NationStates Jolt Archive

In my wanderings through the NS General forum, I have come accross an astounding difference of opinion of what single words mean. The most glaring of all is the disparity in people's ideas of the word "liberal."

To some, it is an adjective describing all that is evil in this world; somewhat akin to Satan. To others, it's a proud self-definition of one's moral and political character. To me, its a follower of a mainstream political thought who is squeamish at any suggestion of radicalism.

Here's another one. Libertarian. There is a great difference of opinion of what libertarian means, and what libertarian ideology is. Furthermore, the two primary groups that call themselves libertarians (I'm speaking of course of left-wing and right-wing libertarians) cannot seem to find any common ground to speak of.

And of course, there are the "buzz" words, like "fascism," "socialism", "communism", "Christian", "islamofascism" (i refuse to dignify this absurdity with capitalization), "terrorism" and the like.

what's in a name? a word, that is all.

Politics: There are four basic types:

Left-Libertarianism or Socialist/Communist Libertarian- free laws and restircited ecomony.

Anarcho-Capitalist, anarchist, or right libertarian- free everything

Left Authoritarian- Stalin's policies (no freedom), 1984 superstates

Right Authoriatrian- Free economy but restricted laws.

Centrist- Between (sorta in the middle; varies based on definition) (civil rights)

Liberals are Left Centrists; Republicans are right centrist

what's in a name? a word, that is all.
No... what's in a name is a bunch of letters.

No... what's in a name is a bunch of letters.

bah! you win

bah! you win
YAY! I'm the best! :D

Well, I can help out with Fascism.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

Note that it's different from Nazism. To understand that, you'd have to read Mein Kampf.

"Liberal" has to do with liberty. The only real liberalism is classic liberalism, and for that you'd have to look for people like Hayek, Friedman, Smith and Mill. There is two main schools of thought there - those who think that society is just too complex for anyone to meddle around with (and therefore various social taboos have a justification and can't be done away with), and those who think that freedom also comes before tradition (like me).

Apparently it's quite a long story how lefties in the US have managed to appropriate the word "liberal", but they did. Nonetheless, one really shouldn't use that word to mean leftism of almost any kind.

"Liberal" has to do with liberty. The only real liberalism is classic liberalism, and for that you'd have to look for people like Hayek, Friedman, Smith and Mill. There is two main schools of thought there - those who think that society is just too complex for anyone to meddle around with (and therefore various social taboos have a justification and can't be done away with), and those who think that freedom also comes before tradition (like me).

Apparently it's quite a long story how lefties in the US have managed to appropriate the word "liberal", but they did. Nonetheless, one really shouldn't use that word to mean leftism of almost any kind.

You mention John Stuart Mill. He provides one reason why the distinction is not as great as you make out:

Again, trade is a social act. Whoever undertakes to sell any description of goods to the public, does what affects the interest of other persons, and of society in general; and thus his conduct, in principle, comes within the jurisdiction of society: accordingly, it was once held to be the duty of governments, in all cases which were considered of importance, to fix prices, and regulate the processes of manufacture.

I would add that the real question as concerns the economy is not "liberty" but rather property, and that a perspective attacking the excesses of private property from the perspective of liberty is just as - if not more - liberty-oriented than the right-wing alternative.

Well, I can help out with Fascism.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

Note that it's different from Nazism. To understand that, you'd have to read Mein Kampf.

"Liberal" has to do with liberty. The only real liberalism is classic liberalism, and for that you'd have to look for people like Hayek, Friedman, Smith and Mill. There is two main schools of thought there - those who think that society is just too complex for anyone to meddle around with (and therefore various social taboos have a justification and can't be done away with), and those who think that freedom also comes before tradition (like me).

Apparently it's quite a long story how lefties in the US have managed to appropriate the word "liberal", but they did. Nonetheless, one really shouldn't use that word to mean leftism of almost any kind.

Unfortunately, "fascism" and "fascist" are often misused for jingoistic purposes. I know what fascism as an ideology entails, I was talking about the grave differences of definition in this forum.

I don't think liberalism became synonymous with left-wing politics in America by design; I think it was an accidental relationship caused when the historically more progressive "liberals" began identifying with social liberalism as oppossed to economic liberalism.

What's In a Name?
That's my nation's motto.

Goes with my flag...
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/cannot_think_of_a_name.jpg

Aaaannyway...
Here's an interesting thing on Despotism (http://www.archive.org/details/Despotis1946)...and here is someones update (http://www.archive.org/details/Aaron_J) which I haven't seen, it won't stream for me.

