Imagine an island with seven people on it producing a total of seven goods, with no contact with the outside world.

The economy consists of all the things these people produce and exchange with each other. So Fred catches a fish. Pete cuts down a coconut. And so on.

Remember factorials in maths? 4 factorial equals 4 x 3 x 2 x 1. To find the total possible number of permutations of exchanges on our island, you have to multiply numbers of combinations of persons, and numbers of combinations of goods *factorial*.

If you do the maths, the total possible permutations of one person exchanging one good, is 2,365. If you include all possible permutations of combinations of people and combinations of goods, the total is 700,776,097.

Now think of an economy the size of Australia: imagine the total number of possible permutations of exchanges for 22 million people and thousands of goods.

Of course, the Australian population is not isolated from the world. For the world economy in which we live the total number of possible permutations is truly astronomical - more than the total number of atoms in the observable universe.

And remember, that is for a static model. In reality, the market data are changing ever second.

Now imagine that we are intending to replace that system, with one in which a central planning authority is to decide who is to produce what, using what materials, how.

You can see, can’t you, that no matter how clever the central planning authority, no matter how smart his functionaries and committees, no matter how many fancy diplomas they have, the knowledge set that they would need, to equal the status quo in its ability to economise scarce resources, is astronomically bigger than the knowledge set they have or can ever have?

This means the more central planners are empowered, the more will be the social chaos and waste of natural resources they produce.

This problem is inherent in all attempts to replace social co-ordination based on individual liberty and private property, with bureaucratic command-and-control.

Pink batts, anyone?

Gee Peter guess that only leaves someone who put it all together, to be smart enough to know how to run the place successfully. Like reading the makers instruction manual. Deeeeeeeeeer we are much smarter, man knows better. Just arsk Lefty.

Capitalism....

Knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Only values a person as representing a certain amount of the commodity called labour power, in other words, as a THING. Instead of being valued as an individual -- a unique human being with intrinsic moral and spiritual worth -- only one's price tag counts.

Thinks if people have enough things they will be content to live in prison.

Values profit over all else. If there is more profit to be made in satisfying a rich mans passing whim than there is in feeding hungry children, then competition brings us in feverish haste to supply the former, whilst cold charity or the poor law can supply the latter, or leave it unsupplied, just as it feels disposed.

Means a good produced under a authoritarian state which represses its workforce would have a lower price than one produced in a country which allowed unions to organise and had basic human rights. The repression would force down the cost of labour, so making the good in question appear as a more "efficient" use of resources. In other words, the market can mask inhumanity as "efficiency" and actually reward that behavior by market share.

Under capitalism the worker regards themself as free; but they are grossly mistaken; they are free only when they sign their contract with their boss. As soon as it is signed, slavery overtakes them and they are nothing but an order taker.

Central planning... NO
Planning by(and for) the wealthy elite...NO

Decentralised, non hierarchical, democratic, bottom up planning and organising society...YES

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

Peter read this section and find out why you are wrong.
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI

I truly ask do you Peter want to be taken as some one who we should look up to?
Richie ten, come out from behind your God shield you in my view are no Christian.
And it is such as you that are ensuring other Gods are gaining followers as fast as yours is finding followers leaving.
If you continue to slander those you oppose with your lefty tag I must continue to ask why pretend to be Christian?
Wanna be dictators?

Central planning... NO
Planning by(and for) the wealthy elite...NO
mikk,
caution ! that flies in the face of the academic ALP hierarchy.

caution ! that flies in the face of the academic ALP hierarchy.

GOOD!

Mikk “Knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.”

Of course that is easier to do in a socialist model mikk,....
there is nothing to know the price or the value of...

being a bloke who believes in decentralisation i can agree with

“Decentralised, non hierarchical, democratic, bottom up planning and organising society...YES”

Individualism, not collectivism.

And as Ayn Rand said “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”

So I suggest we leave the authority with the individuals to do as they see fit, provided their “seeing fit” respects the same right of others.

Leaving government just to organise the police, military, prisons, courts, roads, street lights and other things which cannot be left in the hands of a single individual.

