Is laissez-faire capitalism a Utopian dream?

[K-Mac]

On a diet forum I visit, of all places, I got into it with Pete over his criticism of the United States on several issues. While I certainly realize that the US is not a perfect place, far from it actually, I do think it's the best the world currently has to offer, and I think most of you would agree. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) At first, I considered not responding because I'm sick and tired of going back and forth with him over what I feel are common sense ideas, but then I started to wonder, is this guy correct? Are we just as bad as Marxists in that we are hoping for a utopia that's simply not possible? Am I being too much of an optimist by thinking that mankind can do better than he has? Here's his latest response:

Hi Kelly,

I can see I've upset you, which was not my intent. Apologies for that.

As for laissez-faire vs. collectivism, I rather think it's not an either-or proposition. Most governments, including the US, have some combination of the two. Right-libertarians have dreamed for years of starting their own completely laissez-faire state. But it never gets off the ground - which suggests to me that, like true Marxism, true laissez-faire is an unrealizable dream.

I suspect the reason for this is that laissez-faire and Marxism both envision a kind of social commons. Feudalism, which appears to be the natural tendency of all human social systems, inevitably subverts a commons. In the form of the military-industrial complex it has certainly subverted the US system of government. So far as I'm aware no one has come up with an antidote to feudalism yet. If you have, I'd love to hear about it.

As for the Canadian mothers, [i had sent him a link to an article about the Canadian health care system and how mothers of premature infants were being sent to Seattle for treatment because Canadian neonatal wards have no room for them] my point is simply that they have a much better deal than the - far more numerous - American mothers forced to cross into Mexico for the same reason. As for Moore's sentiments on the matter, I find the man about as unbearable to listen to as Limbaugh, so haven't seen his movie on this. But if you can find any systematic study that shows American health care is better than its equivalents in Australia or Canada I'd be quite curious.

As to the world spiraling into disaster, I rank this as pretty low on the scale of probabilities at the moment. America, however, appears to be in an irreversible slide into economic devastation and a consequent fascism. As an American I feel a great sorrow for my country and my fellow citizens. But that sorrow hasn't prevented me from acting rationally about the situation and returning to reside in Australia, the country of my birth. I should think this "voting with my feet" is a pure expression of laissez-faire. No?

As to my regard for the spirit of man in general - I find us to be angels and devils, heroes and cowards, and all things in between, and none of us are so consistent that we don't combine all these elements in our daily lives. As a technologist I regard science and engineering as the only mechanisms of social change, and all this talk of collectivism, objectivism, and so on to be just hot air.

To quote Robert Heinlein, one of my favourite authors,

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck".

Regards,

Pete

Ugh! He's just driving me crazy. I see several things I'd like to go after, but is he even worth my time and effort? And I am really curious to hear some responses about his claim that, "like true Marxism, true laissez-faire is an unrealizable dream."

[intellectualammo]

Are we just as bad as Marxists in that we are hoping for a utopia that's simply not possible? Am I being too much of an optimist by thinking that mankind can do better than he has?

Marxism, or socialism, communism, does not work in practice because it doesn't work in theory. Laissez-faire certainly works in theory *holds up Rand's CUI in one hand and Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto in the other* but it has not been fully put into practice. Close, but no. (but just look at what has been put into in practice already in history...*holds up The Capitalist Manifesto again*) Just because it hasn't fully, doesn't at all change the theory as such. Stay the optimist, you have theory that backs it up, that it is possible. All we are trying to do is put that theory into practice. Look at Atlantis in AS. Theory put into practice...too bad it's in the paper world and not in our real world...

He's just driving me crazy. I see several things I'd like to go after, but is he even worth my time and effort?

I didn't even think is was worth me even reading the blue above... so instead I just swam right on through to the other side to where the rest of your words were at.

Edited October 18, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Marc K.]

