Libertarianism vs positive & negative liberty

CrystalLettuce

I thought we could have a proper discussion with this. I do not agree with the other thread being locked, but perhaps I can phrase it in a more respectful manner.

One of my main issues with Libertarianism is the failure to accept the concept of privilege, putting them in opposition to just about every marginalised group in existence.

The idea that only government can restrict someone's freedoms is at best, naive.

RichieC

People who are born into privilege very rarely understand the leg up in life they have been given.

It's a spoiled rich kids Anarchism. ten cc's of reality like a bankrupting illness usually cures people of their libertarianism.

in fact I know of a case of a loud mouthed libertarian on another forum who got colon cancer, went from being the typical cocky Ayn Rand pseudo intellectual guy to an Obama supporter and vocal 99er in the space of a year.

it's the test of a good world view if you ask me, if it survives you being bankrupted.

Libertarianism fails on that count.

krd

Libertarianism is anarchism for the rich.

Isaiah Berlin's idea of positive and negative liberty really is just nonsense. He was embraced by the British Establishment, because he suited their ideology. It's just a silly idea, no one should ever take seriously. There are just so many holes in it. The British Establishment might talk up freedom - in reality they only believe in freedom for themselves. If you look at their history, when they feel the need, they're quite happy to conscript the poor into armies to fight for their money.

The Establishment is a community that looks after its' own, and screws everyone else over. A gang. Libertarians/Ayn Randians believe in gangs of powerful people getting together to screw over those with out power.

Libertarianism can really be summed up as a form of greedy little piggyism. Have a few drinks, and go celebrate your freedom, by singing songs, on the public road outside a libertarian's house at four in the morning. See how quickly they'll call the police. And of course, they want everyone to pay for the police - they wouldn't be happy to have the police charge them for a call out.

I knew a staunch America libertarian. He had his own successful business. Why couldn't everyone else be just like him? Laughably, his business was advising companies on byzantium Environmental Protection regulations. Indirectly, the man was getting rich on government cheese.

And it's the same with people working in finance. During the worst part of the financial crisis, bankers made billions in bonuses selling the government bonds, that needed to be sold to bail them out. These Welfare Momas can't get enough government cheese.

Something similar in Ireland. I met some Irish bankers a while back, and they joked they were now civil servants. If it wasn't for the largess of the Irish people, most of these rugged individuals would be on the dole.

Libertarians love government cheese. They just want it all for themselves.

Yahew

Although I agree with the attacks on libertarians, I am confused with the attack on Berlin. Here is what he had to say, in his seminal essay/speech.

"It follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others."

And I doubt the previous posters here would deny the logic there.

AhSureTisGrand

Now where is that thread about angry socialists...

matthew8

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

I thought we could have a proper discussion with this. I do not agree with the other thread being locked, but perhaps I can phrase it in a more respectful manner.

One of my main issues with Libertarianism is the failure to accept the concept of privilege, putting them in opposition to just about every marginalised group in existence.

The idea that only government can restrict someone's freedoms is at best, naive.

Privilege is what nature intended. I'm privileged, I know that, but the only reason I am is because my family (2 generations back) were hardworking self-starters. What's wrong with trying to give your kids a good life?

By the way I don't get the thread title in relation to the OP.

SeanW

krd wrote: »

Libertarians love government cheese. They just want it all for themselves.

If you had ever listened to Ron Paul etc. you would find that he rails against EXACTLY the kind of thing (corporatism/crony capitalism) that he has such a problem with.

BTW I too would like a definition of "Postive" vs. "Negative" liberty.

Soldie

krd wrote: »

Libertarianism is anarchism for the rich.

Isaiah Berlin's idea of positive and negative liberty really is just nonsense. He was embraced by the British Establishment, because he suited their ideology. It's just a silly idea, no one should ever take seriously. There are just so many holes in it. The British Establishment might talk up freedom - in reality they only believe in freedom for themselves. If you look at their history, when they feel the need, they're quite happy to conscript the poor into armies to fight for their money.

The Establishment is a community that looks after its' own, and screws everyone else over. A gang. Libertarians/Ayn Randians believe in gangs of powerful people getting together to screw over those with out power.

Libertarianism can really be summed up as a form of greedy little piggyism. Have a few drinks, and go celebrate your freedom, by singing songs, on the public road outside a libertarian's house at four in the morning. See how quickly they'll call the police. And of course, they want everyone to pay for the police - they wouldn't be happy to have the police charge them for a call out.

I knew a staunch America libertarian. He had his own successful business. Why couldn't everyone else be just like him? Laughably, his business was advising companies on byzantium Environmental Protection regulations. Indirectly, the man was getting rich on government cheese.

And it's the same with people working in finance. During the worst part of the financial crisis, bankers made billions in bonuses selling the government bonds, that needed to be sold to bail them out. These Welfare Momas can't get enough government cheese.

Something similar in Ireland. I met some Irish bankers a while back, and they joked they were now civil servants. If it wasn't for the largess of the Irish people, most of these rugged individuals would be on the dole.

Libertarians love government cheese. They just want it all for themselves.

If the idea of positive and negative liberty is "nonsense" and a "silly idea" that "no one should ever take seriously" then it should be very easy to refute it. As is typical of those who take umbrage with libertarianism, though, they tend to feel as though rhetoric is substitutable for analysis and discussion. And what do we find behind all that rhetoric? A personal anecdote, the assumption that all bankers are libertarians, and a strange, meandering tirade against the British establishment. Give me a break.

krd

matthew8 wrote: »

Privilege is what nature intended.

The old nature canard. Nature intended us to live in the trees like monkeys. There's nothing "natural", about this board I'm posting to, about the computer I'm using.

How long would you last in a more "natural" world?