Forget all the namby-pamby handouts and nanny-state nonsense to business and to individuals, which just represents the recycling the reward of other peoples effort
Forget giving money to charlatan organisations like United Nations, hijacked by the collectivists and power freaks, which does nothing for Australia except criticise us for being too white and too well off.

Just leave the people who know best for themselves to do the best for themselves.

And reject the envy based politics of collectivism

Dear Belly,
In your view what is a christian.

Individuals do not work in isolation from each other - that is the reality. When you have more than one individual factored into any mathematical calculation you have a collective. The collective benefits from mutually agreed rules/laws as well some safety nets to protect from any potential extreme self-interest that might come at a heavy cost the liberty, freedoms and rights of others.

This is not the same as arguing that individualism is a bad thing - it isn't, but a group of individuals should not ever be at the mercy of one powerful individual in any group/island where the power relationship is not shared. That is where governments can play a role - the people can decide how big a role and in what areas some regulation is needed.

It is not all black and white and those that constantly tout the libertarian line forget that one person's 'liberty', often used to foster exploitative practices, should not come at a greater cost.

Yes it is a cliche' but there is a fine line and the balance is not always easy to ascertain when there are numerous competing agendas.

mikk
"[Capitalism] Knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

What makes you think you're in any better position?

The values people act on, and which give rise to prices, are subjective. They are not quantifiable or measurable. They are not more known or knowable in a 'decentralised, non hierarchical, democratic, bottom up planning and organising society'. Besides, what's the difference between that method of social co-operation, and one based on individual liberty and private property?

Belly
"I truly ask do you Peter want to be taken as some one who we should look up to?"

What is this? Some kind of personal argument? The question whether central planning can solve the knowledge problem involved, has got nothing to do with my personal characteristics.

Can you show a solution to the problem involved? If not, I suggest you concentrate more on the issue, and less on personalities.

Pelican
We have already factored in collectives - voluntary collectives. You have not established how adding a coercive monopoly collective is going to make the situation better rather than worse.

The greatest inequality between one private individual and another is never as great as the least inequality between the individual and the government.

Also you have not defined exploitation. If a transaction is voluntary, then axiomatically each individual only enters into to it because they think they will be better off. The fact you don't like it, doesn't mean that the transaction was unfair.

You have merely imported into the ethics, the same assumption that the collectivists have imported into the economics. Pointing out a problem with voluntary social co-operation does not justify jumping to the conclusion that involuntary social co-operation is morally superior. The reason it is worse as a matter of economics is because it is worse as a matter of ethics: human value is destroyed by using violence or threats as the basis of social co-operation.

Pelican “Individuals do not work in isolation from each other - that is the reality. When you have more than one individual factored into any mathematical calculation you have a collective.”

Wrong!

Where you have individuals, action autonomously, you have a group of individuals.

For instance, a market involves two individuals brought together for the purpose of an exchange or trade.

Where you have individuals working under the direction of a “single governing body”, you have a collective.

Individuals working autonomously, never have opportunity to impose an illegitimate demand on other individuals but

The Problem is

“Collectivist” control of individuals has consistently failed to protect those individuals from the despotic tyranny of someone who gains control of the “single governing body”

“It is not all black and white and those that constantly tout the libertarian line forget that one person's 'liberty', often used to foster exploitative practices, should not come at a greater cost.”

It is black and white, but the line between the two is not straight but twists and turns through the mitigation of competing views.

Somehow, I feel the “exploitive practices” of a single governing body” are far more onerous, riskier and “blacker” and far outweigh the opportunities available to any single individual, even if that individual were as wealthy as a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

Another point to note, the bureaucracy, which is lurks behind a “single governing body”, is the ideal environment for the development of the illegal and immoral application of power.

Such illegal and immoral opportunity does not exist in the smaller, more open environment of “libertarian” government.

But pretending more than one person collected together represents a “collective” is a joke...

It becomes a “collective” when individuals are no longer free to come and go as they please and as we saw with people being shot and killed trying to climb to freedom over the Berlin Wall.

