Ideology vs. Free Thought?

Dr Galen

Denerick wrote: »

Not that this thread should descend into another battle in the eternal libertarian/social democrat wars, but I've always found that people of certain ideological extremities of thought (Be they right or left wing) lack an ability to think outside the box, or consider ideas that may offend their natural ideological instincts. One of the reasons I love Orwell so much is that he was never afraid to tell his own socialist bedfellows to 'bugger off' from time to time.

I've quoted the OP of this thread just as a reminder to try and kinda stay OT as far as possible.

It is in fairness a pretty open OP though and has and should provoke some good things. I'm more than happy to split things off into separate threads if posters feel they are diverging too much or if we end up with several separate conversations going on. Just drop me a PM.

Cheers

DrG

20Cent

southsiderosie wrote: »

But whether or not you think something has 'worked' is in and of itself a value judgement. For example, is having a high level of exports always a good thing? Not everyone would agree that it is.


It is also ironic that you keep asking for real world examples - not only have you not been willing to come up with any when explicitly asked for some, but you have pooh-poohed everyone else's on this thread. Why even bother posting if you are not going to actually take other posters' responses to you on board?

Trickle down economics, taxes for the rich have been dropping dramatically since Reagan yet its not trickling down income inequality is increasing exponentially. The introduction of public schools and healthcare has shown to increase lifespan and education dramatically in countries that didn't have it. Maybe one doesn't see income inequality or people having access to healthcare/education as a problem but I would. Maybe it is an ideology but I'd consider it a value.

southsiderosie wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous. On the one hand, you claim that you want people to take advantage of data, but on the other hand, you don't want to hold that analysis to any kind of standard - 95% certainty is the benchmark for statistical testing. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, since your earlier comment about 'examples' suggests that you are just interested in cherry-picking to confirm your existing biases anyway.



This all seems to be a game of semantics. The overarching narrative here reads as ideology = beliefs I disagree with and values = guiding principles that shape my behavior (and allow me to feel superior to those dreadful ideologues).

I don't disagree with all the beliefs of ideologies just the whole concept that there is one size fits all solution that should be applied to all problems. Applying an ideology instead of analysing a situation based on its merits. Having health public or private only, find out which works best or have a mixture of them don't just pick one because it fits with the ideology. If someone has an argument base it on something rational not just because someone dreamed it up sitting in an armchair thinking about it.

Duggys Housemate

Let me give an example of how a non-ideological position might work.

Lets give a though experiment: say Marxism was a successful economic system. And capitalism fails. So West Germany collapses and France and Britain and even the US stagnate after the war, remaining in penury. Meanwhile there is no need for a wall, because nobody is emigrating from a prosperous East Germany. In fact the democratic countries of the West elect more communist parties, and populist parties adopt Marxist economic ideas. The East opens up, as the economic argument is won, and allows political parties, but they are all - in economic terms - Marxist, since that works. There are differences on social issues - like Abortion, but most people see the State working to run things. As I said, a thought experiment.

In that case I - and most other empiricists - would be Marxists. Libertarians would presumably still be Libertarians. I am not a Marxist because it has proven to fail, and it's theory is suspect anyway.

The libertarian argument is disprove the success of the social market experiment with recourse to claims of mere "correlation". They forget that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, if we know a system worked, and if it worked better than the neo-liberal model that replaced it, the extraordinary claim that less State involvement would make us richer, or better, or whatever needs the certain proof that that would work.

Of course Libertarianism is a philosophy of freedom, as is Marxism. One believes we are held captive by the State, the other by Capital. Neither have much real economic argument.

In the meantime Economics, not being a predictive science, needs to deal with the facts. Before we take a flawed society, which is nonetheless superior to past societies, and refashion it from top to bottom in a libertarian, or Marxist fashion, we need more proof that the remodeling would work, not just carping at the existing system.

SupaNova2

Lets give a though experiment: say Marxism was a successful economic system. And capitalism fails. So West Germany collapses and France and Britain and even the US stagnate after the war, remaining in penury. Meanwhile there is no need for a wall, because nobody is emigrating from a prosperous East Germany. In fact the democratic countries of the West elect more communist parties, and populist parties adopt Marxist economic ideas. [...]Libertarians would presumably still be Libertarians.

I think what your saying is, if there was what looked like heavy evidence against Austrian theory would it just be ignored? The answer is obviously no, it would force them to look at their theory again, see if they missed something or if there was a flawed premise or deduction that they had made. Since the example of East vs West Germany actually supports their theory they haven't much cause for concern. In a debate where you are trying to portray Libertarians as irrational ideologues it would be better if you could give solid examples of where evidence against there position is ignored.

Valmont

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Before we take a flawed society, which is nonetheless superior to past societies, and refashion it from top to bottom in a libertarian, or Marxist fashion, we need more proof that the remodeling would work, not just carping at the existing system.