As Warren Buffet puts it, he's very successful in the society he is in. The structure of the society fits his abilities. Had he been born at a different time - to say a tribe of hunters in some jungle, he says he wouldn't have done very well. He can't run very fast, and he says he'd probably get eaten by a wild animal. The structure of society is the only thing that allows him accumulate so much wealth. To an absurd extent.

Matthew,,,,my triumph of nature.....How would you fare among the hunter gatherers. I would say you're a slightly flabby urban dweller....and you like your comforts - literally you couldn't live without them.

I'm privileged, I know that, but the only reason I am is because my family (2 generations back) were hardworking self-starters. What's wrong with trying to give your kids a good life?

Well, to qoute Warren Buffet again. Privilege is a bit like taking the children of the winners of the Olympics in the 80s, and entering them in the London Olympics, simply because their parents won gold medals.

You did well out of someone else's work. I bet you congratulate yourself all the time .... dontcha.

krd

SeanW wrote: »

If you had ever listened to Ron Paul etc. you would find that he rails against EXACTLY the kind of thing (corporatism/crony capitalism) that he has such a problem with.

Yes, well, Ron Paul is a fine example of a long American tradition of wealthy Kranks.

We're all just at the most just a few separations from slices of government cheese.

All of us..... Those rugged rigth-wing farmers.......without their government cheese where would they be?

BTW I too would like a definition of "Postive" vs. "Negative" liberty.

It's a sliding scale. It's how a society is governed. Positive liberty, is kind of the nanny state. Where a paternalistic power controls everyone's lives - with the idea of maximising the benefit for everyone. A lot like a parent, will control a childs life. What time they go to bed, what they can watch on television, who they can have as friends, make them go to school etc.

Negative liberty is where you let people do whatever they want.

Issaih Berlin used the example of children - as being an adult he didn't want to be treated as a child.

Now, when you expand on Positive and Negative liberty, and you want to be practical about applying it. To maximise Negative Liberty, you have as few laws as possible. You leave people harm themselves as much as they want - and you have to allow individuals harm other individuals (To be practical - you can allow people to cheat and exploit each other - but you can't have them killing, and robbing each other - but you can allow a rich man exploit poor people....you can't allow a rich man to murder poor people).

If you see positive and negative liberty as diametrically opposed, every society is to some extent on one end of the scale or other.

The idea is silly, because if you look at society like America... Ostensibly more towards the negative end, Little social safety net (unless you're a bank), lower tax, less rights for workers, etc....it would seem more to the end of negative liberty. But, smoke a joint, ride a whore, walk down the street of where some rich people live, when you're not rich, you'll find out quite quickly the limits of American Negative Liberty. Then, if you look at country like Holland. High taxes, lots of government, social safety net, lots of nannying. A country that would seem to be high on Positive Liberty. You can walk down the street smoking a joint, enjoying whatever drug you like, the police are not that concerned. Purchase the services of a prostitute - become one yourself - no laws to stop you. And a host of other freedoms you couldn't enjoy in the US.

So Berlin's idea is just dinner party bunk.

krd

Soldie wrote: »

If the idea of positive and negative liberty is "nonsense" and a "silly idea" that "no one should ever take seriously" then it should be very easy to refute it.

There, I gave you an analysis and refutation.

I think positive and negative liberty is one of these bad ideas. Not something to be taken seriously. Bad to be taken seriously.

As is typical of those who take umbrage with libertarianism, though, they tend to feel as though rhetoric is substitutable for analysis and discussion.

In my opinion, libertarainism is only superficially attractive. When you examine the nuts bolts, it isn't that attractive. And I believe, Libertarians are very much a la carte, in the freedoms they'd like people to have.

Permabear, might have a big problem with me singing and dancing on the public road near his house in early hours of the morning. He might have an even bigger problem with me excercising my "freedom", if I tried to sell drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes to his kids.

A libertarian may be happy to have a bank contact their daughter with the potential of employment when they reach appropriate age. They might feel different if a brothel were calling their teenage daughter.

Libertarians tend to have a funny attitude towards prostitution - they're all for it, as long as it's not their daughter.

And what do we find behind all that rhetoric? A personal anecdote, the assumption that all bankers are libertarians, and a strange, meandering tirade against the British establishment. Give me a break.

Personal anecdote is important. Personal experience can't be absolutely discounted. Where I live, I'm surrounded by banks, auditing houses, other finance business. I see these people every day. Pompous wobble necks in their smort suits - it escapes me, how people who are revolting on so many levels, can take such an absurd smug pride in themselves. I walk out of my house, in my jeans and sweatshirt - just because of nature, I look like the archetypical junky, even though I'm not. I can't go for milk without getting a snear from one these beasts or beastesses.

Why are these slug people so proud? Why?......Because they like rugby and have plummy voices?

CrystalLettuce

matthew8 wrote: »

Privilege is what nature intended. I'm privileged, I know that, but the only reason I am is because my family (2 generations back) were hardworking self-starters. What's wrong with trying to give your kids a good life?

By the way I don't get the thread title in relation to the OP.

What's wrong with libertarianism is the statement you just made "What's wrong with trying to give your kids a good life?"

Kids do not require mountains of inheritance for a good life. Using emotionally weighted language to distract people from that fact that EVERY kid deserves a good start to life is pretty sick.

CrystalLettuce

Soldie wrote: »

If the idea of positive and negative liberty is "nonsense" and a "silly idea" that "no one should ever take seriously" then it should be very easy to refute it. As is typical of those who take umbrage with libertarianism, though, they tend to feel as though rhetoric is substitutable for analysis and discussion. And what do we find behind all that rhetoric? A personal anecdote, the assumption that all bankers are libertarians, and a strange, meandering tirade against the British establishment. Give me a break.