Peter and Stern
I am not being any more morally superior than those in your no-regulation camp. I don't doubt that many voluntary collectives work from a premsie of pragmatism which often involves altruism. Farmers co-ops are voluntary collectives of a sort although some farmers criticised the workings of some co-ops over the years. There are also voluntary business associations or unions who look after the interests of their members.

You make assumptions that people are always able to enter into voluntary arrangements without any other influencing factors. This is naive. Many factors change the power relationships between various parties/individuals such as employment/unemployment rates etc.

The trouble with voluntary collectives or if you like, self-regulation is that it does not always work and those potentially affected are at the mercy of others. This is evident in the food industry and in the legal profession just to name two. Where there are competing pressures or motives such as profit vs duty of care, the latter does not always win over.

Your mistake is that you believe any regulation is bad. Over-regulation is equally as detrimental to societies in its constraint, however well targeted regulation (done in consultation with various groups) is not always bad. There are many cases of over bureaucrasised regulation that relate to property rights that I would agree.

That is simply my argument.

"I am not being any more morally superior than those in your no-regulation camp."

Yes you are. You're saying that the problem with voluntary co-operation is the risk of exploitation, and that involuntary co-operation can be the solution. Both involve you overriding the mutually beneficial relations of others, on the basis of supposed moral superiority on your part.

The only moral superiority in the non-aggression camp is to affirm that peaceable behaviour is morally superior to aggressive behaviour.

"You make assumptions that people are always able to enter into voluntary arrangements without any other influencing factors."

No I don't. I don't make any assumption about other influencing factors and are well aware that they are as variable as human beings generally. That doesn't justify aggression.

"Many factors change the power relationships between various parties/individuals such as employment/unemployment rates etc."

Power means being able to use force to bully people into doing something whether they want to or not. This is illegal - except for governments. It is not a factor in the non-aggression camp, and is the entire basis for the government camp.

"The trouble with voluntary collectives or if you like, self-regulation is that it does not always work and those potentially affected are at the mercy of others."
The question is whether you can unilaterally decide on behalf of other people that their mutually beneficial relations "don't work" for no other reason than that you don't like them. How is that different to Fred Nile's attitude towards homosexuals?

"Where there are competing pressures or motives such as profit vs duty of care, the latter does not always win over."
How can you just presume government officials don't have a conflict of interest with the public?

"well targeted regulation (done in consultation with various groups) is not always bad... That is simply my argument."

For your argument to be viable you need to show how coercion overcomes the knowledge problem in issue. I have shown how and why it will make outcomes worse, but you haven't shown know how and why it will make outcomes better.

Peter,

A truly interesting topic :-)
Boy, I'm going to have tired muscles I didn't know I had in my brain after this one, warm bath & mental liniment tonight?

I think both you and stern have clearly encapsulated the philosophical eternal conundrum. The equivalent to the one in quantum physics measuring choice (either or not both).

To me the flaw in philosophy is that it doesn't take into account individual variability including nature V nurture.

Any theory or thought process that doesn't factor in *all* factor is predestined to be based on probability factoring and as such *there will be* exclusions. The issue is then to create a system that is flexible enough to accommodate as many as possible but *essentially* to exclude a universally static excluded minority i.e. the exclusion is as "evenly" distributed over the entire population. By that I mean that each excluded group at any time is the minimum possible and their exclusion is on different for each individual and is 'equal' in intensity and or effect.

This means on one person or group suffers more than any other.

In my mind then it follows that there is no "one" universal/static system of administration.

Total rule by the majority is simply *mob* rule. Likewise no boundaries would be survival of the biggest/most ruthless.

Both you appear to be arguing in "unrealistic *theoretical* extremes".

To me the problem today is that both our political and economic systems were designed for simpler and smaller times.

the trick politically is to move the mean around which the two SD are centred to a point whereby the above minimum exclusion criteria is possible albeit fluidly.

Examinator “To me the flaw in philosophy is that it doesn't take into account individual variability including nature V nurture.”

Why is “individual variability including nature V nurture” perceived as a “flaw”

When “individual variability including nature V nurture” is a foregone conclusion and fact of life,

If you want to "blame" it on DNA and a host of other nurturing variables then do so

But a “flaw” is an inappropriate description to what encapsulates the eternal diversity of mankind.

