but determine nevertheless that a little bit of is useful - limited government - not hiding it in pretty rhetoric may help keep the thing within safe limits.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

 

[gauchecritic]

Administration is government.

If you administer drugs you are governing their supply. 'Take two every four hours"

Every single aspect of society is governed. From families to drinks with friends.

That government may change hands when the kids move and form their own or when someone else leads the conversation but they are still governed.

MiAmico seem to be under the impression two people meeting holds no compromise on either end, that neither will govern any action by the other.

At least you admit of limited government and co-operation, your worry is about scale. But that still allows of equally bureaucratic, private enterprise behaving purely in its own self interest. How is that better?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Administration is government.

If you administer drugs you are governing their supply. 'Take two every four hours"

Every single aspect of society is governed. From families to drinks with friends.

That government may change hands when the kids move and form their own or when someone else leads the conversation but they are still governed.

MiAmico seem to be under the impression two people meeting holds no compromise on either end, that neither will govern any action by the other.

At least you admit of limited government and co-operation, your worry is about scale. But that still allows of equally bureaucratic, private enterprise behaving purely in its own self interest. How is that better?

Alright, let's get our definitions straight. The proper term for what you are describing with your "every single aspect of society is governed" is institutions, broadly defined. You are correct - man is an institution making animal. These are the social extension of the habits we adopt in our personal lives. We adopt some unconsiously (spontaneous order) and some by explicit choice and agreement, and once adopted we don't have to think much about them, which part of what makes them useful - they free us to think about other things. They also provide predictability and safety to our interactions with others. But they are not government until they acquire the power to legally coerce. At that point we better think very hard about them - but most people don't. (Thus the casual, "There oughta be a law . . .")

So, you prescribing that I take two every four hours is not you forcing me to take two. I may be an idiot not to, but it's my choice. When you hold a gun to my head and say, "Take two!", have institutions of coercion that sanction and empower your actions, and will punish me if I resist, that is government. Whether the government is established though democratic processes or through most powerful warlord wins, the actual actions it then performs are the same. In this instance, forcing me to take two.

It's in the definition of "force" where we start talking past each other. Those on the left use it to describe things like having to work to earn a living - you are forced to work. On the other side are those like me who distinguish between existential realities like that and the use of coercion by other human beings. I believe that there are are implications and consequences associated the latter that are profoundly different from the physical realities "forced" by our nature as material beings.

 

[gauchecritic]

The proper term for you are describing with your "every single aspect of society is governed" is institutions, broadly defined. You are correct - man is an institution building animal. These are the social extension of the habits we adopt in our personal lives. We adopt some unconsiously and some by choice and agreement, and once adopted we don't have to think much about them, which is what makes them useful - they free us to think about other things. But they are not government until they acquire the power to legally coerce. At that point we better think very hard about them - but most people don't. (Thus the casual, "There oughta be a law . . .")

And legal (rules assented by the majority) is coercion by society. You are coerced by society to restrain your activities to fit that society. Whether there is a body that exists to enforce them is neither here nor there. You are still morally bound by the society which you join. You consent (compromise) to be governed by that concensus.

MiAmico, chose by his actions, to pick being a talk jock in order to make a living to earn money to buy his bread by the coercion of the society of that time which asked that there be talk jocks. I assume that he didn't start by just talking on the street corners where people gave him money to listen so that he could build his own radio station (after inventing radio) and go on the airwaves. The airwaves that are regulated by the CFC or ARP or whoever (a governing body). He was coerced by society to fit in how he could.

Now you're just quibbling over words. And it all boils down to taxation. You don't want a necessary representative body of people to be funded by you. You want them to do a full time job of their own free will, with no remuneration, to keep society in order but failing that are quite willing to pay private companies more money to provide services that you admit are necessary for society with no control, no limits and no moral or ethical requirements than profit for those 65% of society that can pay for them.

In other words; you want to your cake. And everyone else can just eat theirs.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Oh, and no school Marm.

It was a long post Gauch, with many valid points ..... but, um .......... it needed a school marm. Other than that it was ok.

JMO

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And legal (rules assented by the majority) is coercion by society. You are coerced by society to restrain your activities to fit that society. Whether there is a body that exists to enforce them is neither here nor there. You are still morally bound by the society which you join. You consent (compromise) to be governed by that concensus.

MiAmico, chose by his actions, to pick being a talk jock in order to make a living to earn money to buy his bread by the coercion of the society of that time which asked that there be talk jocks. I assume that he didn't start by just talking on the street corners where people gave him money to listen so that he could build his own radio station (after inventing radio) and go on the airwaves. The airwaves that are regulated by the CFC or ARP or whoever (a governing body). He was coerced by society to fit in how he could.