It's amusing, since your post is far shorter and contains far less reasoning than his. Perhaps the break you require is time necessary to get a real argument together.

CrystalLettuce

I would have said negative & positive liberty was actually something that challenged a lot of libertarian notions - as many Libertarians seem to think there is only one kind of liberty - freedom from interference of the state. Libertarians actually lack the true concept of positive & negative liberty, focusing on only one kind. I think the concept has simply been abused in an ironic manner.

As a real marginalised person on a number of counts, I have found other people and businesses to discriminate against me far more than the government. Which is why I find the idea ludicrous.

matthew8

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

What's wrong with libertarianism is the statement you just made "What's wrong with trying to give your kids a good life?"

Kids do not require mountains of inheritance for a good life. Using emotionally weighted language to distract people from that fact that EVERY kid deserves a good start to life is pretty sick.

It's not emotional language, certainly not when compared to the left's carry on with foreign aid and hate laws.

Also, it's quite ridiculous to call me "sick" because of my statement which I didn't think was offensive at all.

krd

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

What's wrong with libertarianism is the statement you just made "What's wrong with trying to give your kids a good life?"

Kids do not require mountains of inheritance for a good life. Using emotionally weighted language to distract people from that fact that EVERY kid deserves a good start to life is pretty sick.

I'm reading a Barrack Obama's Audacity of Hope at the minute. It's not a bad book.

But there's a funny piece in it about when he was on the Illinois state legislature. The Illinois schools give children a bowl of cereal in the mornings for breakfast. The republicans wanted to get rid of it. Their reasoning being that giving children a free bowl of cereal was bad in that it didn't teach them personal responsibility.

Of course.......you can be sure every one of those republicans got a free bowl of cereal from their parents when they were growing up

The leg up in life the republicans got didn't spoil them - they didn't need to learn about "personal responsibility" - "personal responsibility" is just something the poor have to learn.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Yahew

Hardly an odd claim, and what you miss out there is the privilege of birth, and wealth. Is someone born with 10 billion the same as the son of a miner (or a teacher?). Is he more powerful? Is a billionaire in control of the press conducive to democracy - in the Murdoch case we saw how the Murdoch press threatened individual MPs to act to their will, and had the ear of the police force. Is Murdoch a normal citizen, do his kids have the same chances as everybody else?

Libertarians promote freedom from government, but not from their fellow man; so the argument is that a man dependent on a job from a paternalistic capitalist who owned most of the buildings, press, and factories in a 19th century town has nothing to complain about if he loses his job by criticising his boss, and ends up unemployable, because only the State censors people, or controls people.

The reality is, while the State can be over-reaching, it is a democratic necessary to combat the extremes of capitalism, or any society.

( Of course for most of history the State merely represented the elite's interests, largely the feudalists. Property rights are sacrosanct in America - amongst whites at least - because property was relatively fairly spread: the rest of us have folk memories of being property, or being on someones property with no recourse to buy it, and getting turfed off when sheep were more valuable. This was done in conjunction with the State, but now we control the State, and from the late 19th century on it started acting for the poor and the middle classes).

Soldie

krd wrote: »

There, I gave you an analysis and refutation.

I'm afraid not. You gave an example of a country that is economically and socially conservative (the U.S.), and a country that is economically and socially liberal (the Netherlands) and tried to pass it off as analysis. Where is the analysis? You didn't even consider that a country could be economically conservative and socially liberal, which is what libertarians want.

Personal anecdote is important. Personal experience can't be absolutely discounted. Where I live, I'm surrounded by banks, auditing houses, other finance business. I see these people every day. Pompous wobble necks in their smort suits - it escapes me, how people who are revolting on so many levels, can take such an absurd smug pride in themselves. I walk out of my house, in my jeans and sweatshirt - just because of nature, I look like the archetypical junky, even though I'm not. I can't go for milk without getting a snear from one these beasts or beastesses.

You assume these people are libertarians because it suits your narrative. You don't have a shred of evidence to suggest that they are libertarians, so this particular personal anecdote is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Your so-called "refutation" doesn't even engage with libertarianism at all; it's just an attack on people who you think are libertarians. These slurs really are getting tedious at this stage.

Why are these slug people so proud? Why?......Because they like rugby and have plummy voices?

:rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

krd

Soldie wrote: »

I'm afraid not. You gave an example of a country that is economically and socially conservative (the U.S.), and a country that is economically and socially liberal (the Netherlands) and tried to pass it off as analysis. Where is the analysis? You didn't even consider that a country could be economically conservative and socially liberal, which is what libertarians want.

Holland is not only socially liberal. It's economically liberal.

You assume these people are libertarians because it suits your narrative. You don't have a shred of evidence to suggest that they are libertarians, so this particular personal anecdote is completely and utterly irrelevant.

What do you want as "evidence", a blood test?

Libertarianism is a broad church. I bet each one of these people would consider themselves right-wing liberals.

Your so-called "refutation" doesn't even engage with libertarianism at all; it's just an attack on people who you think are libertarians. These slurs really are getting tedious at this stage.

I think in your imagination, you've framed the heroic rugged individual as your ideal libertarian. Very romantic.

Yahew

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But I compared the son of a billionaire to a son of a teacher. Advisedly. What we can do for the billionaire - to equalise that - is to make him not a billionaire, or to make his son not a billionaire. 99% death tax, or large tax on wealth ( particularly if unearned) etc.

If the public education system weren't rampantly failing children (when Department of Education inspectors observed primary-level English and maths lessons last year, they found that the teacher was inadequately prepared to teach in 25 percent of cases and that her assessment of students was inadequate in 34 percent of cases) and if our welfare system weren't oriented toward encouraging generational cycles of dependence and poverty (a child from a home with no earned income is significantly more likely to wind up dependent on welfare as an adult) then more children might actually have chances to succeed.

