This log contains political viewpoints that are not necessarily those of the Two Towers gaming community or the Logs.dyndns.dk staff. But if you're interested in why America's been acting the way it has, and what to expect in the future, read on. A bit of a lengthy read, but interesting, hopefully.
Classical liberals didn't start calling themselves Libertarians until the 20th century.
I now this may sound cheap, but I'd like to say that I completely agree with Lotraz in his recent comment. These are exactly some of the problems pure liberalism cannot deal with in a satisfactory way. Also this thing about 'products having value', is a gross oversimplification. Some products or services might have very high values in the sense that it's important to people, but are maybe also very costly to provide, and thus the money you can make from it can only be high if the price is very high.
There is not necessarily a connection between how important it is to people and how much they can pay! In a liberal system, things are good for people who: 1) Have enough money and 2) Have the time, education etc. to figure everything out to his own advantage.
Unfortunately, society does //not// consist of 100% individuals of that type. Someone always make much less money; after all, floors need to be swept at the factories, and we don't want to pay people a lot for that. Liberalism //promotes// the division between poor and rich, and depraves the former from what should be basic rights and needs in a society.
For that I consider (pure) liberalism as proponed by Rendor and Longfinger (right? correct me if I am wrong) to be a failed ideology.
Going Off topic here
Hehe. pretty cool that this turned out to be a much better environment to talk about politics than that Reality Lounge on the webpage.. I don't think I've ever had a discussion there as free from flames.
Sure charity could pay for them. And they would do a better job too. If a charity doesn't work the way you want it to you just stop giving them money. Unfortunately you can't do that to a state.. yet.
The money the state earns in taxing cars and gas are about 5 times the amount they spend on roads each year..
Meaning that if it was paid for by user fees I would get the same service for 1/5th of the price. And keep 100% of my income ;)
Longfinger and Rendor, thats a very simplistic way to look at things. You need a little more detail than that.
Lets say I own a business. I need electricity for the domecil. I need educated employees. I need that my employees can have their children in daycare. I need that my employees have roads or trains to travel to work on. In essense, I need a working society.
Thats some of the needs and demands I will make.
Now, in a social liberal state this is usually done by the state. This is in the public domain. The service sectors. The state guarantees a certain level of quality. Sure, they can have private contractors (business's) to perform certain tasks, but, that is under a contract and therefore by a commonly (democraticly) agreed level of quality.
In the liberal (liberatarian) society, this would be purely up to the rules of the free market. Thus, it would be by the level my business (or my employees) wish. Usually however, it will be 'the cheapest' offers and thus lower quality.
Now, the question arises. Who should decide what kind of services that are available in a community?
Should it be the share holders (minority in the community) in my business, or should it be the the members of the community (majority/democracy)?
What about children of poor parents? How is their possibility to gain access to the needed education? Charity?
Longfinger complaints that 60% of his 'earnings' are used by others. How much did your education cost you? How much do you pay when traveling the roads? How big was the bill the police send you when you got mugged/conned/molested by a criminal?
Rendor, how about that private army protecting your borders and attacking foreign countries for their oil? Should that be under private control, so you should not personally and directly pay for it?
The ideals of the social liberal state is a balance between private freedom and the freedom to create your own life. Only by 'near equal' access to fundamental issues like education, can true freedom be. Anything else is just the strongs right/ability to dominate those in a lesser position: Tyrany.
Really? When I looked up libertarianism in m-w it dated it 1789... sounds a bit too coincidental to me.
Anarchists have been calling themselves Libertarians for far longer than American Libertarians have.
'Finally.. as long as we have democracy, it's almost impossible (per definition) to end up with dictatorship.'
No... democracy includes the ability to give up your Liberty. Even in a truly participatory democracy, if a majority of people agreed, a dictator could certainly be installed.
If a product has no value, then it will not be made. If there are some things that are very costly to make, a successful company will find a way to make it succeed - and yes, perhaps they will have dominance in the market, as no one else can provide said service for a reasonable cost. A company that is meant to succeed, will succeed, and others will fail.
And just because you feel that in some services/products, there's no 'money' in it, is not an excuse for the government to usurp control, and charge people for something they wouldn't pay for.