I know what fascism as an ideology entails, I was talking about the grave differences of definition in this forum.
Hehe, well, I guess one can't prevent it. I try to have that Mussolini link ready whenever someone uses the word, but progress is perhaps understandably slow. :p

I would add that the real question as concerns the economy is not "liberty" but rather property, and that a perspective attacking the excesses of private property from the perspective of liberty is just as - if not more - liberty-oriented than the right-wing alternative.
Hmmm, something tells me we may have gone over this before. :D

I guess I wouldn't take "society" to mean quite the same thing as Mill in this case. I mean, it's a good word to use to mean something general, but trade in particular is ultimately always a case of two or more parties coming together, working out some sort of terms and then getting them done. I'd argue (as I have before) that at least this broad concept is very much natural...it can be observed both in primitive societies and in young kids. And afterwards, both sides are a little bit happier than before.

"Society" (or "the public" in this case), not being an actual entity that can make decisions and take actions - at least not independently of the individuals within it - can't engage in a trade. I can't sell anything to "the public", I can only sell something to individuals who perhaps represent some notion of what the public wants.

To use the classic example, I might be building a factory to produce car parts for someone, and that factory might pollute a river and kill fish downstream, hurting the fishermen and others (not that I would do such a thing, I quite like the environment and would prefer a sustainable factory).

I'm not against looking beyond simply me and my trading partner. If someone else comes in and can offer something in return, I'd be quite happy to adjust the terms of the original trade accordingly...perhaps build a filter to reduce pollution. All I'd ask is that the fishermen come to me and ask me. If they're nice fishermen, I might do it for free. If they aren't, I might ask them to help with the extra investment. And at least according to the theory, they should be ready to pay up to the same amount that they'd be losing through the pollution.

And alternatively, the government could walk up to me and ask me to put in the filter. But if they do, I should be within my rights to ask them for a tax break in return, or some other sort of incentive. Since they are not the ones getting hurt by my trade, they really have no business intervening. They're just a bunch of randoms that another bunch of randoms voted for at some point.

Obviously, there could be different cases where the fishermen as such might not exist, for example with CO2 emissions. Everyone is affected. I don't deny such cases, and I would be quite ready to talk about a scheme along the lines of carbon trading.

I guess the overarching problem is - if someone seeks to restrict what I can do, whether that be with my time, my brain, my body or my factory, they better have a good reason, and preferrably something to offer in return. Too often various selfish individuals have waved the "society" stick to push through things that weren't at all in the interest of society. And I'd argue that that too is part of human nature, and it would be best to restrict access to that particular argument as much as possible. No one should just be able to claim "society" and get what they want. I'm part of society just as much as that fisherman, the choice is not between the fisherman getting hurt or not, the choice is between hurting me and hurting the fisherman.

well in my name there is pie and beer. what more could you need?

well in my name there is pie and beer. what more could you need?
p0rn?

Hmmm, something tells me we may have gone over this before. :D

Where would you have gotten that idea? ;)

I guess I wouldn't take "society" to mean quite the same thing as Mill in this case. I mean, it's a good word to use to mean something general, but trade in particular is ultimately always a case of two or more parties coming together, working out some sort of terms and then getting them done. I'd argue (as I have before) that at least this broad concept is very much natural...it can be observed both in primitive societies and in young kids. And afterwards, both sides are a little bit happier than before.

But Mill isn't talking about forbidding the exchange; that would indeed be a restriction on individual rights, and he says so. Clearly both participants prefer making the deal to not making it, so preventing them from doing so, assuming that no one else is harmed, violates the principles he lays out in the essay. (He does include one exception to this - selling yourself into slavery.)

He's talking about regulating it, that is, protecting the participants in the exchange.

Take the minimum wage. You can argue that it doesn't fulfill its purpose, and that's legitimate, but to argue that it restricts individual rights is to miss its intent - the protection of workers from unnecessary harm caused by the unequal bargaining power between them and their employers. Just as laws against murder, rape, etc. are not a violation of individual rights, the minimum wage doesn't qualify, either - not because paying workers below the minimum wage is necessarily analogous in severity, but because they are all laws oriented at protecting people from harm they do not choose for themselves. (After all, what worker would not choose to be paid more, all else being equal?)

"Society" (or "the public" in this case), not being an actual entity that can make decisions and take actions - at least not independently of the individuals within it - can't engage in a trade. I can't sell anything to "the public", I can only sell something to individuals who perhaps represent some notion of what the public wants.