Maybe, however private education wouldn't do any better for the poor ( although I am not opposed to vouchers).

Yes, they do. Libertarians have been staunch critics of slavery, for instance.

some.

We're living in the 21st century now, so I don't see the point of this line of argument. In which town today are all the buildings and factories owned by one person?

The modern equivalent would be control of the press. How free is Sam Smyth to say what he wants these days? Well free enough, but he has no audience. And why? Free speed would be freer here with State interference.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

krd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The state can and does level the playing pitch, in some countries. You don't need to send the kids of the poor skiing. If they're given educational opportunities - and if the country is not ridden by snobbery - they can have a really good chance.

Take someone like Lloyd Blankfien. His father was a post man, and his mother was a clerical worker. He got a good education. He won scholarships to expensive American universities.

I know quite a few people, who came from very deprived backgrounds, who did very well. But you need a society, where people have a fair chance to flourish. In Ireland, it's really limited.

If the public education system weren't rampantly failing children (when Department of Education inspectors observed primary-level English and maths lessons last year, they found that the teacher was inadequately prepared to teach in 25 percent of cases and that her assessment of students was inadequate in 34 percent of cases)

Are the schools really "failing" kids? I don't believe education is valued that much in a society like Ireland. You're more likely to do well out of your "soft skills" than anything hard in Ireland.

When I was a child, I had a very naieve view of the world. I thought, if you were stupid, intellectually lazy, and lazy in general, you wouldn't do well out of life. I found I was completely wrong. Again and again, I've found myself "managed" by people who were thick as planks. It's actually the way it works - if you're a little thick you'll make a better "fit".

When teachers are being recruited. Often, the people recruiting them don't particularly care if the person has a particular talent for imparting knowledge. It's like the guards - they're looking for a particular kind of person, with a particular set of values. I don't really think there is a country where intellectuals are actually valued. More often they're absolutely despised.

It is a real con. Irish universities churn out anti-intellectuals. And the schools recruit them to teach. And it's to teach them how to be like them.

and if our welfare system weren't oriented toward encouraging generational cycles of dependence and poverty (a child from a home with no earned income is significantly more likely to wind up dependent on welfare as an adult) then more children might actually have chances to succeed.

I don't have figures on Ireland. But I think the idea of inter-generational unemployment, may be exxagerated.

I recently saw figures for England. And it was a shock. There was less than ten thousand people in the UK, who had been unemployed for longer than ten years. The reality being, most poor people actually work. And going on the UK figures - the families where there would inter-generational unemployment would be a very small minority.

At the minute, in Ireland unemployment is horrendous. 20% of the workforce are on the dole. Most of those people weren't in the past - sometime in the future, they will be in work again. Poverty, especially in Ireland, tends to be inter-generational. The family were no one works, or ever has, they exist, but they're rarer than people think.

Yes, they do. Libertarians have been staunch critics of slavery, for instance.

You know, if you give some people a free hand, they will use their power to effectively enslave people. And if you look at how our flavour of capitalism functions - banks can magic money up, whoever the banks favours can accumulate assets without doing anything that could really constitute a concrete econonic activity. If your not favoured by the bank, the guy who is friends with the bank, can grab the ground from beneath your feet.

You know, I've worked for people who were absolute idiots. Toxically inept. Yet, the bank favoured them, and effectively I was their slave. I worked on their terms not on mine. Could I go to the bank and say, this guy is an idiot, he's lost millions through stupidity - help me take the business off him. It's not going to happen. Jesus the guy is driving a merc, living in a posh part of town. BUT he is stupid.

We're living in the 21st century now, so I don't see the point of this line of argument. In which town today are all the buildings and factories owned by one person?

There are lots. I can think of plenty of people who do own buildings and factories. Even little factories. Occasionally, you'll have single individuals owning quite a lot.

I think it's actually one of the failures in 21st capitalism, where you have ownership that's removed by several levels. Just thinking of a company I once worked for.. The ownerships was split between different companies - and then on researching these companies, they were owned by other different unconnected companies. To the point, it's possible, the actual owners, didn't know they owned the business I worked for. They may have just seen numbers. It's just gets silly. It is a really bad way of doing things - factories crumble, because the owners don't even know they exist. Businesses accumulate horrendous losses, because effectively no one is running them.

If you check your history books, you'll find that Enlightenment liberals, the intellectual ancestors of today's libertarians, argued forcefully than no person should be the property of another — a slave should not be the property of his master, a wife should not be the property of her husband.

A common argument the ante-bellum south used to defend slavery, was that the northern capitalist equivalent was wage slavery. There isn't that much of a difference between a landless share cropper and a slave. And when the slaves of the south, won their "freedom", their conditions didn't radically change for a very long time. The plantation owners learned how to do a differnet kind of slavery - with a slight of hand. Effectively it was the same thing. And the same for Ireland at the time of the famine. The small farmers were effectively slaves. Only free to eat as much grass as their bellies could hold.

They have fought for the rights of women and disenfranchised minorities to own property and to vote. They have staunchly opposed colonialism. Libertarian economist Ludvig von Mises has written, "No chapter of history is steeped further in blood than the history of colonialism. Blood was shed uselessly and senselessly. Flourishing lands were laid waste; whole peoples destroyed and exterminated. All this can in no way be extenuated or justified."

Some people did quite well out of colonialism. And... it's not simply a state decides to colonise a land. The wars are generally driven by the powerful rich. Even today. Iraq, big American business drove the invasion. The real problem with Iraq, wasn't a security issue, it was a business issue. It didn't work out that well for American business in the end - as they're getting the cold shoulder in Iraq at the minute - the Iraqis are still pissed - Russian and Asian firms are getting preference.