Of course that's why they have tainted it :)
Anyways, in a libertarian (i'll use that term to help our ideologically challenged american friends ;)) society noone has the freedom to dominate you. They just have the freedom to decide over
a) themselves
b) their property.
In my society (and yours) we arent allowed those freedoms.
When I go to work I spend about 60% of my time unvoluntarily working for the state. That's right! 60% of my earnings go to people other than myself and to their control.
Then everytime I want to spend some of that hard earned cash I run into a bunch of obstacles:
a) I have to pay an additional 25% everytime I buy something
(unless I buy a bottle of vodka of course.. in that case 80% of the price is taxes)
b) If I want to buy a product that for some reason the government (people other than me and people I didnt vote for) claim is illegal I run the chance of being locked up or given the opportunity to pay even more in fines. I do of course already pay the salary of the people who make sure I am denied those freedoms.
c) If I buy a house to live in, I'll have to pay extra every year for the privilege of living in my own property.
To me libertarianism isnt about distributing money, it's simply about allowing people to spend their money and time in whatever way the want. Sure if they want to give a majority of their funds to a gigantic and ineffective organization that oppresses them and call it the 'state' they are allowed to do it. Just don't force me to do the same.
A small note: In the phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat', the word dictatirship is not be understood as anything else than 'government'. The word used to carry this meaning (at the time this was written), but later was twisted into its current negative meaning.
I don't know if communism is the logical succession to liberalism, but I do hold the socialistic/communistic ideals higher than the liberalistic. I am pretty ok with the liberalistic ideals as well though; but the //results from actual implementations// (ie. the US especially, but certainly also Denmark), I believe demonstrate that it doesn't work.
Of course there are good things. Many good things, like more competition and thus lower prices and higher quality. This is what liberals always say when you ask why it's so good. The problem is that it's not always true. It's sometimes true --- maybe for milk --- but not always.
As Lotraz also talks about and I also mentioned earlier, monopolies is one of the biggest reasons why this is often not true. As I also mentioned before, another issue is that under a completely free system, some things would not be done, because there is no money to make. And that the quality of goods and services will increase when you privatize public bussinesses, is often completely incorrect, as we, among other countries, have seen several examples of in Denmark.
Finally.. as long as we have democracy, it's almost impossible (per definition) to end up with dictatorship.
'socialists have tainted liberalism'
No wonder Longfinger. Especially considering the MacArthy fascism in the 'Land of the Free'.
But, I really don't see liberalism/libertarianism as particular free either. How come I am free because someone else has the 'freedom' to dominate me?
Liberalism/Libertarinism is not a system to promote freedom. It is a system that tries to distribute wealth in a seemingly 'fair' way. This is, letting the 'Invisible hand' of the market guide the distribution. This has nothing to do with freedom though. Even tyrants could rule in a liberal economy. This is just a distribution model!
Freedom however, is in my book the ability to shape my own life in a safe society, where I can get education, health care and walk down the street without getting mugged by poor people.
Look up liberalism in a dictionary and you'll see that nicu's definition is the correct one :) You americans had to invent the name libertarianism because your socialists have tainted liberalism.
And mithgil. it's only a 'natural succession' to a marxist and well stuff aren't really looking so bright for the people who see the world in that way.
Besides what's so intrinsically democratic about the dictatorship of the proletariat? That's a necessary step to a marxist.. What countries exactly are close to that stage?
We definitely have different definitions or ideas of things, Nicu.
In America at least, the liberals (aka Democrats) don't believe in a free market. Things like taxes, tariffs, minimum wage laws, mandatory workmans comp, all these things infringe upon the free market. And Ultilh - who are you, or anyone, to tell Farmer Maggot what he can and can't sell his crops or produce for?
The end result is that yes, some farmers may go out of business - people in many businesses might. That is a consequence of a free market. However, the businesses with a solid plan, good prices, and a good structure will remain. Only those businesses that are successful, will remain. - those that die out , SHOULD die out, because the market cannot support them.
Libertarianism is a balance between Liberal and Conservative - we attempt to keep the best traditions, and the most freedom, at the same time.
