The Rise And Fall Of America

[Sig]

Even though democracy is poor in many ways, dictatorship, the obvious alternative, is a lot worse except for the elite running it.

Or as Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

 

[tommcginnis]

From Locke we get a triumvirate of inalienable rights stemming from Natural Law:
a right to Life, a right to Liberty, and a right to Property.

The "Property Right" is wildly, yet curiously, under-celebrated -- and has been so since Locke's time. But the ability to Keep What One Has Built is the ONLY thing that provides a purpose to expending energy on -- digging a ditch for irrigation; planting an entire field in a crop; tending to a herd to prevent predation; developing a reliable signal rate for energy passage across a silicon medium (the diode; the transistor); finding a use for that really hard failed plastic left in the jar overnight (Corning Labs)..... etc etc etc....

Any society that denies the sanctity of private property -- whether through abject lawlessness, capricious "takings" of a dictator, or declared abjurance of "private" anything by socialist/communist/fascist/statist societies (where, like our Vulcan friends, "The good of the many outweighs the good of the one.") -- ANY society that does not declare private property to be sacrosanct in its relation to the state -- is doomed. Period. End of story. Mic drop.

 

[tomorton]

Freedom is imho a fight worth having but it must be wanted sufficiently by the enslaved.
The North Koreans obviously aren't up for it if they can't get rid of one man.
Don't deserve it either.

Big mistaken generalisation to see an entire population as being aligned with that of their leader (who also controls the military, security services, employment and national economy).

 

[speedo]

Big mistaken generalisation to see an entire population as being aligned with that of their leader (who also controls the military, security services, employment and national economy).

Correct and to suggest that the people "Don't deserve it either." is a contemptible comment.

 

[Sig]

From Locke we get a triumvirate of inalienable rights stemming from Natural Law:
a right to Life, a right to Liberty, and a right to Property.

The "Property Right" is wildly, yet curiously, under-celebrated -- and has been so since Locke's time. But the ability to Keep What One Has Built is the ONLY thing that provides a purpose to expending energy on -- digging a ditch for irrigation; planting an entire field in a crop; tending to a herd to prevent predation; developing a reliable signal rate for energy passage across a silicon medium (the diode; the transistor); finding a use for that really hard failed plastic left in the jar overnight (Corning Labs)..... etc etc etc....

Any society that denies the sanctity of private property -- whether through abject lawlessness, capricious "takings" of a dictator, or declared abjurance of "private" anything by socialist/communist/fascist/statist societies (where, like our Vulcan friends, "The good of the many outweighs the good of the one.") -- ANY society that does not declare private property to be sacrosanct in its relation to the state -- is doomed. Period. End of story. Mic drop.

Like the discussion on freedom last week, extremism in practice is almost always suboptimal and one person's freedom often tramples on another's rights. Do I have the right to dig a ditch that siphons off all the water of the river downstream, killing the livelihood of everyone who depended on it, weather for irrigation, recreation, or supporting salmon runs? Do I have the right to discover the transistor and prevent anyone from using it forever, even if they subsequently discover it on their own? Do I have the right to build a monopoly or collude to effectively stop any competitors or innovative solutions? Do I have the right to develop a drug that cures cancer and preclude anyone from using it, forever, even if they independently develop the same drug? In the real world, you have to balance if we want a prosperous, healthy, happy society or some pre-social contract stone age where "right to Property" trumps all.

 

[tommcginnis]

In the real world, you have to balance if we want a prosperous, healthy, happy society or some pre-social contract stone age where "right to Property" trumps all.

Agreed. But declaring Property in private hands to be sacrosanct means the State carries a heavy burden by which to *take* it and still retain legitimacy.

 

[Sig]

Agreed. But declaring Property in private hands to be sacrosanct means the State carries a heavy burden by which to *take* it and still retain legitimacy.

It's a tough line to draw. For example I'm routinely called a "communist" on this form (and recently was simultaneously labeled a fascist!), but strongly disagree with the Kelo v. City of New London decision, which allowed the taking of property by imminent domain essentially so a private company could build a shopping center. On the other had, the "communist" in me sees no problem in taxes that support the military, public services, safety net programs, national parks... even though that "taking" impacts me much more directly. It's definitely a continuum where smart well meaning people can and will disagree where we should lie.

 

[tommcginnis]

It's a tough line to draw. For example I'm routinely called a "communist" on this form (and recently was simultaneously labeled a fascist!), but strongly disagree with the Kelo v. City of New London decision, which allowed the taking of property by imminent domain essentially so a private company could build a shopping center. On the other had, the "communist" in me sees no problem in taxes that support the military, public services, safety net programs, national parks... even though that "taking" impacts me much more directly. It's definitely a continuum where smart well meaning people can and will disagree where we should lie.

Way too sensible.

 

[OddTrader]

imo, I hope nowadays their difference between the two ideologies has been gradually reduced due to the availability of the Internet and provision of general/higher education.

Need to be patient to see potentially long term development, besides to understand culture difference, in order to avoid any unnecessary war.

A bit of clarification:

Theory of Central Planning

Centrally planned economies assume that the market does not work in the best interest of the people and that a central authority needs to make decisions to meet social and national objectives. These justifications are often made on the grounds of egalitarianism, environmentalism, anti-corruption or anti-consumerism, which proponents of central planning do not consider that the free market adequately addresses. The state can set prices for goods and determine how much is produced, and it can focus labor and resources on industries and projects without having to wait for investment capital from the private sector.

Opponents of planning do not believe that a central entity has the capacity to collect or analyze the financial data required to make major economic determinations. They argue that socialist and communist systems lead to inefficiencies and lost aggregate utility.

Free market economies are founded on the assumption that people seek to maximize personal financial utility and firms are profit-seeking. Each economic actor acts in its own best interest given the consumption, investment or production options before it. In this way, these economic actors assure that price and quantity equilibriums are met and that utility is maximized. Central planning has a different motivation at its core, relying instead on moral obligation and membership within a community.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/centrally-planned-economy.asp

Examples of Centrally Planned Economies

Communist and socialist systems are the most noteworthy examples in which governments control the factors of economic production. Central planning is often associated with Maxist-Leninist theory and the former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam and Cuba. The economic performance of these states have been mixed, though they generally trailed more capitalist countries in terms of growth. Historically, most centrally planned economies have been administered in authoritarian states, though participation in such an economy could theoretically also be elective.

 

[OddTrader]

A bit of clarification:

We often don't like much the traditional terms, PC speaking. But the reality is - Potential trend:

What is a 'Mixed Economic System'

A mixed economic system is an economic system that features characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. A mixed economic system protects private property and allows a level of economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to interfere in economic activities in order to achieve social aims. According to neoclassical theory, mixed economies are less efficient than pure free markets, but proponents of government interventions argue that the base conditions such as equal information and rational market participants cannot be achieved in practical application.


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mixed-economic-system.asp

Most modern economies feature a synthesis of two or more economic systems, with economies falling at some point along a continuum. The public sector works alongside the private sector, but may compete for the same limited resources. Mixed economic systems do not block the private sector from profit-seeking, but do monitor profit levels and may nationalize companies that are deemed impediments to the public good. The United States is mostly a free market economy, but it incorporates elements such as protection for agriculture and manufacturing by through trade restrictions and subsidies. This makes the United States a mixed economy by definition.