Many might dispute your assertion that the state acts for the poor and the middle classes. In reality, the state protects itself and its vested interests — throwing some welfare at the poor to garner votes to stay in power is part of the process.

Who is the state?........ if you think it's government clerical workers earning slightly more than minimum wage, you're dreaming.

The state, in a country like Ireland, is really where the money and power is. Nearly every civil engineering project in Ireland is pork barrell, to make the already wealthy, even more wealthy. A few million here, a few million there - for whoever is politically well connected (that's someone from a well connected family, who's going to get a contract on a wink). if you look at someone like Johnny Ronan. A very large part of his business was building buildings for the state to be his tenants. It's a wink and a nudge. It's not economically effiecient for the state to rent buildings from someone like Ronan. But, to share the cheese out to the right people, it's the way it's down.

Someone I know, bought a building in London, for two million. Within weeks, they had a tenant - the British government - paying an annual rent of 2 million. And signed up for three years. How do you think something like that happens.

Yahew

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was thinking on a worldwide scale, but we can go to multi-millionaires too.

If the Irish state imposed a 99 percent inheritance tax, wealthy people would find ways around it — including transferring wealth to their heirs while they were still alive, taking up residence in another country before their death, and so on.

Lets everybody do it.

Can you back up that statement with any facts and figures?

That private education doesn't help the poor? The historical record attests to that. Free education - for instance Donagh O'Malley's bill - increased the number of people with secondary and then tertiary education massively.

Sam Smyth's right to free speech doesn't include the right to say whatever he wants in the pages of the Irish Times.

Right. Which is why libertarianism is such a crock. Imagine all newspapers and broadcasters were owned by one guy ( in a libertarian State, this is a thought experiment so RTE, if it exists, is owned by that guy). Or if that is too radical, two guys. Both of firm right wing opinion. Where does Socialist, or Centrist joe work then?

He is not being "censored", but he can't work anywhere. I suppose there is Hyde park.

I know that State's can censor. State's can also use anti-competition laws to stop the build up of capital, power and the undue and malign influence caused by the accumulation of wealth and power.

krd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Private censorship is as potent as public censorship - Look at our auld friend Rupert Murdoch. His papers initial response to the phone tapping allegations, was to ignore what was going on.

The Guardian is own by a trust - so they actually have a lot of freedom. Without that arrangement, there are so many things we would never see or hear.

When very rich people buy newspapers - or buy a share in one, it's usually not because they want to be in the news business. It becomes a career no no, to say anything bad about them.

We do have a right, not to be lied to.

Papers run by obsequious lick-spittles should be shut down. Having money in your pocket doesn't give you a right to con people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Yahew

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

An ambitious program indeed - here is another one, the libertarian program which hopes to reduce the size of the State worldwide to 5%. Exactly how do you intend to push such legislation through on a worldwide basis

Can you be more specific about the historical record? Does the historical record say, for example, that poor black children in the United States are not being helped by voucher programs that allow them to attend private schools?

I already was specific. When education cost - i.e. it was private in Ireland, far less people went to secondary and third level. I am not sure how more specific I could have been there. Maybe you wanted me to be more general? As for the voucher system, it is not private education. The government gives the vouchers, thats a subsidy. Its just less centralised. ( and I supported vouchers in a previous post).

In the highly unlikely event that this person manages to seize control of all Irish newspapers and broadcasters,

Unlikely? It's my thought experiment.

viewers still have recourse to thousands of cable and satellite TV stations, as well as newspapers, blogs, Twitter streams, etc., from all over the world on the Internet. When did you last buy a physical newspaper? I read all my news online now.

He owns all that too. Thought experiments work like that. I am giving an example of the absurdity of the "capitalists can't censor" argument. But in a lesser form, Murdoch could do what he wanted, and control parliament, and decide on the leader of the UK, until the recent strategic mistake over-phone tapping ( and then only the dowler case excited the public to disgust).

Someone's right to free expression doesn't include the right to be paid for propounding his or her views. The right to free speech is much closer to the right to have a soapbox in Hyde Park than to have a column in the New York Times.

I have never denied this, have I? I just pointed out the consequences of this belief system under monopoly capitalism.

CrystalLettuce

matthew8 wrote: »

It's not emotional language, certainly not when compared to the left's carry on with foreign aid and hate laws.

Also, it's quite ridiculous to call me "sick" because of my statement which I didn't think was offensive at all.

Said by a person who doesn't need "hate laws" to protect them.

This is why I dislike Freebertarians, as they are not concerned with actual personal freedoms, overall, as Libertarianism should be as it seeks to maximise personal Liberty. LGBTs would be less free, socially and economically, under their system.

CrystalLettuce

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Says someone who again, is in a privilege position that doesn't require protecting.

The fact is that LGBT people would have it much worse under your system. No hate crime laws, hyper-competitive labour market would mean unpopular minorities would have a harder time getting a job, and no welfare for when they do etc.

You do realise how many transgendered people already become sex workers? I can't imagine how bad it would be in your personal paradise.

There is absolutely no rationale to make NO effort, when we can, to bring people onto a more even playing ground. Just because there's a limit to what you can do doesn't mean you do nothing. And most Libertarians, who claim to be for gay rights, would do nothing. Simply saying there's no rationale for it does not prove anything. Why? And again; what would you know?

Historical libertarians are not the greatest example since obviously, the world is a different place now and we recognise how complex maintaining personal freedoms can be - not to mention not all libertarians are ones that are on the extreme economic right.

In my view, you have an extremely immature point of view that paints the state as the only possible enemy of the people. One could even argue the opposite of the neo-con military fetish is derived from this, rather than any honest school of thought.