Now you're just quibbling over words. And it all boils down to taxation. You don't want a necessary representative body of people to be funded by you. You want them to do a full time job of their own free will, with no remuneration, to keep society in order but failing that are quite willing to pay private companies more money to provide services that you admit are necessary for society with no control, no limits and no moral or ethical requirements than profit for those 65% of society that can pay for them. In other words; you want to your cake. And everyone else can just eat theirs.

This is an interesting and worthwhile discussion. Your last paragraph is out of order, however - I already said I am a supporter of limited government. What you describe there is an anarchist.

There are social and economic institutions that are purely voluntary. On the economic side, no one coerces ami to be a radio jock, coerces his station to pay him for it, or coerces an audience to listen. These actions are all purely voluntary - no force is involved. If they choose to not participate in the exchange none of the parties will be punished, either by imposing fines or imprisonment.

As I said before, we start talking past each other at the definition of "force." I say Ami won't be punished if he chooses to sing on the radio instead of talk politics - no fine or prison. He will lose his job - no more pay check. The first takes something away that belongs to him - his money or his freedom. The second stops giving something that does not belong to him - payment for performing a specific service he has not performed per a mutual voluntary prior agreement. Your side tends to call that "force." I do not. You may insist it's a distinction without a difference. I would point to history as replete with examples of how it makes a great deal of difference indeed.

It requires a government for any of those conditions at Ami's radio station to be enforced by genuine coercion. Said government might force the station to hire ami, for example, or prohibit it from firing him if no one listens. It might impose a so-called "fairness doctrine," requiring the station to hire Gauche for three hours if it wants to broadcast Ami for three hours.

Finally, an example of a voluntary social institution is the ethic of civility that prevails here on AH. No means of coercion exists to enforce this, and it is purely the product of spontaneous order. There are two individuals who refuse to honor this, but they are not punished, because nothing that belongs to them is taken away. Esteem in the eyes of their fellows may not be granted, but that is not something which belongs to them. On a different web site they might be kicked off, but that is not coercion either, because the web site does not belong to them either, and so they have no 'right' to post on it.

I gotta go run errands now.

 

[amicus]

I was up late last evening, outside in bare feet in chilly weather, getting a crick in my neck gazing up, hoping to see a meteor shower.

Woke earlier than usual for an undetermined reason, watching NASA explain how the heat shield on Endeavor was 'gouged' yet again, and what actions, if any, are required.

Had a dozen or so forum responses on several threads, some spam and three cups of coffee before I stumbled on Gauche's epic post.

I think I need to let it simmer and bubble for a while, digest it, perhaps, mull it over in hopes of finding an avenue of meaningful response.

But, I read it again, and Roxanne's response and had an initial thought.

You carefully and tediously constructed your scenario, it seems to be, to present the concept of the inevitability of 'government'. That is fine, and fully acceptable and even admirable.

I am attempting somewhat the same thing in my six volume saga of early Native American's in the far distant past. I mean by that to communicate to you that I comprehend the difficulty in condensing the evolution of a social gathering to a manageable brief dissertation.

I too, conclude that 'government' is inevitable and a natural evolution within a social group.

However, I have the luxury of 'fiction' in my novel and no restraints in terms of brevity to describe the process. I also have the entire history of economics and sociology to draw upon and many fiction writer's who have chosen to explore the same area.

Jean Auel and her description of Clan life among the Neanderthal's is one example, "Qwest for Fire", in another, more humorous vein, is a different vision of early man, as is "Caveman", as yet another example.

I will return and read your offering again, Gauche, and see how it parses several more times, I think, before I address it specifically. As I consider what I read, two things come to mind. That of the innate and universal nature of all men, for one, that provides a framework for social evolution. And secondly, your assertion, I think, that with increasing complexity, coercion becomes essential. I need to reread that and pay closer attention to your wording.

Toodles for now...


Miamico....

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Here's what mystifies me about people who have such huge faith in the efficacy of government: It is run by human beings

And therein lies the mistake in your long, long post about the evils of Government.

Corporations are also run by human beings, and are equally incapable of doing things right.

And when the Government isn't around to handle things, guess what? Corporations tend to bring hired guns into the equation when the Government isn't keeping them under control. Which completely blows the "Government has the additional power of force" argument out of the water. Corporations will kill you and your family for standing in their way, when there's no law enforcement to keep them in check.

Corporations will also do far worse than hunt you down and kill you: even with Government watching over them, they'll poison your water and air, and ruin your crops. Go read up on Centralia, PA or Love Canal, or read up about Erin Brockovich. Tell me something. Which is worse? Government guns, or watching your kid die from cancer because of corporate-poisoned drinking water?

My faith in Government is not any more boundless than your faith in private industry.

 

[WRJames]

Well, Roxsanne more or less dared the rest of us to say something in this thread -- so here is my opinion on a few of the topics brought up so far.

