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...."