Are we a failed state?

[horusd]

One of these fine days I'll get the hang of multi-quote but in the interim!
BTW we are way off topic, so I'll restrict the answers down.

I understand your point, but as long as inherited assets were originally legally acquired, then taking those assets away is a serious infringement of freedom and property rights. If you start off with a situation where everyone owns the same and 50 years later some people own more than others, then it is either because they acquired them through coercion, fraud or theft (in which case there is an important role for government) or they bought assets from people that were free to sell and chose to do so.
While I can see how the idea of forced redistribution seems appealing, and in the short run even a logical solution to solve the problem, I believe that it has much more detrimental affects on the wealth and well-being of less well off people in society. Let me explain.
There is a commonly stated anecdote that says that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is simply not true. As the rich get richer the poor get richer too. Rich people invest their money in businesses and ventures that overall lead to increased productivity and provide jobs to people. Rich people get richer when businesses become more successful and productive, and wages have a direct correlation to productivity. Poor people in Ireland are infinitely better off than poor people Egypt because the total level of wealth is higher and it is acquired in a relatively free system.
Now, when you take from one small group of people, the rich, in order to give to another group of people then you reduce the incentive on the rich to create more wealth. In addition you create a situation where the poor become dependent on the hand outs and are discouraged to figure out a way to better their lot. So while in the short term their is a benefit of wealth redistribution, the long term effects are extremely damaging.


The ultra liberal view is that gov't should merely regulate property. But we care rightly for society, and rich people, whilst utilising their initiative etc avail of various social capitals which are owned communally. Wealth after all, has no meanig without society. So, trickle down economics where a rising sea lifts all boats is not in my view a correct one. Sure, people should be able to keep most of what they make, and the tricky thing to decide is what is appropriate. This will be a reflection of what society will want to be, and this is essentially a moral view, not an economic one.

My argument was more down the line that in a free society people are free to pursue what ever goals and objectives they set themselves. I agree that a lot of our lives involves caring for others, and in my opinion this has greatly diminished in western societies. But these activities of caring for family, friends and neighbours are not a new phenomenon, they are ingrained in humans. And this caring side was not a problem before the introduction of wide spread welfare systems.

Historically I cannot see how this could be true. A family member who cannot earn money as a carer, a parent who cannot earn as a child-rearer, cannot be considered to be equal. Women are inordinately carers, and this would condemn 50% of the population to a permenant disadvantage.



... But someone that dedicates themselves to lets say a charitable service is doing so out of the "self interest" of having the satisfaction of having helped other people. Every human action is driven by the pursuit to be in a subjectively better situation than before. For some people it is the accumulation of consumer goods, and for other people it is helping others.

This cannot be correct. What motivates people to act are many, and may indeed be hidden from themselves/others. A human being uniquely can sacrifice themselves for a principle or a loved one. Self-interest cannot be the be all and end all. We just cannot say definitively. But what defines human nature uniquely is they can reflect and choose one action over another. How they do this is contentious. But a credible view is that we act on reasons provided to us by our identities. These identities are normative. A man who identifies himself as a Doctor respects confidentiality just because he so identifies himself, and thisacting from a normative identity forms the basis for human morality. *

I wouldn't include the poor in lacking "resources". I believe that people are far more resourceful than is made to be, especially when they have to pull themselves out of a bad situation. But you raise an important point about the equality of opportunity.

Some people are "victims" of brute luck. The disabled etc are perhaps short-changed in the lottery of life. Without a notion of equality they may not be able to pull themselves out of a bad situation.

There are countless examples, where especially the poor are at a disadvantage because of government intervention. Rich people and large businesses have the resources to overcome government rules and regulations. Poor people and small business do not have the same resources, which means that there is not a level playing field. Freedom to utilise your person and property without doing damage to others, and without the intervention by government levels the playing field for everyone.

I accept this may be somewhat true. But wealth is power, and power can corrupt as we well know. Undue influence of business and the rich (tax breaks etc) on the political system is a world-wide issue. The gov't duty and I would argue societies moral duty, is to regulate business such that it serves society, not engineer society to serve business & the rich.

* This idea cannot be sumised in a line or two. See Christine Korsgaard's "The Sources of Normativity"(2004) Cambridge University Press which aims to explain the origins of human morality.