1. Globablization is a good thing, even though it is going to be painful in the short run. There is no way the "first world" is going to be stable as an island of prosperity in a sea of misery. The only way to have a future for us is to have a future for all. Attempts to build a wall around the country and ignore the rest of the world are misguided, and deeply immoral.

2. That being said, the concerns about rogue governments creating environmental catastrophe are quite justified. If we are going to have a global economy, we also need to have a more effective global government -- which means this country needs to stop sabotaging the UN. Right now the US is the biggest obstacle to global progress on the environment and human rights. We should be ashamed of what our government has been up to.

3. The notion that government evolved in some rational way just does not stand up to any sort of historical analysis. Governmental units of some sort have been in place since the Stone Age -- and usually tribes and city states were united by conquest, not by a realization of common interest. Roads were built to move armies, not initially to promote trade. But -- even the most barbaric the conquerors -- the Mongols for example -- developed quickly into sophisticated rulers of advanced civilizations.

 

[ccnyman]

. . .And Roxleby. These townships fit your brand of supply and demand equably. As a matter of fact are what your Adams and your Keynes base their economics on. But they do not and cannot be applied to what the economic world has become. Supply and demand do fit townships, but they can't be applied to the stock exchange or globalism in any meaningful way. Monetarism is a whole nother animal and is unfortunately now how the world turns.

Classical economics applies to a classical world and though he would be loath to admit it MiAmico's imagined freedom from government is only applicable there too.

But the stock exchange is an example of the law of supply and demand operating. Traders, such as on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, come with orders to buy or to sell a certain stock. They go to a specialist in the stock and place their orders. The price of the stock rises if there are not enough sellers and falls if there are not enough buyers.

Or examine medical care. Government intrusion into the health care system so that medical care is more available leads to an increase in demand. Without a concomitant increase in supply, the price of medical care would be predicted to rise and this has been the case.

On a more general note, your essay, Gauche, seems to be based on an economic interpretation of history and social institutions. I don't believe governments arose from economic forces, but from political ones - the lust for power, the desire to rule, then the need to restrain that. Eventually, it was recognized that the role of government was to protect the rights of individuals. Or as said far more eloquently than I ever could:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . .

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Vote Ron P-to-the-Azzle-U-to-the-Lizzle.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Well, Roxsanne more or less dared the rest of us to say something in this thread -- so here is my opinion on a few of the topics brought up so far.

1. Globablization is a good thing, even though it is going to be painful in the short run. There is no way the "first world" is going to be stable as an island of prosperity in a sea of misery. The only way to have a future for us is to have a future for all. Attempts to build a wall around the country and ignore the rest of the world are misguided, and deeply immoral.

Actually, I'm in favor of space travel, so we can establish colonies in space so that we can leave the barbarians to run Earth and quarantine the planet so their despots, polluted cities, child labor, prison labor, and plagues of deadly factories and defective products, never leave this planet.

Immoral? Maybe. Necessary to preserve humanity and to prevent us from being dragged back down to barbarism? Absolutely.

2. That being said, the concerns about rogue governments creating environmental catastrophe are quite justified. If we are going to have a global economy, we also need to have a more effective global government -- which means this country needs to stop sabotaging the UN. Right now the US is the biggest obstacle to global progress on the environment and human rights. We should be ashamed of what our government has been up to.

Are you talking about a one-world Government?

3. The notion that government evolved in some rational way just does not stand up to any sort of historical analysis. Governmental units of some sort have been in place since the Stone Age -- and usually tribes and city states were united by conquest, not by a realization of common interest. Roads were built to move armies, not initially to promote trade. But -- even the most barbaric the conquerors -- the Mongols for example -- developed quickly into sophisticated rulers of advanced civilizations.

But to hold those Governments together, they had to serve the common interest - or else there would be even more rebellions than they already had - too many to keep under control.

Rome finally learned the lesson about stopping rebellions: bread and circuses to breed apathy, and the Legions to handle the remainder.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And therein lies the mistake in your long, long post about the evils of Government.

Corporations are also run by human beings, and are equally incapable of doing things right.

And when the Government isn't around to handle things, guess what? Corporations tend to bring hired guns into the equation when the Government isn't keeping them under control. Which completely blows the "Government has the additional power of force" argument out of the water. Corporations will kill you and your family for standing in their way, when there's no law enforcement to keep them in check.

Corporations will also do far worse than hunt you down and kill you: even with Government watching over them, they'll poison your water and air, and ruin your crops.

Which is why I believe in limited government.

Go wiki "classical liberal," LT. It's actually found in the "liberal" article. You are so in the habit of debating Rush Limbaugh and "conservatives" that you don't recognize that you're dealing with something very different when you engage with me.

 

[Pure]

hi rox,

i hope someday you'll explain why you think you're 'classical liberal' and how your position resembles, say, Adam Smith's. it's not obvious.

you may be a bit like Kelley, but the Smith part i don't see.