Freedom is not just "freedom from the state". If I can't walk down the road dressed up without being attacked, then that is an effective freedom I've lost. We can get into an argument about hate crime laws etc. and how effective they are, but certainly employment legislation and the like is very valuable.

CrystalLettuce

Statistically, the child of an unemployed, illiterate single mother does not have the same chance as the child of an educated, professional couple. No matter what the government does, short of taking all children away from their biological parents at birth and raising them in a communal Centre of Equality, the inherent advantages enjoyed by the second child will persist.

We can't have it perfect - therefore we should do nothing.

And what about other forums of privilege other than socioeconomic? Men vs. women, gay vs. straight, white vs. black etc.

If the public education system weren't rampantly failing children (when Department of Education inspectors observed primary-level English and maths lessons last year, they found that the teacher was inadequately prepared to teach in 25 percent of cases and that her assessment of students was inadequate in 34 percent of cases) and if our welfare system weren't oriented toward encouraging generational cycles of dependence and poverty (a child from a home with no earned income is significantly more likely to wind up dependent on welfare as an adult) then more children might actually have chances to succeed.

So let's scrap all socialistic policies because an alternative might succeed. Yeah, no thanks.

AhSureTisGrand

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

The fact is that LGBT people would have it much worse under your system. No hate crime laws, hyper-competitive labour market would mean unpopular minorities would have a harder time getting a job, and no welfare for when they do etc.

And in a hyper-competitive business environment one can't afford to choose inferior workers because the better ones are gay, black etc...

Corporations are not gods. A business can't just decide "We're not hiring minorities anymore" and starve all of them to death. It's almost impossible to imagine them staying in business. The State would be doing these idiots a favour by regulating them, taking away the advantage from the guy who looks only for employees who will do a good job for what he pays them

krd

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

And in a hyper-competitive business environment one can't afford to choose inferior workers because the better ones are gay, black etc...

Aw yeah. That would be in a rational world. Where everyone makes rational choices.

Not the real world, where people don't. In the real world, people are racist, sexist, ignorant and thick. They'll act in what they believe to be their own self interest - even if that self interest is very short sighted.

If you hire yourself a bockety paddy as a manager, they're not going to hire the most superior workers. They'll hire the ones they'll see as the least threat to their own position. They'll hire the inferior ones. Go into nearly any medium to large sized Irish company, and you'll find a hive of incompetence. Usually, where only a handful of people know what they're doing.

Most companies I've worked for, have had this kind of sickness to a greater or lesser extent.

In the real world businesses are badly run, and they collapse. The awful managers do not disappear into a puff of creative destruction smoke - they womble on to the next company to destroy.

Corporations are not gods. A business can't just decide "We're not hiring minorities anymore" and starve all of them to death. It's almost impossible to imagine them staying in business.

They do make these decisions. And they will chose to go out of business rather than hire minorities. It happened in the US during the civil rights era. During the civil rights era, there were many white owned businesses in black areas. The locals protested and boycotted these businesses, because they wouldn't hire black people. And many businesses chose to shut up shop rather than hire black people.

And think about this. If you are running a business in somebody's area - to a certain extent you are a guest. The locals do have a say how you run your business. If they don't like what you're doing they do have a right to protest and boycott you.

The State would be doing these idiots a favour by regulating them, taking away the advantage from the guy who looks only for employees who will do a good job for what he pays them

It's difficult to impossible to legislate racism away. We don't have a serious racism problem in Ireland. Not like in the US. There are laws in the US on hiring minorities. Mostly, businesses will hire black people as cleaners, or receptionists. This usually helps them fill quotas. Overall, positive discrimination works.

Had Barrack Obama been born 20 years earlier, he more likely than not, would not have gotten very far in life. He may even have been lynched for being to uppity.

krd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Come on there's a little more to it than that.

Why don't newspapers carry a disclaimer on the front page "all opinions and biases within are the views held by this newspapers owners and management, and not of our writers"

People buy newspapers in good faith. Even Murdoch's excuse for shutting down the News of the World, was that it had lost the trust of the people.

If everyone felt that newspapers were only the propaganda machines of the wealthy, they wouldn't buy them. This is why the propaganda is generally more surreptitious. Murdoch used his papers and television to push his own political agenda - you'll often hear the joke, Murdoch believes in one man, one vote - when he is that one man, with that one vote.

Murdoch likes to claim publicly, he doesn't interfere in editorial content. It's a complete fiction. He has his fingers and thumbs well into it. He yields to political pressure on his commercial interests.

You don't need total control of the media to cow journalists and editors into submission. Criticism of Murdoch, or any other media mogul, can seriously hamper, even end a journalists career.

The way the media works completely distorts the political landscape. The work in the Irish media, you either have to be a right-wing lickspittle, or appear neutral. It's funny Sarah Carey, considers herself left-wing.....In reality she's right of center.....She's just not far right.

One of the main causes of the destruction of Ireland, was the Irish media failing to do their job. They obsequiously served power - they should have been raising the alarm on the property bubble - but they served the conmen who were making a fast buck instead.

Remember "Smart and Ballsy" Brendan O'Connor. Ireland is rotten with crooks and scumbags. They happen to own the papers, and have their fat lazy arses installed in the management of other media outlets.

Eliot Rosewater

krd wrote: »

The way the media works completely distorts the political landscape. The work in the Irish media, you either have to be a right-wing lickspittle, or appear neutral. It's funny Sarah Carey, considers herself left-wing.....In reality she's right of center.....She's just not far right.