But we are not talking about protecting "society" in abstract, we are talking about protecting participants in the deal (and perhaps potential participants, as with anti-discrimination laws.)

To use the classic example, I might be building a factory to produce car parts for someone, and that factory might pollute a river and kill fish downstream, hurting the fishermen and others (not that I would do such a thing, I quite like the environment and would prefer a sustainable factory).

I'm not against looking beyond simply me and my trading partner. If someone else comes in and can offer something in return, I'd be quite happy to adjust the terms of the original trade accordingly...perhaps build a filter to reduce pollution. All I'd ask is that the fishermen come to me and ask me. If they're nice fishermen, I might do it for free. If they aren't, I might ask them to help with the extra investment. And at least according to the theory, they should be ready to pay up to the same amount that they'd be losing through the pollution.

Why should they pay at all? Is it your river?

And alternatively, the government could walk up to me and ask me to put in the filter. But if they do, I should be within my rights to ask them for a tax break in return, or some other sort of incentive. Since they are not the ones getting hurt by my trade, they really have no business intervening. They're just a bunch of randoms that another bunch of randoms voted for at some point.

If anyone owns the river, it is the people, represented by the government. They have every right.

I guess the overarching problem is - if someone seeks to restrict what I can do, whether that be with my time, my brain, my body or my factory, they better have a good reason, and preferrably something to offer in return. Too often various selfish individuals have waved the "society" stick to push through things that weren't at all in the interest of society. And I'd argue that that too is part of human nature, and it would be best to restrict access to that particular argument as much as possible. No one should just be able to claim "society" and get what they want. I'm part of society just as much as that fisherman, the choice is not between the fisherman getting hurt or not, the choice is between hurting me and hurting the fisherman.

By the same logic, the choice is between hurting the murderer or the murdered. But, of course, this is not the case; the fishermen are not interfering with the functioning of your factory, but you are interfering with their fishing.

Take the minimum wage. You can argue that it doesn't fulfill its purpose, and that's legitimate, but to argue that it restricts individual rights is to miss its intent - the protection of workers from unnecessary harm caused by the unequal bargaining power between them and their employers.
I'm doing a course in Business Law at the moment, and it brought out a similar idea in connection with standard contracts and their exception clauses, which everyone more or less has to sign (eg mobile phone contracts). It's "take it or leave it" - and without some sort of legal protection, you can't really speak of freedom of contract as such.

To be honest, this is where I see Anarcho-Capitalism (or indeed most forms of other anarchism) falling down. The idea of private courts (http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html) has never really convinced me, and without courts, there will be no contracts.

Minimum Wage...well, I'd still argue that there is quite a simple way to get out of the problem for the poor person: be able to provide some sort of value to one's fellow man. I refuse to believe that anyone is that worthless that they really need the state to force others to feed them. But the concept is very similar, I see that.

Why should they pay at all? Is it your river?
Is it theirs? The factory, and the land it is built on, perhaps even a little bit of the river is indeed mine. And they own a bit of land adjacent to the river downstream.

I mean, it's not necessarily a moral way of finding a solution, but it certainly would be economically efficient, because no one gets hurt without compensation.

If anyone owns the river, it is the people, represented by the government. They have every right.
But they didn't work for it, they didn't earn or buy it. How can they own it? Most of them aren't even using it, so there's no ownership by usage to speak of.

By the same logic, the choice is between hurting the murderer or the murdered.
Speaking from a utilitarian point of view, that's true. You will deal out (or allow to happen) a certain amount of pain. Now, you could either go with moral arguments to pick, or you could go with CSE-type maths and determine which is less overall, and pick that.
And just maybe, if the murderer's life was overall worth more than the life of the victim...well, you know the deal. I'm not necessarily advocating that sort of thing, but the idea exists, and if you take the notion of "society" too far it starts to become dangerously close to reality.

But, of course, this is not the case; the fishermen are not interfering with the functioning of your factory, but you are interfering with their fishing.
Well, the fishermen would be interfering with my factory if they forced me to shut it down or add a filter. And unlike with the murderer, you can't even say that I'm intentionally hurting them or otherwise being evil. They're the unfortunate bystanders.

Of course, there is also the alternative pathway, which would be for me to have to pay the fishermen a compensation if I want to build the factory. On aggregate it should come out the same. But for that to work the fishermen would need to have some sort of property right that forces me to come to them first. I'd still be trading with them privately though, "society" still doesn't have to be involved. And unlike me going to the government and paying for a license, the fishermen would actually be able to tell how much they needed - the system would be much more flexible and efficient.