In America, many phone companies in the last 10 years have been deregulated. Regulation is a control on the free market. Now that deregulation is happening, there have been a number of smaller phone companies springing up, offering better deals and lower prices than 'Mama Bell' as we call it. What this is does is forced the huge conglomerates to not be ABLE to price fix, and charge customers whatever they wanted.
This is one example of how deregulation, and the free market, have saved consumers money, and created thousands more jobs across the country.
And not only is Democracy a process - but Freedom is something that must constantly be maintained, and worked for. It is the nature of those in power to remain in power, and to constantly acquire more power. Thus citizens must constantly refresh their freedom, or they will end up at one extreme or another - almost invariably a dictatorship.
Communism is not dead. Communism is a logical succession from liberalism, just like liberalism succeeded feudalism. Leninism, which tried to force communism through state-socialism, is dead. It failed in part because it tried to skip right from feudalism to state-socialism, when capitalism is a necessary step in a society's development. Besides that, socialist central planning is a horribly flawed system. Also, Leninism was anti-democratic, when Marx's original idea of communism was intrinsicly democratic.
Autonomism has a different take on Marx... here's a link.
http://www.fims.uwo.ca/people/faculty/dyerwitheford/
That may have held true in the days of Adam Smith. However, we are currently in 2003 and in many cases corporations bigger than the nations are the players on individual nations.
That is, corporations controlled by a few select people, wielding power (money/production) thousand times bigger than a pre-world war I kingdom.
Longfinger, how is that 'interaction between human being'?
And,how is that prefered to majority decisions (Democracy)?
The concept and idea of communism died with the wall. Coming up soon is the death of the idea of the free market.
The point is that the market is not a mystical and evil entity, it's nothing else than interaction between human beings. If you regulate and interfere with that you automatically take away freedom from people. Even if you are comfortable with the thought of someone else limiting your personal choices there's absolutely no guarantee the people who are put in charge will make the right choice.
Like I said in my first post: If you dont trust two people to make decisions concerning their own personal property, how can you trust a small group of people to make the decisions for everyone else?
Another point Rendor: You seem to ignore some of the big problems there is with a controll-less or free market. The biggest is probably monopoly, which can lead to as bad or worse scenarios as the one you describe.
Another is that with a free market responsible for producing all that needs produced, certain things needed wimply //wouldn't// be produced, because there are things that you just can't make money on, and the market is about making money above all.
(pure) liberalism promotes a separated society: more rich, more poor. More happy, more misserable. The average 'happiness-level' certainly low.
Well, it's of course a bit confusing to speak about this subject when we don't call the same things the same names. For me, to list it roughly:
Liberalism stresses personal freedom above all, through a minimal state and a free market.
Conservatism believes in an organic society, where old customs and ways we do things now are here for a reason: because they have proved to work during many years.
Communism seeks maxsimum happiness for all people, archived by the classical 'everyone gives what he can, and uses what he needs'.
Socialism is not so much a political system as a way of thinking about things in general.
Of course these --- especially liberalism and communism --- are quite utopic.
//What seems to confuse socialists like Nicu is that they believe liberalism is about giving some mystical entity called the 'free market' power.//
No, this doesn't confuse me at all. Liberalism //is// about this, or rather about letting the market be free in the direct sense of the word. Free from control and inteference. It is the principal point in the liberalistic ideology, and is what is allegedly needed to archive those other points you list, Longfinger. If you think liberalism is something else, it must be another issue of the calling-the-same-thing-different-names.
As for the point with trusting the people in control: As we do have a democracy, and as I would like to remain a democracy even with more socialism, there is no single person in control (except maybe in the US, whose president probably has the most power in any democratic country). Democracy will keep trust in place, if it's done right.
Sure Rendor, start a price war and lead to an inflation by letting the farmers sell at whatever price they want.
FYI, there's a big difference between me, as a Libertarian, and what's commonly defined as a 'Liberal' or 'Democrat' here in America.
Most people picture a long line, with 'Conservative' at one end, and 'Liberal' at the other, as extremes. A libertarian would consider such a line to be made into a circle - And we are where Conservative and Liberal extremes meet.
Equality for all is a 'Liberal' concept - yet is it mainly because we are Conservative that we agree - because that's how it was intended in the Constitution. The essence of Libertarianism is freedom, of course. And as Longfinger pointed out, the 'free market' is simply the people's choice, without interference. A main saying of Libertarians is simply this: We believe a persons should be able to choose what is best for them, and do whatever they want - as long as they do not risk harm to someone else with their actions.