As an aside, which Irish newspapers do you read? The Irish Examiner (which I inflict upon myself 3 days a week as the milkman brings it) clearly pursues a pro-Labour anti-austerity point of view. Nearly every Thursday Fergus Finlay goes on a tirade against attempts to reduce social services. The editorials have this point of view too. I don't see how you view this as "right wing media".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

krd

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As an aside, which Irish newspapers do you read? The Irish Examiner (which I inflict upon myself 3 days a week as the milkman brings it) clearly pursues a pro-Labour anti-austerity point of view. Nearly every Thursday Fergus Finlay goes on a tirade against attempts to reduce social services. The editorials have this point of view too. I don't see how you view this as "right wing media".

And you have Fintan O'Toole with the Irish Times.

The average hack - the Indo style hack, is to the right. What most people percieve to be either neutral or to the centre is to the right. I keep getting surprises, if you follow the Irish media, you would get the impression Ireland is overwhelmingly conservative and to the right. That is there, you'd assume from most media, that the Labour party was some fringe and insignificant political movement - like Fianna Fail.

I was talking to some Labour party, party workers after the last election. No you might expect them to complain of media bias, but what they were complaining about was they'd had been given a false impression of their own popularity (or unpopularity) by the media coverage and polls - could have taken more seats, had they known they had more support than they did - but they didn't take risks they believed would backfire. Now, they've even managed to take Brian Lenihan's old seat.

There's the same problem in nearly every "free" market driven democracy. The political parties who get into power, usually disproportionately represent the interests of the wealthy minority over the interests of the majority. It doesn't make sense - why would people vote against their own interests, like turkeys cheering for Christmas (unless of course they're being duped).

AhSureTisGrand

krd wrote: »

If you hire yourself a bockety paddy as a manager, they're not going to hire the most superior workers. They'll hire the ones they'll see as the least threat to their own position. They'll hire the inferior ones. Go into nearly any medium to large sized Irish company, and you'll find a hive of incompetence. Usually, where only a handful of people know what they're doing.

Don't hire bockety paddies then if you want your business to survive

In the real world businesses are badly run, and they collapse. The awful managers do not disappear into a puff of creative destruction smoke - they womble on to the next company to destroy.

And if that company hires the guy I don't have much sympathy for them. A better-adapted business will take their place.

They do make these decisions. And they will chose to go out of business rather than hire minorities. It happened in the US during the civil rights era. During the civil rights era, there were many white owned businesses in black areas. The locals protested and boycotted these businesses, because they wouldn't hire black people. And many businesses chose to shut up shop rather than hire black people.

Great. Plenty of business opportunities for non-racists. I say the locals won that one

If they don't like what you're doing they do have a right to protest and boycott you.

Obviously people have a right to choose not to do business with people they don't like

krd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's funny you should mention the Wallstreet Journal. Their existence hinges on their credibility. Their coverage of business is never rose tinted. Through the Irish property bubble, you could probably count on one hand all the critical articles to appear in the Irish media, in a ten year period.

I understand you're trying to be incendiary — but there's a distinction between the front page of the Times and "propaganda."

Murdoch indulges extensively in propaganda. He wants to dismantle the BBC, he unleashes his attack dogs. And all his columnists for months all have a go at the BBC. John Pilger used to work for him but decided to leave, because crucial parts of his reporting on Israel kept getting edited out. Murdoch was under pressure in the US to take a pro-Israel stance - pressure over his business interests. Murdoch's politics purely relate to his business interests.

Propaganda is as much, if not more, about what you don't see than what they show you. The real propaganda power of the Soviet's Pravada was not to report what was really happening. To give an illusion of information - when people were really being kept in the dark. And the people could be aware Pravada was full of lies - but since they were being kept in the dark about so much, Pravada could brazenly lie, it didn't matter whether people believed the lies or not.

Everybody within the political ecosystem — from political parties themselves down to journalists and bloggers — is playing a game of spin. The Guardian and the Independent are just as distorted by ideology as the newspapers you seemingly revile. There is no such thing as a nonpartisan media outlet.

To say everyone is just as bad everyone else is simply untrue. Some are far far worse than others. And the idea that everyone is out to mislead each other, just isn't true either. And no one really believes that. If everyone did the papers would have no credibility and no one would bother reading them.

The Guardian is owned by a trust - and it is run under a charter. It's one of the few papers with a similar ownership. They have a hell of a lot of freedom, that other papers just don't have. They pursued Murdoch over the phone hacking for years. Other newspapers wouldn't touch it.

The Irish Times is also run by a trust. If they weren't, they would be closer to the scuzzy Indo.

The main cause of the destruction of Ireland was that the public got what the public wanted — a decade of ego-inflated blowout spending. The media was part of that, certainly, but so was nearly everyone else.

Don't start the "everyone was at it" excuses. Everyone was not at it. It was actually a minority of people. A powerful minority - may consider themselves to be "the people", and anyone else was just an eejit for not getting in on Lanigans Ball.

You don't have to buy the papers if you don't want to read them. The logical conclusion of your argument — that the state should shut down papers that it perceives to be biased — is an extremely dangerous threat to a free press.

The "free" press. Very idealistic of you. The reality of the world, regardless of what enterprise you're engaging in, you have to navigate power.

With a paper, it can be the power of your readers, the power of your advertisers. If the owner has deep pockets, it can have a great effect on the balance of power.

Having a handful of cigar chomping, top hat wearing, moguls running all the newspapers is just as bad as having a tight government control. In either given extreme, the consumers of news will not have the freedom to chose (a Hobsons choice is not a real choice)

If you look at the UK media, even though they have regulations on fit and proper persons to own media organisation, they have some pretty funky owners. Pornographers, Russian Mafioso, etc

Conrad Black did end up in jail. But only when he did. Did all kinds of people come out of the woodwork to complain about his interference in the editing of his papers - something he used to claim emphatically he never indulged in.

krd

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Don't hire bockety paddies then if you want your business to survive

And if that company hires the guy I don't have much sympathy for them. A better-adapted business will take their place.