K-Mac:

In general it is a waste of time (IMO) to argue with a marxist. They start with a malevolent universe premise and so in order to make any headway you would have to go all the way back to the beginning and straighten out their view of reality. If you like this person, and he has some vestige of rationality, it might be worth some effort.

Look at history. The times and places that have come closest to the capitalist ideal of freedom have been the times of greatest progress, marked by advances in knowledge, living standards, technology and happiness.

The times and places that have come closest to the marxist ideal have been the times of greatest regression, marked by mysticism, pestilence, death worship and death.

His Heinlein quote supports your position. It essentially describes the plot of Atlas Shrugged

[DMR]

Re: pure capitalism as "utopian", I cannot resist quoting Murray Rothbard's excellent dissection of this fallacious idea from his "For A New Libery" (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty14.asp S2: "Are We Utopians?"):

While it is vital for the libertarian to hold his ultimate and "extreme" ideal aloft, this does not...make him a "utopian." The true utopian is one who advocates a system that is contrary to the natural law of human beings and of the real world. A utopian system is one that could not work even if everyone were persuaded to try to put it into practice. The utopian system could not work, i.e., could not sustain itself in operation. The utopian goal of the left: communism--the abolition of specialization and the adoption of uniformity--could not work even if everyone were willing to adopt it immediately. It could not work because it violates the very nature of man and the world, especially the uniqueness and individuality of every person, of his abili­ties and interests, and because it would mean a drastic decline in the production of wealth, so much so as to doom the great bulk of the human race to rapid starvation and extinction.

...

In the deepest sense, then, the libertarian doctrine is not utopian but eminently realistic, because it is the only theory that is really consistent with the nature of man and the world.

[K-Mac]

Look at history. The times and places that have come closest to the capitalist ideal of freedom have been the times of greatest progress, marked by advances in knowledge, living standards, technology and happiness.

The times and places that have come closest to the marxist ideal have been the times of greatest regression, marked by mysticism, pestilence, death worship and death.

His Heinlein quote supports your position. It essentially describes the plot of Atlas Shrugged

I told him this, in so many words, in one of my earlier posts to him. I told him to simply observe the past and reminded him that time will tell, yet again, which philosophy works and which doesn't. But I think you're right about him not being worth my time.

Re: pure capitalism as "utopian", I cannot resist quoting Murray Rothbard's excellent dissection of this fallacious idea from his "For A New Libery" (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty14.asp S2: "Are We Utopians?"):

That's good! Maybe I'll just respond very simply with that quote and leave it at that.

[softwareNerd]

K-Mac,

Two decades ago, I'd have said, "ignore the marxist". Now, I think: "If only we could have opponents like this, rather than the crazy christians or the nutty nihilists". At least this guy seems to be ready to try matching his logic against that of his opponets, rather than resorting to faith or force.

He speaks of people "dreaming" of setting up rights-respecting countries; but, did anyone actually try and fail (and we should be talking about real countries; small 10,000 people groups like the "Free State Project" do not count.) Many different countries have tried communism and socialism, and have failed. Some will say it's because they did not try hard enough. On the other hand, we would say it is because they were doomed to fail by the logic of what they were trying; and, as evidence we can see that the more seriously countries took socialism, the worse they failed.

His argument comes down to "mixed economy is the best". If he wants to base it solely on real examples, then the better approach would be to look at post-industrial revolution history, and choose countries and times that were relatively free-market, compared to other countries and times. Then, compare these examples, and see how they measure up. If one finds that the ones that are relatively free-market are far superior, then we know that we at least want to get there.

If the relatively ideal example we come up with is significantly more rights-respecting than the U.S. today, then we should head in that direction. We can do this even if we grant him the argument (which we don't) that the ideal is unattainable.

His argument boils down to "the ideal on both ends is impossible or bad". Well, if we grant him that, we're still left with the question: if we aren't at the right "middle-point", which way should we head now? In complaining about the extremes, he has basically avoided this practical question.