And whilst some might suggest otherwise,

I would suggest that “uniformity” is neither possible nor desirable.

So what Examinator deems a “Flaw” is one of the inherent character traits which blessed us all with people like Mozart and Leonardo Da Vinci

Mind you it also brought us Lenin, Stalin and Pol Pot, so

Diversity does have some drawbacks but they could be contained by denying the quest of some to seek a collectivist system which gives the greater opportunity to the rise of despots, tyrants and mass murderers

But I will accept those drawbacks and count those blessings as offered
compared to

the bland, soulless, mediocrity of a system which forces uniform sameness, equally upon all, regardless of the “individual variability including nature V nurture”

re “To me the problem today is that both our political and economic systems were designed for simpler and smaller times.”

We are where we are, capitalism is fully capable of increasing or decreasing in scale, according to demand and supply. Collectivism cannot accept its own failing and thus, becomes more entrenched and rigid the more it, inevitably, fails

As to political systems.. I am all for devolution,returning autonomy back to the individuals who elected governments to “serve”, not to “rule”.

Quoting David Horowitz.. “In practice, socialism didn't work. But socialism could never have worked because it is based on false premises about human psychology and society, and gross ignorance of human economy.”

To summarise,

Where Collectivism (by any name) greatly exceeds the “philosophical theory” of Capitalism;

Capitalism greatly and consistently exceeds the tangible human benefits of Collectivism

Peter
You assume coercion can only derive from governments but don't concede there are all sorts of coercive practices within the private sector. It can be more devastating such as the debt mentality which led to the GFC with the worse effects being felt in the US where regulation is poor.

We at least have the option to vote out governments.

This is different to Fred Nile's position on homosexuality because proper and fit regulation seeks to protect not to harm or discriminate - albeit recognising it is not perfect which is why we do need more citizen participation. If regulation serves the greater good and applies the fairness principle, it would only 'discriminate' against poor or unethical practices. Nile is clearly discriminatory.

Governments are not perfect which is why there needs to be more pressure applied for greater accountability/transparency and I would argue there is much room for improvement.

I agree with Stern's greater participation of citizens principle, in the current arrangement we have many who feel a great sense of self-entitlement who often forget they represent their electorate rather than the other way around.

Stern argues:
"We are where we are, capitalism is fully capable of increasing or decreasing in scale, according to demand and supply. Collectivism cannot accept its own failing and thus, becomes more entrenched and rigid the more it, inevitably, fails"

Disagree, the entrenched problems in capitalism was revealed by the GFC and indicate not much has changed and capitalism will inevitably fail again without appropriate regulation.

Capitalism also has to accept its failings - one way to recognise it and deal with the failings is via regulation. This is not the same as pure socialism as you would have it but an essential part of a social democracy.

Pelican

If you haven't already, you may find economist, Joseph Stiglitz's discussion of great interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2010/2973129.htm

"...The financial sector is supposedly a means to an end, it's not an end in itself. You don't eat finance, you don't wear it. The justification for finance is that it helps allocate capital, allocate resource, manage risk and if it does its job well, then the economy is more productive, we all grow faster, and in return for that contribution, they get a fair return. That's the way things are supposed to be...

...The key problem is that before the crisis, global growth was supported by a series of bubbles. First we had the tech-bubble and we replaced the tech-bubble with the housing bubble. The housing bubble was - there were real estate bubbles in many countries around the world, but perhaps the largest was in the United States....

....they thought that financial innovation and deregulation had brought us to this new economy in which economic downturns would be a thing of the past....

... in fact ... this deregulation, actually allowed the bubble to grow bigger and bigger. And actually, as you look at what happened in this crisis, for all the innovation, the crisis in fact is much like the crises that have plagued capitalism throughout its history....

If we look at the history of capitalism, the history of market economies, there've only been a short period of three decades, the three decades after the great depression, when the world did not face crisis after crisis. And the reason was that in response to the great depression in the United States, and in most other countries of the world, there were a set of regulations. Regulations like regulatory institutions like the securities and exchange commissions, ... and worked reasonably well, in preventing crises.