There is a really common mistaken assumption, that businesses progress in much the same way as evolution. The reasons to believe this, are not actually that strong. The Irish property bubble favoured businesses that were absolutely awful. It's a cherry picking of evolutionary theory. And that idea that organisations or organisms attempt to evolve to perfection, is also wrong. Evolution works by organisms succesfully reproducing, not by becoming strong to the point of immortality. Organisms die. If you run businesses along the same lines, there's no reason to believe, you'll have businesses that are constantly sick and dying.

Evolution is not the "survival of the fitests". It's the survival of whatever can stay alive long enough to reproduce.

If all businesses followed a strict economic rationale, they would be sturdier and wouldn't make crazy decisions. Businesses crash all the time. If you're a brutal manager, who's destroyed one business, the chances are, if you look the business, you'll pop up managing/destroying another business. I have seen it enough times with my own eyes.

Yahew

krd wrote: »

Evolution is not the "survival of the fitests". It's the survival of whatever can stay alive long enough to reproduce.

Which is tautologically, the fittest.

AhSureTisGrand

krd wrote: »

There is a really common mistaken assumption, that businesses progress in much the same way as evolution. The reasons to believe this, are not actually that strong. The Irish property bubble favoured businesses that were absolutely awful.

And where are these businesses now if not being propped up by the government?

It's a cherry picking of evolutionary theory. And that idea that organisations or organisms attempt to evolve to perfection, is also wrong. Evolution works by organisms succesfully reproducing, not by becoming strong to the point of immortality.

But reproduction is just a form of self-preservation, really. And the mutative function of reproduction is supplanted by the artificial design of the business. Of course a business can't last forever, just as a bloodline can't last forever. If nothing else, luck runs out.

Organisms die. If you run businesses along the same lines, there's no reason to believe, you'll have businesses that are constantly sick and dying.

A business dying is more like a species dying out. It still happens all the time, but it isn't part of the plan.

If all businesses followed a strict economic rationale, they would be sturdier and wouldn't make crazy decisions. Businesses crash all the time. If you're a brutal manager, who's destroyed one business, the chances are, if you look the business, you'll pop up managing/destroying another business. I have seen it enough times with my own eyes.

Come on it's not like he forces himself upon the businesses. It sounds like they need to do some, eh, adapting and put in place better structures to prevent this sort of thing

krd

Yahew wrote: »

Which is tautologically, the fittest.

It's hard to escape the tautology in "The Survival of the fittest". Blame Herbert Spencer - it wasn't Darwin. But it's a term that just won't die. It sums up an idea about evolution. That it's somehow working towards perfection. It isn't it's chaotic, with no real purpose. And extinct is common. Every organism is extinguished at some point - if it can successful reproduce before it kicks the bucket, it's species stays in the game.

The idea that evolution struggles for perfection is a Lamarckian idea. Lamarck's ideas where wrong. And for a while they competed with Darwin's. With time Darwin's ideas become sounder. There's a joke that's often said about Lamarck. That he believed all creatures would eventually evolve into Frenchmen.


And this is why it's very bad to think of economic/political/cultural developments as being suited to blind evolution. In nature, sudden environmental changes have extinguished entire species in one fell blow. And this was something that confused biologists for a while - why certain animals became extinct when other animals who would seem less well adapted didn't. And the answer is simply some animals were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The same thing can happen to great well functioning businesses.

Yahew

krd wrote: »

It's hard to escape the tautology in "The Survival of the fittest". Blame Herbert Spencer - it wasn't Darwin. But it's a term that just won't die. It sums up an idea about evolution. That it's somehow working towards perfection. It isn't it's chaotic, with no real purpose. And extinct is common. Every organism is extinguished at some point - if it can successful reproduce before it kicks the bucket, it's species stays in the game.

The idea that evolution struggles for perfection is a Lamarckian idea. Lamarck's ideas where wrong. And for a while they competed with Darwin's. With time Darwin's ideas become sounder. There's a joke that's often said about Lamarck. That he believed all creatures would eventually evolve into Frenchmen.


And this is why it's very bad to think of economic/political/cultural developments as being suited to blind evolution. In nature, sudden environmental changes have extinguished entire species in one fell blow. And this was something that confused biologists for a while - why certain animals became extinct when other animals who would seem less well adapted didn't. And the answer is simply some animals were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The same thing can happen to great well functioning businesses.

Sure, I was making a semantic point. My own feeling is that the private sector is run worse than the public sector, at least small businesses are. I've been in a lot of start ups - there is no way the NHS could be run as badly as those businesses. That said the NHS can't afford to fail.

However, the best might survive. In terms of fitness it is sometimes fluke, sometimes the specific era, and sometimes ability. Hard to tell.

krd

Yahew wrote: »

Sure, I was making a semantic point. My own feeling is that the private sector is run worse than the public sector, at least small businesses are. I've been in a lot of start ups - there is no way the NHS could be run as badly as those businesses. That said the NHS can't afford to fail..

The thing people forget about the private sector and public sector, that despite their differences, it often comes down to the same kind of people running both enterprises.

People, managers especially, are often hired more for cultural considerations than for their practical abilities.

It doesn't make economic sense to hire someone who is not very bright, and even though they're in a smart suit, they are actually really flaky and liable to things that really don't make any sense, and are even destructive.

But, it if you think that there's a cultural reason behind hiring these people - then you have an answer.

I'm not shocked any more. But. How it really works in so many businesses. If someone comes through the door, and they look like a manager - even if they're really a school drop out, with poor literacy skills etc, they have a strong chance of getting the job purely on their "personality". I seen it many times, where someone has been hired as a manager, and they have far less experience, education, skills, and intelligence than the people they're managing. It's a joke, but it goes on to a silly extent.