 

[Chris]

The ultra liberal view is that gov't should merely regulate property. But we care rightly for society, and rich people, whilst utilising their initiative etc avail of various social capitals which are owned communally. Wealth after all, has no meanig without society. So, trickle down economics where a rising sea lifts all boats is not in my view a correct one. Sure, people should be able to keep most of what they make, and the tricky thing to decide is what is appropriate. This will be a reflection of what society will want to be, and this is essentially a moral view, not an economic one.

We'll just have to remain in disagreement there. I believe there is plenty of evidence in the world to suggest that the wealthier rich people are in a free society the wealthier the poor are too.

Historically I cannot see how this could be true. A family member who cannot earn money as a carer, a parent who cannot earn as a child-rearer, cannot be considered to be equal. Women are inordinately carers, and this would condemn 50% of the population to a permenant disadvantage.

But are you not assuming that a family with a couple of kids is better off today with both parents working than a family 60 years ago with only one parent working? Both of my grandfathers raised their families with only one income, and neither of the families were left wanting. Today you have families with pretty much the same standard of living that are entirely dependent on two incomes.
I would also say that child carers are temporarily "disadvantaged" by not being able to work. But there are also very significant advantages to caring for others especially your own children. I would happily sacrifice part of my wages to be able to spend more time at home with my family as I value that part of my life more.

This cannot be correct. What motivates people to act are many, and may indeed be hidden from themselves/others. A human being uniquely can sacrifice themselves for a principle or a loved one. Self-interest cannot be the be all and end all. We just cannot say definitively. But what defines human nature uniquely is they can reflect and choose one action over another. How they do this is contentious. But a credible view is that we act on reasons provided to us by our identities. These identities are normative. A man who identifies himself as a Doctor respects confidentiality just because he so identifies himself, and thisacting from a normative identity forms the basis for human morality.

Let me clarify. I put the term "self-interest" in quotations and the term is very easily misunderstood in this context. Basically, every human action is performed by the actor to improve their physical or psychological well-being. If I buy a sandwich and eat it I do so because I want the satisfaction of having eaten something. If I volunteer at a charity once a week, I do so for the feeling of satisfaction of having helped someone. In both cases I act with the "self-interest" of satisfying a physical or psychological need, as long as my actions are made out of free choice and not coercion.

Some people are "victims" of brute luck. The disabled etc are perhaps short-changed in the lottery of life. Without a notion of equality they may not be able to pull themselves out of a bad situation.

Yes, disability is entirely different matter, and I have no problem with there being help for disabled. But I would rather see private charities doing the helping, as they are far better at making the most out of scarce resources. But as I said, I do not believe that an able bodied poor person needs special consideration and handouts appr9opriated by force.

I accept this may be somewhat true. But wealth is power, and power can corrupt as we well know. Undue influence of business and the rich (tax breaks etc) on the political system is a world-wide issue. The gov't duty and I would argue societies moral duty, is to regulate business such that it serves society, not engineer society to serve business & the rich.

Very true, but the fact that big business uses the power of its money to influence public policy is a problem of our government system. As a classical liberal I would like to see government's only roles being in protecting the country and its citizens from foreign and domestic harm. In such a situation a big business could throw as much money at politicians as it liked, but government would not be able to influence a positive outcome for the business. Hayek once suggested a simple constitutional law that required that every legislation that is passed be applied to all members and organisations of society equally. Financial industry lobbies for a tax break, give everyone the exact same tax break; this avoids favouritism to the loudest and most powerful lobby group.

 

[horusd]

Again I need to look up multi-quote... note to self!

We'll just have to remain in disagreement there. I believe there is plenty of evidence in the world to suggest that the wealthier rich people are in a free society the wealthier the poor are too.

Chris I realise you aren't defending the status quo but the gaps between rich and poor is actually growing in the US and world-wide. Denmark, one of the most heavily taxed countries, rates as one of the happiest. It appears the lower the income gap the greater social cohesion. A fact reflected in the Nordic countries.

“Income inequality is rising, and if we took into account tax data, it would be even more,” said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who specializes in poverty. “More than other countries, we have a very unequal income distribution where compensation goes to the top in a winner-takes-all economy.” See here for US census data, and full article. The world-wide gap is described as the eighth wonder of the world by the satirical magazine the Onion. here.