The result was that in fact a mistaken view arose. The view was that markets on their own were efficient, were self-correcting, and in that sense were stable...

...after deregulation began under Thatcher in the UK, under Reagan in the United States, there have been crises after crises...."

Peter
<<what's the difference between that method of social co-operation, and one based on individual liberty and private property? >>

Are you seriously saying that there is no difference? Private property makes individual liberty meaningless. Private property and the competitive framework currently existing are the antithesis of co-operation.

<<Power means being able to use force to bully people into doing something whether they want to or not.>>
No it doesn't. It means being able to exclude people. The powerless have no choice but sell themselves to those who control the means of production. The power of the state protects the monopolies on land production and ideas. Without its protection the population would be unlikely to honour those laws that disenfranchise them from land, production and intellectual property. You rightists would do well to learn the reality of the symbiosis that exists between capital and the state. Without the states violent protection capitalism would fall immediately.

Stern

<<It becomes a “collective” when individuals are no longer free to come and go as they please and as we saw with people being shot and killed trying to climb to freedom over the Berlin Wall.>>

Rubbish. That is authoritarianism not collectivism. Free association is one of the cornerstones of socialism and any system that refutes it can hardly be called "collectivist".
As for your apparent misunderstanding of English. You and your friends going out for the evening is a "collective". No one is in charge. There is no "competition". Plans are decided by consensus and negotiation.
Families are another example. Lovers, sport, charities. Collectives surround us. Even companies can be considered "collectives" although they are hardly free and non authoritarian. Collectives and collectivism is what makes us human. Humans are inherently sociable beings and indeed we need other people for our mental wellbeing. There are numerous serious consequences that attend isolation and lack of human contact. Solitary confinement is punishment not something people thrive on and desire.

<<the bland, soulless, mediocrity of a system which forces uniform sameness, equally upon all>>
What! Like capitalism does?

Stern,

You appear to have missed my point, the 'flaw' in your argument is *that you don't allow for The individual INCLUDING those variations caused by nature, nurture, nature V nurture and the variations on a theme thereof.

In short no philosophy can work unless it is flexible (adaptable) to accommodate the above.

Pelican is on the money in that most of the pressures ultimately emanate from the individual not a government. It is the fact that private sector particularly large ones tend to give an asympathetic/amoral outcomes.

Specifically politics is currently flawed in that it is merely the means by which people accumulate power. Organizations' first objective as an identity is to survive.

I suggested that either version of the issue is doomed in that they ultimately cause inequity in either the spoils or the pain. This means sooner or later there is a violent realignment in the power and distribution. The more rigid the system the more violent is the response.
This is human nature in it's variant forms.

Again our systems were created in simpler times but their evolution has not kept pace with ethics etc.

This is largely because the two alternatives discussed have caused insular, disproportionate power groups to develop and dominate the system rather than the other way around.

"...The financial sector is supposedly a means to an end, it's not an end in itself"

Well put Severin. When I have a little more time I will pick up on some of those authors you have recommended on OLO - the little I have gleaned on Google invites further reading.:)

That quote sums up what is wrong with some of our economic thinking -the trap is many work from the premise that the 'theory' is a set-in-concrete life-force in and of itself.

And as examinator wrote, failed to keep pace with ethical considerations.

"This is largely because the two alternatives discussed have caused insular, disproportionate power groups to develop and dominate the system rather than the other way around."

And that is the crux of it. Nothing will change if people don't take their capitalistic blinkers off to improve what is a faulty system in its purest form. We need to be eclectic and not constrained by dogma where those disproportionate power groups get free reign.

Examinator
It is true that human motivations and action are enormously variable, and that we are strictly unable to know what makes a given person act in a given situation. However these facts provides less, not more ground for using aggression – ordering everyone around and threatening to lock them in a cage if they don’t obey – as the basis of social co-operation.

On the other hand, what we do know is that people take action so as to exchange a situation that they subjectively find less satisfactory, for one they subjectively think will be more satisfactory. This also provides no ground for aggressively ordering them around, in the name of a higher good, considering the insuperable problem the wannabe dictator faces in knowing how to produce a better outcome.