If one actually attempts such an exercise, then one will find real differences. For instance, by his measure Canadian health care is better than U.S. health-care. That's a hint that you and he will never agree about which country and time was better. You'll never agree unless you can agree on a standard to use. This is a big topic, so I won't go into it any further.

As for the rest, I agree with him that the world is not spiraling to disaster. I disagree that America is on a slide to economic devastation. America is like the bus that was moving faster than the others, and they have started to speed up. As they close in, America might appear to slide, but that's all relative. The most likely situation is that the countries that are speeding up will slow down as they become wealthier. Chances are that they will approach the American standard of living some day, but will not surpass it. Of course, any prediction is fraught with problems: how fast or slow America proceeds is up to Americans, and it's tough to predict how Americans will choose.

[DavidV]

We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual

adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a program which seems

neither a mere defense of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly

liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty (including the

trade unions), which is not too severely practical, and which does not confine itself to

what appears today as politically possible. We need intellectual leaders who are willing

to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realization. They

must be men who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realization,

however remote. The practical compromises they must leave to the politicians. Free

trade and freedom of opportunity are ideals which still may arouse the imaginations of

large numbers, but a mere "reasonable freedom of trade" or a mere "relaxation of

controls" is neither intellectually respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm.

-F.A. Hayek, The Intellectuals and Socialism

[K-Mac]

Thank you, softwareNerd and GreedyCapitalist! It's so frustrating for me have these concepts in my head and not know how to articulate them for someone like Peter. As a beginner, I realize I have a lot to learn and read, but it's so nice to be able to come to this forum for some instant gratification.

[Mammon]

Important thing to note, this guy isn't a Marxist. Because he isn't pro-capitalist doesn't mean he is pro-communist.

Pete, like a lot of people only seems to oppose these things because they are extremes and they view extremes as bad. Because extreme communism failed, extreme anything else must fail too. It's a fallacy, it's irrational. But, that seems to be what people think.

K-Mac, read Reisman's works to get a better understanding of what your actually advocating. I don't suggest debating capitalism at all unless you've read the first chapter of his book Capitalism:A Treatise on Economics and the last chapter from the same book. Both are online, but the links are messing up so I will send them too you later. He also wrote on the subject of "laizze-faire is an extreme, and extremes are bad", I'll find that for you later too.

I'm hard pressed for time at the moment, so i'll get back to you for everything K-Mac.

[Mammon]

Kelly, (and everyone else) read these, it will help you a lot.

http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/Econo...0Capitalism.htm

http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/Laiss...0Capitalism.htm

[intellectualammo]

Look at history. The times and places that have come closest to the capitalist ideal of freedom have been the times of greatest progress, marked by advances in knowledge, living standards, technology and happiness.

The times and places that have come closest to the marxist ideal have been the times of greatest regression, marked by mysticism, pestilence, death worship and death.

And all of which is wonderfully presented in Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto, hence the subtitle: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire.

Edited October 19, 2007 by intellectualammo

[K-Mac]

Kelly, (and everyone else) read these, it will help you a lot.

Thanks! I cannot read them at work right now, but I've bookmarked them for later.

[Robert J. Kolker]

On a diet forum I visit, of all places, I got into it with Pete over his criticism of the United States on several issues. While I certainly realize that the US is not a perfect place, far from it actually, I do think it's the best the world currently has to offer, and I think most of you would agree.

There are folks who would argue that Switzerland is a better place to live than the U.S. It is prosperous, it is clean and it has a much lower rate of crime and it is a quieter place. Yet in many respects, it is authoritarian and intrusive. They have a draft there. Men of a certain age -must- serve in the Militia. If I had a net worth of just $500,000 dollars more twenty years ago, I would have qualified for Swiss citizenship. I would be there now enjoying the Alps, eating chocolate bars and yodeling and riding on decent railroads.

On the other hand, as Harry Lyme of -The Third Man- has pointed out: five hundred years of peace and brotherhood. What have the Swiss Produced? The coo coo clock.