But are you not assuming that a family with a couple of kids is better off today with both parents working than a family 60 years ago with only one parent working? Both of my grandfathers raised their families with only one income, and neither of the families were left wanting. Today you have families with pretty much the same standard of living that are entirely dependent on two incomes.

As women are almost exclusively the carers, what they do iseffectively unpaid "work". Work that is neccessary for human life. A single earner (usually male) would control the family income, and the carer left at their mercy whilst society only acknowledges outside the home work as actual work. This cannot be a true reflection of human life as it fails to acknowledge the contribution women make to society.


I would also say that child carers are temporarily "disadvantaged" by not being able to work. But there are also very significant advantages to caring for others especially your own children. I would happily sacrifice part of my wages to be able to spend more time at home with my family as I value that part of my life more.

Why should they be disadvantaged at all? Nurturing & caring is essential to society and should be treated as work. All of society needs this work to be done, including markets and businesse's. You giving up part of your work-time would be a voluntary choice, but no choice exists for most women who must care for kids, or carers who care for the disabled or elderly. They forgo income because they have to. Who would choose to live on 200 euro or so a week except that it is neccessary?

Let me clarify. I put the term "self-interest" in quotations and the term is very easily misunderstood in this context. Basically, every human action is performed by the actor to improve their physical or psychological well-being. If I buy a sandwich and eat it I do so because I want the satisfaction of having eaten something. If I volunteer at a charity once a week, I do so for the feeling of satisfaction of having helped someone. In both cases I act with the "self-interest" of satisfying a physical or psychological need, as long as my actions are made out of free choice and not coercion.

Not all human actions are done for self-interest. Addiction is a case in point, where no real "choice" exists. But even voluntary choices are a minefield. To try and differentiate between voluntary choices and brute luck turns society into moral judges who must decide which is which. I "choose" to care for a dying relative, thus society owes me nothing as I exercised choice, I could have chosen differently and wasn't coerced. I chose to drink & drive, and as a result am injured in a crash. Should society not treat me? But maybe I'm alcoholic? Maybe I'm psychologically damaged by child abuse or a war veteran. Deciding between voluntary choices & brute luck is next to impossible. Also there is a basic unfairness if the rich do not have to explain how they got rich, but the poor must explain their poverty to get societies help.

Yes, disability is entirely different matter, and I have no problem with there being help for disabled. But I would rather see private charities doing the helping, as they are far better at making the most out of scarce resources. But as I said, I do not believe that an able bodied poor person needs special consideration and handouts appr9opriated by force.

Disability takes many forms. A person may be bodily healthy but psychologically disabled. Again, society is forced into becoming moral judges. And why should caring be left to charities? Surely society means we owe each other care, respect and nurturing? Or are we saying that only the economically productive matter to society. What a terrible place that would be. Much of what matters to people isn't economic. Literature, art, love, human development etc aren't economically measurable. And those who make money in society also owe it something. How this is done is debatable, but that they owe society something surely cannot be argued against.


Very true, but the fact that big business uses the power of its money to influence public policy is a problem of our government system. As a classical liberal I would like to see government's only roles being in protecting the country and its citizens from foreign and domestic harm. In such a situation a big business could throw as much money at politicians as it liked, but government would not be able to influence a positive outcome for the business. Hayek once suggested a simple constitutional law that required that every legislation that is passed be applied to all members and organisations of society equally. Financial industry lobbies for a tax break, give everyone the exact same tax break; this avoids favouritism to the loudest and most powerful lobby group.

Tax breaks designed specifically for business's cannot be extended to individuals easily. One of the problems in the US specifically is that corporations have been able to nominate themselves as "persons" whilst not obviously being persons.

 

[Purple]

Again I need to look up multi-quote... note to self!

Copy and paste into MS Word and edit;
Copy the "

" bit and paste it accordingly and then copy the other bit and do the same.

 

[Chris]

Chris I realise you aren't defending the status quo but the gaps between rich and poor is actually growing in the US and world-wide. Denmark, one of the most heavily taxed countries, rates as one of the happiest. It appears the lower the income gap the greater social cohesion. A fact reflected in the Nordic countries.

“Income inequality is rising, and if we took into account tax data, it would be even more,” said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who specializes in poverty. “More than other countries, we have a very unequal income distribution where compensation goes to the top in a winner-takes-all economy.” See here for US census data, and full article. The world-wide gap is described as the eighth wonder of the world by the satirical magazine the Onion. here.