A quick case in point about our so-called free market.
A gallon of milk in America is almost always at least 2.50 US dollars each. It goes up, but rarely does it go below that. The reason for this is because the government imposed mandatory prices that Dairy Farmers can sell their milk for. They did this because at one point there was perceived to be a Dairy surplus and they wanted to somehow control Dairy Farmers from flooding the market. The result was that most Dairy Farmer's went out of business from that - especially the small business owner. There was simply too much milk, and because we were in a recession, having a higher fixed price meant that milk wasn't getting sold fast enough.
As a result, there were umpteen millions of gallons of milk sitting in storage on dairy farms that got wasted, and just poured out onto a ground - because Government controls wouldn't allow it to be sold for cheap, and Grocery Stores didn't want to buy it, because they had too much already. If those controls hadn't been in place, Grocery stores, and farmers, could have lowered their prices, and sold all their milk, and people could have bought lots of milk for very low prices.
Where else but America could we have the largest economy in the world - yet also have our country be 5 trillion dollars in debt, and a government in power that advocates spending even more money. We are so far in the red that if every American today sold off everything they owned, and pooled all resources together - the 280 million Americans together couldn't pay off the National Debt.
Kennedy was a silly little man with big ideas, Mithgil.
Just a clarification: Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism and what we europeans call Neo-Liberalism is basically the same thing.
Social Liberalism and what americans call simply Liberalism is also the same thing.
What seems to confuse socialists like Nicu is that they believe liberalism is about giving some mystical entity called the 'free market' power.
What it is really about is allowing human beings the freedom to make transactions without anyone else interfering. If you can't trust people to make decisions on their personal economy or their personal life without control.. how the hell can you trust the people in control to make decisions for everyone else? To me that is highly illogical..
Yeah Mithgil, I guess Kennedy learned that the 'American Way'?
It comes down to this: Any system that thinks itself the end-all of systems is bound to fail. This goes for state-capitalism, Fascism, Sovietism, etc. If a system doesn't adapt, it's not going to last.
'Those who make peaceful evolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.' - John F Kennedy
Thats true Nicu. If you look at Das Kapital (spelling?), Marx doesn't really pronounce how his communism 'works'. It is the long end of the cultural evolution (process), the logical replacement of the capitalistic world (according to Marx in said book at least). The system seen in the soviet was merely the the tools created by its leaders, forinstance Stalin.
That said, the democrasies we see today is basicly just a cultural reference within the capital/market controlled economy that truly controls our world. It is the mechanisms and 'system' that holds the focus of the market to the values the indivuals (majority) prefers.
Thats why I personally finds the 'process' of the democracy so important. If we forget why we have it, we simply give up control to something all too eager to take over: The corporations.
Remember, an analysis made ten years ago, showed that around 500 people controlled 50% of all the worlds production facilities (equalling wealth). This is what our fragile democracy has to compete with. Plus ofcourse frantic religious zealots from the muslim, christian and jewish branches.
So when Rendor and his Liberatarians preaches 'personal freedom', he must answer if its freedom to dominate others or to create your own life. Because, those two usually only mixes for the very few and rare.
Remember everyone ... the US is not a democracy... it's a //democratic **republic**//.
//Nic, liberalism means very different things in different places. Careful. :)//
//I'm not sure what your definition of Liberalism is, Nic, but I'm definitely not considering myself a liberal.//
//I don't know what you consider liberalism; I wasn't aware there were large divergent definitions of it.//
Didn't I spend like ten minutes or so the other day trying to tell you that?! :-P
shooting without warning because confusing a camera with a rpg?don't want to sound like a conspiracy theory lover but maybe he got shot because he found something that U.S. wouldn't like to be heard.things like these happen all the time in every country nearly.(a bit late response sorry)
By that rationale, Lotraz, communism is not a system either, but a proccess that just didn't succeed yet, and was stopped before time. I think democracy can be called at least an unmbrella-system. It is characterized by the fact that decisions are made by the people (more or less directly), usually by majority votes or similar.