That is not entirely fair to Switzerland. They produced Euler, one of the greatest mathematicians ever and the Bernouli Brothers. And they have a first rate pharmacutical industry. But the Swiss are a lot less spectacular and "splashy" than the United Stateseans.

Bob Kolker

[Capitalism Forever]

I regard science and engineering as the only mechanisms of social change, and all this talk of collectivism, objectivism, and so on to be just hot air.

This is the premise that keeps him from caring about philosophy. You might want to challenge him by pointing out how only free individuals can achieve any advances in science and engineering--and whether individuals are free to use their minds very much depends on whether they live in a collectivist or individualist society.

[Robert J. Kolker]

This is the premise that keeps him from caring about philosophy. You might want to challenge him by pointing out how only free individuals can achieve any advances in science and engineering--and whether individuals are free to use their minds very much depends on whether they live in a collectivist or individualist society.

The first successful intermediate range ballistic missiles were designed by Nazi scientists. Konrad Zeuss, a German who worked under Hitler was the co-inventor of the stored program digital computer. Atsinoff in the U.S. made a stored program computer. Both around 1938. Only free individuals.....? The first combat operational jet was designed by engineers as Messerschmidt and the first jet to be tested was made by engineers and Heinkel. Only free individuals....?

Bob Kolker

I aim for the Stars but sometimes I hit London and Antwerp. -- Werner v. Braun

[Tenure]

The point is - how did they make those discoveries? Did they perform experiments and conduct research, or did they kill Jews until one of those zionist devils admitted the answer? And were they not free individuals - in so far as their work required? CF obviously doesn't believe one needs to live in a Laissez Faire society to invent or theorise, otherwise no progress would have ever been made in the whole history of man - so I ask, Bob, what is your motive for so blatantly misinterpreting him?

I begin to suspect your motives in general, judging from this, and your other posts.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Tenure

[K-Mac]

This is the premise that keeps him from caring about philosophy. You might want to challenge him by pointing out how only free individuals can achieve any advances in science and engineering--

Good point.

The first successful intermediate range ballistic missiles were designed by Nazi scientists. Konrad Zeuss, a German who worked under Hitler was the co-inventor of the stored program digital computer.

Only free individuals....?

Makes me wonder how many more and better inventions Germans could have come up with had they been free.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Good point.

Makes me wonder how many more and better inventions Germans could have come up with had they been free.

No doubt, many more. But my counterexamples hit the mark, never the less. Over all free men do more than those bound to and by tyranny. Even so, tyrants have engineers and scientists that succeed some of the time.

Bob Kolker

[DarkWaters]

No doubt, many more. But my counterexamples hit the mark, never the less. Over all free men do more than those bound to and by tyranny. Even so, tyrants have engineers and scientists that succeed some of the time.

I think the important point here is that Hitler's engineers and scientists, although surely repressed in other respects, were still generally free to function as engineers and scientists. Josef Mengele might have made some advancements in genetics given that he was provided with a lot of funding, laboratory equipment, research assistants and virtually limitless access to human subjects. Of course, I agree with the general consensus here that the potential for these researchers to advance knowledge was still constrained to some degree by their facist dictatorship. Many of the experiments Mengele performed were often meant to reassert the superiority of the German race; not to be objective studies. In this respect, Nazi science could be nothing less than a failure.

Every act of tyranny restricts man's mind in some respect. Imposing massive state controls on health care may not prevent citizens from becoming brilliant software developers. However, it will surely still hurt them in the long run anyway, as they will not have access to good health care in the future.

Edited October 19, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Capitalism Forever]

The first successful intermediate range ballistic missiles were designed by Nazi scientists.

See, that's my point. They couldn't have been developed by Jewish scientists in Nazi Germany.

[lex_aver]

Hi, Kelly! Don't be sad because of him All his post is one big BS. You know, he's like a guy I had a talk with once: first he said "F*ck America", and then he said "Do you treat your country like you treat your family? Well, I am!".