All
I have shown reason why no-one has, or could have, the knowledge they would need to have, in order to know that a coercive intervention would do anything other than misdirect resources, and cause planned chaos. I have also shown how my argument could be falsified.

For your part, you have not shown how your arguments could be verified or falsified. How could anyone have the knowledge necessary to know that government interventions produce satisfactory results *even viewed from the standpoint of the interventionists* when all the changes they make, positive and negative, are taken into account? How would or could they be taken into account?

And how could your argument be falsified: what would make you change your mind?

Thus this is not a dialogue of reason and there is no need for me, at least not in this thread, to refute your consequential arguments, all of which merely presuppose that you have, or could have knowledge that in fact you do not have, and could never possibly have.

The method you are using would render impossible any discussion using argument and counter-argument.

And even if you had established the wrongs you claim, which you haven’t, you still haven’t got to first base in justifying action *by government*.

Pelican “Disagree, the entrenched problems in capitalism was revealed by the GFC and indicate not much has changed and capitalism will inevitably fail again without appropriate regulation.”

Disagree

The cause of the GFC was the application of inappropriate (“stupid” is a better word) socialist spirited regulation designed to enforce an affirmative action principle, forced banks, under penalty of the loss of business licence, to lend to people who then walked away from their financial obligations.

As for capitalism.. it is a mercurial philosophy capable of evolving and changing with the opportunities and threats of the time.

“Regulation”, is the stock-in-trade of the collectivists, who determine that everything must be “equal”, whilst ignoring the inefficiencies and costs of their regulatory burdens and how they limit the effectiveness is inherent in capitalism.

Capitalism is not a means of equally sharing everything because capitalism does not rely on assume that equality is the overriding consideration

The “equality” demanded and aspired to by collectivists will never, ever be achieved because of -

differentials to individual interest,
differentials to individual innovation,
differentials to individual effort,
differentials to individual ability,
differentials to individual opportunity
and even differentials to individual good fortune.
Not to mention
Differentials to the nature of individual genetic composition (without even considering “nuture”).

Regarding failings.. capitalism does regulate. Not for fairness but to avoid corruption – typically the “self-regulatory” rules of the stock exchange are more severe than the laws which enshrine corporations.

So too the basic rules of banking would have avoided the GFC simply because – no banker would have freely loaned to someone on terms which allowed the borrower to walk away from the debt (the jingle-mail and “sub-primes” at the heart of the GFC).

Severin “...after deregulation began under Thatcher in the UK, under Reagan in the United States, there have been crises after crises...."

And before that deregulation there was

Stagnation -

And whilst an free-flowing rivers, which might symbolise capitalism, might be sometimes smooth and sometimes rough,

The stagnant rivers of collectivism

just "stink" and harbour disease

Peter,

You have *proven* nothing least of all your original assertion. All that you have shown is that the basis of your conclusion is deficit of the human element. And as Pelican and I point out without ALL the components an ABSOLUTE DETERMINATION is meaningless.

What I did say is:
-This omission is common in all philosophic determinations that seek to be absolute.

-that the problem is similar to Quantum physics that in the absence of all knowledge one is confined by probabilities.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't do nothing. It is as we said a moving feast and any system must strive for a balance so that no side is inequitably deprived or advantaged.

-under the current system too rigid hasn't evolved to accommodate ethical components of today.

It is agreed that no system will be perfect but to suggest that all improvements to the system(s) are totally unpredictable and are equivalent to dictatorship is simplistic semantics (extreme interpretations of terminology a no no in philosophy).

Stern
Your response is simply denial and reinterpretation of the concepts being discussed to satisfy you ( political) beliefs.
i.e. GFC was caused by lack of regulation and ethics in the financial sector. The basis of their activities were distortions of the basic principles of capitalism. Again they have come about because the system has developed on the black letter of the law, exploiting flaws (ethical) in the law. Clearly corporations finance can't be trusted to act in ethical (good of the majority of people).