Yes people have to wake and participate. But I think experience shows that it will not happen. Democracy doesn't function the way it is intended. What are good alternatives then? Well I don't know, but there //are// down sides of democracy: Too many decisions are made by people who don't understand, fully or at all, the consequences of them or the direct implications. This is an obvious problem I think.
The only reason they don't get elected is because the majority of the population doesn't want their crack ass in. :p
Yeah, people are always saying 'get involved' and 'if you don't vote don't complain.' Well, you know what, I vote but I think its a bunch of crap. In the USA you really only get 2 choices for president, Democrat or Republican, neither of which I usually like, and this just does not sound like much of a democracy to me. Oh, there are a whole lot of other party candidates available, but none of them have a chance in hell of getting in, and, every election time, you hear the press going on about the 'wasted vote' - meaning if you vote for any other party but Democrat or Rebulican your vote is wasted. To me, however, a wasted vote is when you just vote for the lesser of two evils rather than someone you can respect and believe in, so I tend to usually vote for one of those 'other' party candidates, for all the good it does me.
Some very good points have been made in this essay although, yeah, not sure about a total free market, but that's only because I don't have a lot of faith in my fellow man's sympathy for the less fortunate among us. :) However, I really have always resented my government's tendency to want to act like my 'parent' - policing personal choices that really have nothing to do with our national security.
Wow, something of substance on the log page - who would have thought! ;)
Nicuramar, Democracy is not a finished system, but a process.
Each day the citizens have to fight for their democracy (by participating in debates, voting, etc).
The current president in the states is a good example of why democracy is a process. He has created many totalitarian (fascist) laws and practices (The Patriot Act for one).
So, when the democracy gets under preasure, the people have to wake up and participate. If people fail that, the process fails and the democracy dies. That is exactly why it is so damn important to stress that its a process and YOU have to take your part in it.
Me neither Mithgil. I think history has demonstrated that there are many problems the the free market is not capable of solving. The highly freedom-based liberalism Lotraz mentions, sounds like me closer to the classical liberalism. A sort of 'back to basics'. I don't personally believe in it though, but I agree with several points.
I might add that while I consider democracy the currently best system in the world, I don't think it works //very/ well, and I think there are systems that could work better. In theory at least :-P.
I didn't get past the title.
I read it all. I agree with Rendor on most things, except I don't share his faith in the free market.
I read the whole thing, Intulor. Nice work, Rendor. :)
I think Rendor overestimates the intelligence of the average person :P
I read it all, altough i'm Croatian. And then the American make films in which the SE europe and it's countries are trying to dominate the world. I'm sick of it.:)
I didn't elect him, I can't vote, thank you very much.
With my mighty shield, I shall slay Konj!
I think the confusion arises from the yanks confusion of terms.
The Democratic Party in the states are for the most part made up of Social Liberal/Socialists.
The Conservatives are what the europeans would call a mixture of conservatism/liberalism.
The Libertarin Party Rendor refers to, is as they call themself the 'Third Line'. They preach a highly 'freedom' based liberalism, much like the current wave taking its heat over Europe these years.
Much like Europe, I personally belive this is the outcome of the central administration growing too far apart from the population.
who actually read this whole thing?
Another note: Liberalist in my book = A proponent of the classical liberalistic (or something deriving from it) ideology. I don't attach any particular political or idiological meaning to the term 'a liberal' though.
Rendor, Ehtyar, I don't know how liberalism can be defined in different ways? What I talk about is both classic liberalism as defined by John Locke, Adam Smith et.al., and newer 'neo liberalism'. The list of things you present, Rendor, that 'every man and woman can embrace', are characteristic of those kinds of liberalism.
I don't know what //you// consider liberalism; I wasn't aware there were large divergent definitions of it. But what do you know :-). You are a liberalist after my definition, which you pretty much give yourself, with the exception of the emphasis on the free market. I don't know what your view is there, but the classic liberalistic approach is that the free market should and will rightly order itself, and fulfill all demands of products of all kinds. A claim I believe to be proved false in numerous areas.
That said, I don't think our (denmark's.. the US's) systems are optimal the way they are. I can't say I have a genious plan to make it all better either. But it's a topic worth speding some time on thinking about :-).
I'm not sure what your definition of Liberalism is, Nic, but I'm definitely not considering myself a liberal.