 

[WRJames]

Actually, I'm in favor of space travel, so we can establish colonies in space so that we can leave the barbarians to run Earth and quarantine the planet so their despots, polluted cities, child labor, prison labor, and plagues of deadly factories and defective products, never leave this planet.

Immoral? Maybe. Necessary to preserve humanity and to prevent us from being dragged back down to barbarism? Absolutely.

Building walls to hold out the barbarians has not proved to be a good long term strategy. It's a choice of civilising them and making them allies in place, or civilising them after they have conquered you.

Are you talking about a one-world Government

You know, there is an organization out there, it's called the United Nations. It would be a lot more effective if the US didn't keep blocking initiatives in population control, AIDs prevention, women's and children's rights, and environmental issues. It would also help if we paid our dues for a change.

But to hold those Governments together, they had to serve the common interest - or else there would be even more rebellions than they already had - too many to keep under control.

Rome finally learned the lesson about stopping rebellions: bread and circuses to breed apathy, and the Legions to handle the remainder.

What about North Korea -- there is a counter example of a government that is doing extensive damage to its population (starving them, torturing them, raping them, etc.) -- and still has a very tight grip. What about the way the Nazis governed Poland and Czecheslovakia? There is a theory that the Mayans destroyed there environment to provide lime plaster for their monuments. There are plenty of examples of governments that did really nasty, stupid things for a long time before they finally failed.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Building walls to hold out the barbarians has not proved to be a good long term strategy. It's a choice of civilising them and making them allies in place, or civilising them after they have conquered you.

We successfully contained the USSR, didn't we?

You know, there is an organization out there, it's called the United Nations. It would be a lot more effective if the US didn't keep blocking initiatives in population control, AIDs prevention, women's and children's rights, and environmental issues. It would also help if we paid our dues for a change.

The UN is a joke even without us interfering. The UN has no power to do anything to a despotic nation. The idea that they should have that power, is even more frightening.

Now you are talking about Government force on a global scale.

What about North Korea -- there is a counter example of a government that is doing extensive damage to its population (starving them, torturing them, raping them, etc.) -- and still has a very tight grip. What about the way the Nazis governed Poland and Czecheslovakia? There is a theory that the Mayans destroyed there environment to provide lime plaster for their monuments. There are plenty of examples of governments that did really nasty, stupid things for a long time before they finally failed.

Of course there are.

That does not change the fact that Governments evolved in a rational way. They may have ended irrationally; indeed, all civilizations have ended that way, with a Government or not.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Which is why I believe in limited government.

Go wiki "classical liberal," LT. It's actually found in the "liberal" article. You are so in the habit of debating Rush Limbaugh and "conservatives" that you don't recognize that you're dealing with something very different when you engage with me.

What makes you a classical (economic) liberal?

 

[gauchecritic]

We successfully contained the USSR, didn't we?

I really, really hope you're not talking about the Berlin wall there. Because the answer would be no.

In fact you let Poland go, along with East Germany and many satellite states that would have been ambivalent about what form of totalitarian government they were landed with.

Oops, I just called "democracy" and "free enterprise" totalitarian. Where's MiAmico?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I really, really hope you're not talking about the Berlin wall there. Because the answer would be no.

In fact you let Poland go, along with East Germany and many satellite states that would have been ambivalent about what form of totalitarian government they were landed with.

Oops, I just called "democracy" and "free enterprise" totalitarian. Where's MiAmico?

Admittedly, that was a big mistake.

Actually, honestly, containing Communism was more its own doing than ours...

 

[WRJames]

The UN is a joke even without us interfering. The UN has no power to do anything to a despotic nation. The idea that they should have that power, is even more frightening.

Sanctions work, over time. Diplomacy works, over time. Most of these "despotic" nations have signed treaties for human rights that the US has dragged its feet on. For example -- look at the list of signatories for CEDAW (everyone EXCEPT the US, Saudi Arabia, and the Vatican).

CEDAW Signatories

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

What makes you a classical (economic) liberal?

What makes me not one? Did you read the article? I say I'm one, I think I'm one, my posts express nothing that contradicts this and lots that argue explicitly or implicitly for the point of view. Demonstrate that I'm not - I'm all ears. Same to Mr. Sneer.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Sanctions work, over time. Diplomacy works, over time. Most of these "despotic" nations have signed treaties for human rights that the US has dragged its feet on. For example -- look at the list of signatories for CEDAW (everyone EXCEPT the US, Saudi Arabia, and the Vatican).

CEDAW Signatories

I don't know that those things work. I don't know that they don't work. Shit hapens - over time. I tends to happen in a certain direction, over time, with three steps forward and 2.5 back.

Poor venezuaela - one step forward, two steps back.