It was reasonably well known in circles that their actions had consequences but like all ponzi scheme operators their focus was their own benefit at all costs.
I repeat the corporate system is inanimate, has no feelings or ethics it is up to us (people) to drive the tool not the other way around

Examinator “Pelican is on the money in that most of the pressures ultimately emanate from the individual not a government. It is the fact that private sector particularly large ones tend to give an asympathetic/amoral outcomes”

GFC, I said previously,

Was the product of bad government Regulation....

not the product of any “individual” bank officer / owner

One of the overreaching benefits of capitalism is to distribute power across everyone, rather than concentrate it in one place (eg the monopoly of “government”)

“Again our systems were created in simpler times but their evolution has not kept pace with ethics etc.”

consider:

The Wall Street Crash - 1929

The South Sea Bubble - 1711

Both of which, I think you might concede, were “simpler times”.

As for "democratic government". Well the idea has been around since the Greeks were masters of the known world and has flourished since the end of the notion of the Divine Right of Kings and transfer of responsibility for the administration of tax revenues from the Crown to Parliament an elected

Say, around the mid to end of the 17th century.

So the guiding principles of democratic government have endured too

And believe me,

Ethics are one thing which should never be changing with the times.

Conclusion:

Capitalism, by its nature, has its ups and downs but has survived because of its benefits to trade and effective ownership of resources

Democratic government did not stop the rise of Lenin or Stalin indeed, the opposite to democratic government (autocracy) and revolutions against autocracy is what brought Lenin and Stalin to power.

But “democratic government” has endured and outlived the horror of all the experiments in “collectivism”

You have no evidence to support any notion that "collectivism", which has been tried and failed before will even work, let alone be better, than capitalism this time.

think on this

“When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality - other than equality before the law - that government poses a threat to liberty."

and

"Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul"

> You have *proven* nothing least of all your original assertion.

Yes I have. I have proven that the knowledge problem is such that anyone proposing to forcibly override voluntary exchanges is not in a position to know whether the net effect of the intervention will be better or worse, even judged from the interventionist’s own standpoint.

> All that you have shown is that the basis of your conclusion is deficit of the human element.

The deficit of the human element is only a problem so far as it concerns using force or threats to compel involuntary action.

There is no deficit of the human element so far as it concerns voluntary action, because we know axiomatically from the fact that an action is voluntary, that the purpose of the person doing it is as a mean to achieve an end value of increasing his own subjective satisfaction or decreasing his subjective dissatisfaction.

But if this is not true, what would be an example of a voluntary action that was not motivated by the acting person’s purpose of attaining an end that was more satisfactory from his own point of view?

> And as Pelican and I point out without ALL the components an ABSOLUTE DETERMINATION is meaningless.

If not even voluntary action could be ‘absolutely’ determined to be justified, then the justification for aggressive action must be even less. The knowledge problem doesn’t count *in favour of* assuming the knowledge in issue: it counts *against* it.

>This omission is common in all philosophic determinations that seek to be absolute.

What do you mean “absolute”? Is knowledge of Pythagoras’s theorem absolute? Is knowledge of 7 x7 = 49 absolute?

Whether or not ‘absolute’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean), still it is a universally valid proposition to say, from the fact of voluntary exchanges, that all of them involved the acting person’s purpose to use the exchange as means to a more satisfactory end from his subjective point of view – otherwise he wouldn’t do it.

The same cannot be said of using force, so the problem of what you call absolute knowledge affects only involuntary action, not voluntary action.

> that the problem is similar to Quantum physics that in the absence of all knowledge one is confined by probabilities.

It is absurd to model an understanding of human action on quantum physics. You have not shown how a voluntary action could be inconsistent with its doer’s subjective purpose to increase his own satisfaction. Therefore the probability of this statement being true of voluntary action is 100 percent.

> This doesn't mean that we shouldn't do nothing.

No one is arguing that we should do nothing. The question is whether you can justify forcibly overriding voluntary relations. You haven’t done so.

> … any system must strive for a balance so that no side is inequitably deprived or advantaged.