I consider myself a Libertarian, or a Constitutionalist.
The ideals I fight for, every man and woman can embrace.
I believe people should govern themselves as much as possible.
It should be up to each individual on what he wants to drink, or smoke, or inject.
It should be up to each individual on what they want to sell, and how much they want to sell it for.
It should be up to each individual to choose who they want to spend their life with, who they wish to have officially recognized as their mate.
And it should be the people who decide what is in their own best interests.
I personally believe people aren't as stupid as our goverment makes them out to be, just with 80% of American's working their butts off to raise children, work their jobs, pay off their mortgage, the new car, little timmy's braces, etc - There's no time or energy to change things.
The world of idealistic politics is definitely for the young and the poor - and the older, extremely wealthy folks.
Is it any wonder why the neo-cons are in charge?
If you guys think IQ is the answer to anything have yours checked.
Relax Theodrek, I just tried to hint to the fact that your current president is the one with the all times lowest IQ. Its nothing to be ashamed of. Its good that you Americans can give even the challenged people a chance as president.
Theodrek sounds like Captain America.
I aint readin all that shit. :P Though knowing rendor its all 'Hate the government! Peace, love and the 60's rock on!' The only reason i'd like to go back to the 60's is to smoke a fat joint while watchin hendrix play in concert.
Oh, Lotraz, I could search a lot of sites - like the T2T website, or this website, or the National Organization for Gays, or the Women Against Drunk Drivers, whatever, and look for the two letters 'IQ' and not find it. :P
Ultilh, for one thing, mistakes happen. Grady is right, RPG's can come in a lot of different shapes and sizes. Why don't you think about all of the U.S. soldiers who are out there, delerious from the heat, and they're only being given two bottles of water per day for a ration. Of course, that's what the -news- said. And believe it or not, the news doesn't bring you the stories, it makes the stories.
A lot of cheaply made RPG's are shaped like higher end camera's, Ultilh. If you ask me it's the stupid ass camera-snatch's fault he's dead.
Nic, liberalism means very different things in different places. Careful. :)
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=IQ&submit.x=0&submit.y=0">http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=IQ&submit.x=0&submit.y=0</a>
Eyewitnesses said Dana, 43, was shot by soldiers on an American tank as he filmed outside Abu Ghraib prison in western Baghdad.
His last pictures show a U.S. tank driving towards Dana outside the prison walls. Several shots ring out from the tank, and Dana's camera falls to the ground.
The U.S. military acknowledged on Sunday that its troops had 'engaged' a Reuters cameraman, saying they had thought his camera was a _rocket propelled grenade launcher_.
How stupid can people get?
Nice text... I wonder what the rates given so far are based on? If it's an agreement with the policital standpoints, then I would need to vote lower. It's well formulated and I agree with some important points (senselss growth of budgets, 'random' wars etc.) But the major standpoint which is persued, liberalism (the ideology, not the politics of the liberals in the US. The word has been somewhat distorted), I don't agree with.
That is, I agree with its ideal, just as I agree with the socialistic ideal. Unfortunately, neither of those work in their full ideal forms. Lock as ex-USSR for the classic example of implemented socialiasm not working. Look at the US for liberalism not working --- probably the western country with the most poor people, the most murders by firearms etc.
Of course, if you have money, it's good to live in a system as liberal as possible. If not, best is as social as possible. Many people change views depending on the weight of their wallets.
I don't think society exists or should exist only to nuture and protect a market which is then supposed to govern itself. Most people agree that this doesn't work in the extreme form; even the US have many regulations of the free market. Without those, some product would not be produced, because some product are simply hard to make enough money on; some product would be monopolized, and prices would go sky high, etc.
In Denmark we have what could be called a form of 'social-liberalism', which is a compromise system. It's certainly not ideal, and we do have some of the highest taxes in the word --- a price for the 'social' part --- but most people are content with it. Still, it is constantly under attack from the socialists (for being too liberalistic) and the liberalists (for being too socialistic).
I stand somewhere in the middle, leaning a bit to the socialistic but with some conservatistic tendnecies (real conservatism --- //not// the politics of the so-called conservatives in the US). And so much for liberalism vs. socialism from my pen :-).