As for laissez-faire vs. collectivism, I rather think it's not an either-or proposition. Most governments, including the US, have some combination of the two.

You Americans are geniuses - I wouldn't even think it's possible to "combine" unrestricted free market and totally state-controlled centralized planned economy.

Right-libertarians have dreamed for years of starting their own completely laissez-faire state. But it never gets off the ground - which suggests to me that, like true Marxism, true laissez-faire is an unrealizable dream.

You can easily skip this argument as non-sense - libertarians haven't even defined what state they are to build, not to mention that by now all their efforts consist of cheap propaganda and about 5 state senators.

I suspect the reason for this is that laissez-faire and Marxism both envision a kind of social commons.

Vague.

Feudalism, which appears to be the natural tendency of all human social systems, inevitably subverts a commons.

Don't let him smuggle that pre-assumption. If feudalism is so natural to man, why and how did mankind survived for about 6000 years before it was established? And if it's so natural, then why did Britain conquered India, not the other way around? How come that US is now more powerful than <insert your favorite african nation here>? Or do we count as natural social systems that suit man less then others?

And if by feudalism he means tyranny, punch him with the fact that communism cannot be subverted by tyranny, because it IS tyranny in its purest. If by feudalism he means exploitive social system, communism is still its purest example - give him my e-mail if he tries to argue .

In the form of the military-industrial complex it has certainly subverted the US system of government. So far as I'm aware no one has come up with an antidote to feudalism yet. If you have, I'd love to hear about it.

To pin him down, ask him to name a feudal in America. Just one.

As to my regard for the spirit of man in general - I find us to be angels and devils, heroes and cowards, and all things in between, and none of us are so consistent that we don't combine all these elements in our daily lives. As a technologist I regard science and engineering as the only mechanisms of social change, and all this talk of collectivism, objectivism, and so on to be just hot air.

I don't find him angelic or heroic, in any way.

As to wether you should spend your time on him, yes - if you want to practise debating, no - if you want a good conversation . In latter case, you know who to chat to, right?

Edited October 24, 2007 by lex_aver

[Marty McFly]

Here's an idea. Why not have pockets of communities in each state where some are stricktly capitalist and some are communist and every single person to enter such a capitalist -er- "state" - shal we say - has to sign a form swearing never to live for others or expect others to live for him -you know- like Galt's Gualtch. and in the communist communities, they can do the same: sign a form sayin: nothing ever belongs to me, I live only for others

and then there can be socialist pockets: " I promise to pay half of what I make to "the state" so the poor in my community can mooch

WELL wouldn't that be a great experiment? and then we can see which of those is a utopia

[Robert J. Kolker]

Here's an idea. Why not have pockets of communities in each state where some are stricktly capitalist and some are communist and every single person to enter such a capitalist -er- "state" - shal we say - has to sign a form swearing never to live for others or expect others to live for him -you know- like Galt's Gualtch. and in the communist communities, they can do the same: sign a form sayin: nothing ever belongs to me, I live only for others

and then there can be socialist pockets: " I promise to pay half of what I make to "the state" so the poor in my community can mooch

WELL wouldn't that be a great experiment? and then we can see which of those is a utopia

The second half of that experiment has already been done. It is clear that rigorously collectivist societies will fail and fail miserably. They have failed from the Shaker Communities to Stalin's Soviet Union.

As to the first half, there is the matter of family sentiment and emotional attachment. Very often parents do not live just for themselves, but they put a great deal aside for their children. Blood is thicker than water. So a strict adherence to the principle of not leaving for the sake of others is not easy to achieve. One can do it, but one has to battle some habits acquired in childhood. It took me 35 years to put aside compassion for strangers (justice si! compassion no!). I have warm and gooey feelings for my children and my grandchildren, especially my grandchildren (they are sweethearts!). Emotional attachments to children and spouse are very hard to overcome.

Bob Kolker