You haven’t established that:
• Other humans’ lives, freedom and property are a ‘system’ belonging to the state
• Voluntary human relations inherently constitute antagonistic ‘sides’
• Violent action incapable of knowing whether it is producing an improvement, in its own terms, is inherently fairer than voluntary action
• People have any moral right to impose involuntary servitude on others
• There would be anything more “balanced” about a coercive monopoly making decisions, than not.

-under the current system too rigid hasn't evolved to accommodate ethical components of today.

You haven’t established that violence is more ethical than non-violence.

> It is agreed that no system will be perfect but to suggest that all improvements to the system(s) are totally unpredictable and are equivalent to dictatorship is simplistic semantics …

You have not established that threatening to lock people in a cage if they don’t obey is an “improvement” to the system.

No-one is arguing that improvements are “totally unpredictable” or “equivalent to dictatorship”.

The shoe is on the other foot. It is you who, starting from your political views, work backward to conclude that political interventions must be justified, even though you are, as you would say, “absolutely” unable to know or show how.

Peter,

Clearly our meaning to keywords differ.
Likewise we are looking at the issue from different starting points and different assumptions.
A key one is the seminal importance of evolution and 'basic instincts' and the many human variations. Paramount amongst those are survival and procreation, both of which are based on competition.

Implicit in my response is the logical assumption that in order to keep those base instincts in reasonable co-existence proportions, essential to the maintenance of society there is a need for authority.

This clearly necessitates ethics. How those ethics are determined by the society and yes there must be sanctions or corrective actions for those who don't comply to the said ethics. Common sense dictates that the line is shades of greys and therefore the "sanctions/corrective actions" need to be likewise on a sliding scale.

It is an acknowledge reasoning that in order for a 'society' to exist the individual must defer some of their rights to the authority of the community.

What you are seeming to trying to engage with is an academic philosophical discussion searching for the absolute (irreducible, fixed, immutable) truth.

IMO a philosophy is meaningless in any practical sense if it doesn't allow for the effectively infinite variations of the human in put.
Given that infinite isn't an absolute singularity but a concept of perpetual change.
i.e. "The God particle" in physics will I believe will decrease indefinitely and will depend on our technology.

In that way our society will(or should) continue to be fine tuned ad infinitum.

You on the other hand are trying to achieve the philosophic god particle (absolute proof) for each aspect.

Many of your stated 'failures' in my "political (sic)" view could be tightened up but sadly I have neither the inclination nor perhaps the wit to sate your criticisms.

Part 1

Peter part2

It should be noted than generally I don't seek to convert or convince anyone to any point merely to raise sufficient doubt to engender greater thought.
I do however balk at people who assume absolutes and then try to proselytise that opinion particularly when the reasoning is myopic and visceral.

Political in my sense referred to your indication of party preference.
In that count I am neutral given I don't respect the party system.

Have a good one and thanks for your perspective , interesting.

examinator
"Implicit in my response is the logical assumption that in order to keep those base instincts in reasonable co-existence proportions, essential to the maintenance of society there is a need for authority."

Well the argument is that people only have conflicting interests arising from competition in survival and reproduction, so far as they use aggression or fraud to get what they want by forcing or deceiving people into sacrificing their own interests. This is definitely a problem, but it does not provide a blank warrant for authority in general to do whatever it wants - only to use force to put down force and fraud: no more than that. So there is no issue that that amount of force is justified.

> This clearly necessitates ethics.

It is sufficient for ethics to declare that
a) force and fraud are morally bad, and
b) that force is morally justified to repel or rectify them.

But to use force as the instrument of injustice, to aggress against others to forcibly subject them - there is no need for a 'sliding scale' of ethics to see that these are wrong. Outside defending people against force and fraud, government has nothing else to offer but itself to commit wrongs.

> It is an acknowledge reasoning that in order for a 'society' to exist the individual must defer some of their rights to the authority of the community.

Yes but the only rights needed to be deferred are the (non-)rights of using force and fraud.

I am not being any more 'absolute' than you. I am being less so, because I don't regard myself or anyone as having an absolute justification to use force or fraud, whereas you apparently do. In effect, the idea that the democratic state amounts represents society amounts to assert that majority opinion establishes an absolute right to violate the person or property of others.