The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The invisible right hand and the invisible left hand > Comments

The invisible right hand and the invisible left hand : Comments

By Gilbert Holmes, published 1/9/2010

The simple logic of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' has switched on the minds of generations of deep thinkers and economic policy makers.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All
Okay Sienna, JardineK and All-
In your idea of utopia - a system that would operate without any form of government regulation or complete freedom to run business without uniform conditions; how would you ensure that life does not become complete chaos and that those who own the assets don't take control of the what is basically the wellbeing and quality of life of ordinary people.

Jardine K
It is easy to reduce your posts to insults but what is different about my offering my opinions and yourself? We are both shouting at the sidelines saying "my way is better". Unlike you I never think my view is necessarily RIGHT per se, I just think that it is better than what you are arguing and even my version needs a bit of tinkering with.

The perfect system is not achievable we can try to get as close to it as possible. We can talk about semantics all you like but back to the topic - the bottom line is your unfettered view of life is what existed in the feudal system to a large extent and that worked only for benefit of the landowners.

And using negative rhetoric like "force" or "totalitarian" is disingenuous. Appropriate regulation can be done within a democratic framework in considering the rights of owners, buyers and labour. What is the difference between a government using "force" or a private entitity.

Sienna I believe strongly that Free Trade Agreements, as a big part of the unfettered market, where foreign powers can dicated to other nations what they should and should not import regardless of how these decisions affect other variables such as anti-smoking advertising, effects of agricultural business, biosecurity, food labelling etc.

Ownership in itself does not give someone the right to exploit others and whether we like it or not sometimes regulation (in consultation with all key stakeholders) is the only way to ensure a fairer outcome. This is different to recognising the right to property ownership and personal liberty etc.

It cannot be all one or all the other IMO it just doesn't work.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 9 September 2010 10:08:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All-
You sound like you have had your share of government bungling and corruption. I have too in ways you could not imagine, but despite this the faults are in the lack of checks and balances and in some cases impartial authorities.

I still believe that a democratic system with some government regulation (for and of the people) with better consultation with 'the people' via referenda and other avenues is a lesser evil than a completely free market as per my above comments.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 9 September 2010 10:10:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> What is different about my offering my opinions and yourself?

The difference is your argument is circular, mine is not.

>Unlike you I never think my view is necessarily RIGHT per se

Yes you do. The topic here is whether trade should be further restricted so as to achieve Gilbert’s idea of protecting local trade. You are in favour of restrictions backed up by police and prisons. So you do think your is necessarily right; so much so that you think yourself justified in aggressing against others who, left to themselves, are not aggressing against anyone.

In any event, you are obviously are not open to the arguments in favour of a free society, while ever you fall for the fallacies that
a) one person’s profit is another’s loss
b) exchange or employment are intrinsically exploitative
c) there is an irreconcilable conflict between individuals in society
d) transactions which benefit both parties, and which both parties agree to, are “exploitative” for no other reason than that you are intolerant of other people’s freedoms
e) we can create net benefits out of nothing by forced redistributions
f) government-regulated arrangements are “unfettered free trade”
g) balance and fairness and justice are whatever you say they are
h) democratic government means that force isn’t force
i) etc. etc. etc.

Thus there’s no point in my explaining what a free society would look like while you think that there is no truth or reason but only mere *belief* in which any proposition, no matter how illogical or factually false, has an equal claim to be true.

You deny that you are a totalitarian, but at every step you assume that any given problem can be fixed by more government and propose no principle to limit it. So your denial does not stand to reason.

If you are inflexibly fixed in your own opinion, there’s no point in asking me, because you will only respond with more fallacies. But if you are interested in considering why your socialist beliefs might be wrong, you could do worse than start here: http://mises.org/daily/4672
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 9 September 2010 12:13:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not by 'more' government JardineK but better government which can also mean removing some of the more restrictive regulation particularly for small business.

How is a totalitarian private sector better than your perception of a totalitarian government (one that uses some regulation by your definition). The private sector cannot be voted out. Self-interested groups can easily form to push out competition and fix prices in your unfettered world. Admittedley governments aren't doing much on the competition front either but it is a lesser of two evils.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 9 September 2010 12:28:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps if you keep repeating your fallacies they'll become true eventually?

Obviously if you don't care whether what you're saying is illogical or not, there's no point discussing it.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 9 September 2010 4:52:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well JardineK
I see no answer to my questions above.

Perhaps if you keep repeating your fallacies they'll become true eventually?

Obviously if you don't care whether what you're saying is illogical or not, there's no point discussing it.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 9 September 2010 5:13:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy