Capitalism, Democracy, and Utopia

[Kate87]

Good, so we basically agree... at least when it comes to the agenda for our lifetimes.

We the people voted for one and not for the other.

Why does Objectivism care about the will of the majority?

[softwareNerd]

Why does Objectivism care about the will of the majority?

This is not about the will of the majority. We're talking about a situation where the majority has already decided to end the welfare state. That is the only presumed reality in which your question would arise.

The issue is whether we should be cognizant of the past. It would be unjust to let voters simply walk away from all the promises they have made. This is where you come back saying: it would also be unjust to let the situation continue. Both are true: either way there are injustices to some people or to others. That's exactly why it is moral to have a transition: so that the costs are borne more fairly. The relevant legal concept here is estoppel. What exactly this means would vary with the type of welfare program we're talking about, and also on the nature of the participant.

[Hairnet]

All dictators face opposition which they try to eliminate. The IRS would not (and should not) take the decrees of an unelected dictatorship. If the dictator wanted to get their way they would have to jail the IRS leaders, which they could ethically do under Objectivism on the grounds of theft.

With regards to the phasing out of the welfare state, what you guys are now saying is that existing initiations of force are justified in the short term, if the long term goal is the elimination of these initiations of force. ie the ends justify the means.

If a dictator is worried about tax collectors overthrowing his system he is doing it wrong. The IRS is a competely insignifigant portion of the population.

The goal is to stop the violence for good. However we have limited resources, and there are negative consequences for ending violence. So the choice becomes "what violence can we get rid of, when and how". I would say that we should get rid of the most violent systems immediately. The abuse of sex workers and the drug war needs to end immediately as those systems cause some of the greatest violence in our society. Secondly, reforming the courts, police, and military would be proper. After this we would target controls that support businesses and the wealthy, and then last we would target controls that were intended to support labor interests.

We live in an unprincipled plutocratic system. People vie for their own interests through power games rather than competition and trade. Instead of being allowed a fair chance in a free economy, the poor are led by people claiming to represent their interests. I don't think they are the problem voting block in America. The war of all against all won't be ended by screwing over the weakest among us.

[moralist]

Just a little lighthearted counterpoint...

We live in an unprincipled plutocratic system.

...but no one can force anyone to belong to it. That's an individual choice each one of us freely makes for ourselves, and each of us gets what we deserve as the consequences of our choice... no matter what we choose.

People vie for their own interests through power games rather than competition and trade.

...not all of them. There are still some American Capitalists left in America.

Instead of being allowed a fair chance in a free economy, the poor are led by people claiming to represent their interests.

Leaders of the poor have exactly the same moral values as the poor they lead. It couldn't be any other way. People who lead themselves cannot be led because there are no shared values to make it possible.

Edited December 27, 2012 by moralist

[Hairnet]

Just a little lighthearted counterpoint...

...but no one can force anyone to belong to it. That's an individual choice each one of us freely makes for ourselves, and each of us gets what we deserve as the consequences of our choice... no matter what we choose.

...not all of them. There are still some American Capitalists left in America.

Leaders of the poor have exactly the same moral values as the poor they lead. It couldn't be any other way. People who lead themselves cannot be led because there are no shared values to make it possible.

I don't think that all poor people argue for the welfare state or the protections they have for them. However most people make use of the government's services in some way. I would say almost everyone does. These services are a product of this conflict between voting blocks and special interests. Sure they could go live in the woods and not talk to anyone, but there isn't any reason why they should do that. There are very very few groups that don't play the politics game.

I don't think that the leaders of the poor have the same moral values. It is very possible to decieve others. It is also possible to propose something that claims to meet their moral values while not actually achieveing them. Sure it is their fault for their bad ideas, but the people who they put their trust in don't operate in good faith. I don't think that the democratic leadership care about poor people, even in terms of class warefare.

[thenelli01]

I actually used the term "American Capitalist producer" to denote that being a productive Capitalist is an American value.

Not at all.

The majority of people presently living in America are not Americans. The size and nature of government is indisputable evidence of this fact. It is the political majority who have created a huge taxating regulating litigating government in their own image by their own irresponsible failure to govern themselves. Big government is not an American value. It can only exist because the plurality of people who live in America are not living by American values.

I don't believe you. There is no such thing as American values without answering the question: value to whom and for what - which you haven't done yet.

[moralist]

I don't believe you.

Ok...then you deny the reality of the huge government bureaucracy created by irresponsible people who failed to govern themselves.

There is no such thing as American values without answering the question: value to whom

That's a silly question. Do you really need to be told that living by American values is of value to the Americans who live by them?

and for what - which you haven't done yet.

If you don't see the beneficial purpose of decency, responsibility, productivity, solvency, and frugality, which form the foundation of American Capitalism, then there isn't much more that needs to be said.

[moralist]

I don't think that all poor people argue for the welfare state or the protections they have for them.

There's nothing for them to argue when they can simply vote it into existence.

[Hairnet]

There's nothing for them to argue when they can simply vote it into existence.

Well for one they need to be convinced to vote in the first place. Advocacy among peer groups causes this as much as advocacy towards different groups. I have met people from all "classes" advocate for most forms of government. Then there is the fact that moost of the people who percieve themselves as having benefited themselves from certain legistlations did not even vote for them.

There are not a lot of people today who voted for social security for example. Most people still attempt to get what they can out of the system when time comes to collect.

[moralist]

Well for one they need to be convinced to vote in the first place.

There is no more persuasive incentive than a big government that will give you free things. It appeals to the basest of vices... the demand for unearned entitlement.

Advocacy among peer groups causes this as much as advocacy towards different groups. I have met people from all "classes" advocate for most forms of government.

Good point. I'd never underestimate the political clout of public union looters who parasitically feed as paid servicers of government transfer of wealth programs. But then, they are also getting exactly the government they deserve. In California, the looters have formed an unstoppable political alliance with the moochers. The result? The state is bankrupt.

Then there is the fact that moost of the people who percieve themselves as having benefited themselves from certain legistlations did not even vote for them.

Of course not... they vote to elect the looters who do vote for them.

There are not a lot of people today who voted for social security for example. Most people still attempt to get what they can out of the system when time comes to collect.

Social Security used to be an system of personalized accounts where money is extracted from every workers paychecks for 20 to 40 years, and then their own money is given back to them when they are retired. Problem is that the government plundered that program and squandered it on other programs. Much of Social Security has now morphed into a disability program and the moochers are flocking to turn that safety net into a trampoline...

"A record 5.4 million workers and their dependents have signed up to collect federal disability checks since President Obama took office, according to the latest official government data"

...and that was only as of April this year.

Notice that there is nothing in this situation that is faintly related to American Capitalism.

Edited January 4, 2013 by moralist

[thenelli01]

Social Security used to be an system of personalized accounts where money is extracted from every workers paychecks for 20 to 40 years, and then their own money is given back to them when they are retired. Problem is that the government plundered that program and squandered it on other programs.

No, the problem is that people weren't given the option to spend or save their money the way they wanted to. I can invest my money way better than the government can, and it is MY money. The whole social security program was immoral from the beginning.

[moralist]

No, the problem is that people weren't given the option to spend or save their money the way they wanted to. I can invest my money way better than the government can, and it is MY money. The whole social security program was immoral from the beginning.

(shrug...) So what? It's an immoral world. Just deal with it.

Your impotent complaints are irrelevant because you have absolutely no power to alter public policy. Maybe you'll get some of your own money back when your time comes... and maybe not.

So what are you going to do about it?

[thenelli01]

(shrug...) So what? It's an immoral world. Just deal with it.

Your impotent complaints are irrelevant because you have absolutely no power to alter public policy. Maybe you'll get some of your own money back when your time comes... and maybe not.

So what are you going to do about it?

What? How is the Objectivist position irrelevant in a forum specifically made to explore Objectivism?

Changing people's philosophy is the best way to make change, which is what I am attempting to do (as well as explore ideas) with my posts as anyone can read it.

I am not a determinist and I don't "just deal" with anything that is forced upon me.

Edited January 6, 2013 by thenelli01

[moralist]

What? How is the Objectivist position irrelevant in a forum specifically made to explore Objectivism?

Don't get me wrong,it's just fine to intellectually explore Objectivism. But if this exploration is to have any real value, don't you think that means real world actions? This is why I asked you what are you going to do about a public policy over which you exercise absolutely no control?

Changing people's philosophy is the best way to make change, which is what I am attempting to do (as well as explore ideas) with my posts as anyone can read it.

And what will they do about it?

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off so blunt. But I really would like to know what you are personally going to do about what you perceive as an injustice. If there is no answer, feel free to consider it as merely a rhetorical question.