While there certainly may be a correlation between unequal income and "happiness" that doesn't mean that government intervention can solve the problem. As I already outlined the poor are more disadvantaged by government regulations and barriers to entry into many industries which exacerbates the level of unequal income. The monetary system and government policies towards large corporations also exacerbates it. But these are all characteristics of increased interventionism and less freedom. Income inequality was not a problem during the industrial revolution where government intervention and welfare was at a minimum.

As women are almost exclusively the carers, what they do iseffectively unpaid "work". Work that is neccessary for human life. A single earner (usually male) would control the family income, and the carer left at their mercy whilst society only acknowledges outside the home work as actual work. This cannot be a true reflection of human life as it fails to acknowledge the contribution women make to society.

Why should they be disadvantaged at all? Nurturing & caring is essential to society and should be treated as work. All of society needs this work to be done, including markets and businesse's. You giving up part of your work-time would be a voluntary choice, but no choice exists for most women who must care for kids, or carers who care for the disabled or elderly. They forgo income because they have to. Who would choose to live on 200 euro or so a week except that it is neccessary?

But society should not be forced to pay for someone to care for a relative. Pretty much everyone in society will at one stage or another care for a relative. By forcing society to pay for carers you are robbing to Peter to pay Paul, only to take the money off Paul again to pay Peter. As I said there are rewards that go far beyond monetary ones when it comes to caring for others.

Not all human actions are done for self-interest. Addiction is a case in point, where no real "choice" exists. But even voluntary choices are a minefield. To try and differentiate between voluntary choices and brute luck turns society into moral judges who must decide which is which. I "choose" to care for a dying relative, thus society owes me nothing as I exercised choice, I could have chosen differently and wasn't coerced. I chose to drink & drive, and as a result am injured in a crash. Should society not treat me? But maybe I'm alcoholic? Maybe I'm psychologically damaged by child abuse or a war veteran. Deciding between voluntary choices & brute luck is next to impossible. Also there is a basic unfairness if the rich do not have to explain how they got rich, but the poor must explain their poverty to get societies help.

Of course there are outside influences in human choice, but at the very basic level human actions are done because the person believes, rightly or wrongly, that they will be better off by performing the action.

Disability takes many forms. A person may be bodily healthy but psychologically disabled. Again, society is forced into becoming moral judges. And why should caring be left to charities? Surely society means we owe each other care, respect and nurturing? Or are we saying that only the economically productive matter to society. What a terrible place that would be. Much of what matters to people isn't economic. Literature, art, love, human development etc aren't economically measurable. And those who make money in society also owe it something. How this is done is debatable, but that they owe society something surely cannot be argued against.

Let me clarify the reason why private charities should do the helping. Firstly I think that helping others should be voluntary and not by force through government, but that is an entirely different matter. But given the situation where government collects a certain amount of taxes to help others, I would rather see that money being given to private charities to do the helping. I think it was the guy running the Jack and Jill foundation that I heard the other day in an interview saying that the foundation, given the same amount of money, could help more people the the respective government service. All resources are scarce, so we should be giving them to those that can make best use of them.

Tax breaks designed specifically for business's cannot be extended to individuals easily. One of the problems in the US specifically is that corporations have been able to nominate themselves as "persons" whilst not obviously being persons.

Actually not so difficult at all. If big business lobbies for a reduction in taxation from lets say 10% to 9%, then reduce all other taxes by the relatively same 10%.

 

[horusd]

Copy and paste into MS Word and edit;
Copy the "

" bit and paste it accordingly and then copy the other bit and do the same.

Thanks Purple I think I understand that now!

 

[horusd]

Chris I think we are at an impasse and must declare an honourable truce here, as clearly we aren't convincing each other, and only cyber space will be taken up with a kind of theoretical game of ping, pong!

At the heart of what I am saying I suppose is that no system or theory provides all answers. We can agree on some points and must diverge on others. However, I don't accept that either Capitalism, Socialism/Communism, our hybrid or anything else provides a one stop shop of answers to our problems and would lead to an Utopia, or anything like it. And this is why all theoretical approaches are flawed if they aren't contextualised. Counter-examples to all theories abound. We cannot escape the need to choose sometimes even when no one choice seems better than any other.

The search for certainty is an ancient one, Descartes himself faltered at it. To return to the question " are we a failed state?" I don't think this elicts a simple answer. I might say it's true and explain why I think so, but my opinion cannot be absolute. Plato asked the question what is justice thousands of years ago and nobody has yet answered it ! Our natures, and perhaps the nature of reality means we cannot isolate pure answers to what appear straight-forward questions. When the founding fathers say everyone can pursue happiness, we are left with a false impression that this is straightforward, but it's really anything but.

 

[Chris]

horusd, truce accepted and I agree that there is no utopia, not even in a totally free market system.
The only thing I would add is the following historical observations:
1) Socialism/communism has failed everywhere tried
2) Our current hybrid system of cronyism has spectacularly failed, albeit not as bad as communism
3) Small government and low levels of intervention proved very successful during the industrial revolution.

One other thing that I forgot to comment on was your statement about "And those who make money in society also owe it something. "
Those that make money, even the richest, do so because they serve their customers who are relatively free to spend their money or not. It is not a case that rich people take money of the table without providing something. Now there are certain government protected industries like banking and energy where huge profits are made because of government intervention and protection. But by and large rich people find a way to best serve their customers who voluntarily part with their money while at the same time creating employment. Society has already benefited from their products and job creation, so these people do not owe society anything more.

 

[oldnick]

And,finally, don't forget that at least a million Irish people in the six counties feel that it is better to belong to UK and the Republic -not only from the Protestant community but ,according to the latest survey ,half of the Catholic community.

That's besides many many 9head-down-and-say-nothing) southern unionists like me that have always known that the Republic is ,well if not a failed state , pretty much of a failure.

(and for the so-called "Irish patriots" amongst you , let me explain that one can be happy and often proud to have an Irish passport, love this land and one's fellow-citizens and, indeed, feel more comfortable here than in the U.K. -but strongly feel that so-called Irish independence was a mistake and that it makes far more sense to have a united British-Irish government with autonomy for each area -even with rotating capital cities. )

 

[horusd]

horusd, truce accepted and I agree that there is no utopia, not even in a totally free market system.
The only thing I would add is the following historical observations:
1) Socialism/communism has failed everywhere tried
2) Our current hybrid system of cronyism has spectacularly failed, albeit not as bad as communism
3) Small government and low levels of intervention proved very successful during the industrial revolution.

One other thing that I forgot to comment on was your statement about "And those who make money in society also owe it something. "
Those that make money, even the richest, do so because they serve their customers who are relatively free to spend their money or not. It is not a case that rich people take money of the table without providing something. Now there are certain government protected industries like banking and energy where huge profits are made because of government intervention and protection. But by and large rich people find a way to best serve their customers who voluntarily part with their money while at the same time creating employment. Society has already benefited from their products and job creation, so these people do not owe society anything more.

Chris I'll (mostly) let you away with the last word! I have to say that Berlin's article, (particularly the last few pages), I referred to above, was one of the most eye-opening I've read. Whilst on balance endorsing a liberal agenda, he acknowledges that the problems we face in trying to address the multiplicity of human wants and values may be insolvable. This dilemma confronts us daily, with no obvious answer, where no choice is pain-free and without a cost. It's fascinating to me that we seek certainty & firm ground, yet never find it. We can argue the toss, but can never achieve an outright win. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it's humbling to know that know that success is. at best, subjective.

In Milton's Paradise Lost Adam & Eve are chucked out of Eden (perfection)for eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good & evil.
They are left with imperfection yet knowledge/awareness. Their sin was to want to be god-like and leave behind their ignorance, even at the price of their bliss. Milton captures the essential human dilemma in this exchange between Adam and the angel Raphael about reaching beyond man's limits:

(Raphael) :"...be lowly wise; think only what concerns thee and thy being...

(Adam): " How fully hast thou satisfied me, pure
Intelligence of heaven...And, freed from intricacies, taught to
live the easiest way, nor with perplexing thoughts to interrupt
the sweet of life, from which God hath bid dwell far off all anxious cares,
and not molest us, unless we ourselves, seek them with wandering
thoughts, and notions vain." VIII ( 174-187)

We still seek perfection, believing it possible, a point where all things are harmonious, where all human values meet. Yet, as Adam & Eve discovered, even Paradise didn't provide this, and hence they ate the fruit, wanting more. So it seems harmony & order are incompatible with us, and no social/economic model; pure Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism, will ever bring us to this illusory state, at best, we hit an unstable compromise.