That's not correct. Arguably one of the most important factors of the libertarian argument is the contention that it is impossible to successfully refashion society from the top down, no matter what the design. This is the key difference between libertarianism and other political philosophies. We contend that central planning does not work, regardless of whether you plan it along Marxist or social democratic lines.

To borrow a line from the 'Keynes vs Hayek' rap: "we want plans by the many, not by the few"; it is better to let each individual make their own plans for their own life rather than having a central authority of some sort imposing a one-size-fits-all design (or ideology) for everyone.

Duggys Housemate

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I think what your saying is, if there was what looked like heavy evidence against Austrian theory would it just be ignored? The answer is obviously no, it would force them to look at their theory again, see if they missed something or if there was a flawed premise or deduction that they had made. Since the example of East vs West Germany actually supports their theory they haven't much cause for concern.

Are we saying that West Germany is an example of Austrian Economics? Really? If West Germany is seen as a successful State then it should be seen as a social democratic success story, for that is what it is.

In a debate where you are trying to portray Libertarians as irrational ideologues it would be better if you could give solid examples of where evidence against there position is ignored.

I would like to know what exactly people think they are defending. I am not defending Marxist theory - I made that clear, and in fact I compare Marxists as ideologues to Libertarians quite often - I am defending social democracy, for example, West Germany.

As far as I know there are no working "Austrian" economies ( which, doesn't mean Austria, but economies which conform to Austrian economics), and none in history, although I am less certain on the latter.

SupaNova2

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Are we saying that West Germany is an example of Austrian Economics?

It is an example of how a market economy performed vs a centrally planned economy on a similar population and culture with the same technological capabilities etc etc. It backs up what Austrian theory says, I'm not saying it is an example of pure Austrian economics in action.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chuck Stone

Valmont wrote: »

That's not correct. Arguably one of the most important factors of the libertarian argument is the contention that it is impossible to successfully refashion society from the top down, no matter what the design. This is the key difference between libertarianism and other political philosophies.

This assumes that in 'Libertopia' those who would have the means would desist from trying to refashion society as they saw fit; indeed, in the absence of the state what's to stop such a person? The more wealth a person acquires the more freedom there is for him to shape the world as he see's fit and the less freedom there might be for his employees and/or the less well off. History has many examples of industrialists engaging in 'social engineering'.

The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the [Ford Motor] company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford's "Social Department" approved. They frowned on heavy drinking, gambling, and what might today be called "deadbeat dads". The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for this "profit-sharing."

(Ford subsequently did an about face as regards this type of meddling in the lives of employees but the point stands).

This is the bit where libertarians clam up and get defensive and those who reject libertarian ideas want detailed answers about how a libertarian future that does not yet exist will work.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think there is anything to say that those cases wouldn't arise in a libertarian society, petty and all as they seem. If enough parents took offence the teachers would still lose their jobs. People can be stupid, especially parents when it comes to their precious children. I can't see much wrong with the above cases, but are you saying those cases couldn't occur in a Libertarian society?

Chuck Stone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I quite aware of the unbelievably stupid things 'the state' has done and continues to do but, at the very least, people can change laws, rules and regulations and can theoretically use laws to protect themselves (free speech, freedom of association etc)

Also, what never ceases to amuse me is this talk of 'the state' as if it were some sort of conscious entity separate from men. Ultimately 'the state' is just people who have agreed to do things a certain way - it is a negotiation between competing interests. Democracy is not perfect but at least it gives people some sort of participation in the decision making process that affects their lives.

In the absence of 'the state' (a fantasy for the foreseeable future) who's to say that men wouldn't come together to form 'private' tyrannies? Men coming together to exercise control over people with less power is a major component of the history of humanity. I know we're talking about a fantasy future (a libertarian penchant) but I have not yet heard any thing approaching a good argument as to why a class of vile men wouldn't simply fill the void left by other men 'the state'.

I tend to agree with this statement attributed to that oft cited hero of the nanny state conservative (spit) Adam Smith.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind

Book III, Chapter IV, pg.448

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

This depends upon the balance of power resting on the employee, not the employer; that the employee can leave one job and find another secure one with relative ease.

Like the current system of economics, Austrian economics uses unemployment as a buffer to inflation, so that whenever the economy gets in trouble unemployment will increase and less availability of jobs will tip power in the hands of employers.

In this situation, or if there is a monopoly or cartel in a certain section of the economy, the employers will be able to leverage their position of advantage to exert more control on employees (potentially in the fashion Chuck Stone describes).


Even if we assume for a moment that all monopolies/cartels are government created or assisted, the ones that exist now would need to go away in the transition to a pure Libertarian society, and there isn't really a stated mechanism to make this happen.
Some of them will just become unrestrained from regulation, able to exert even greater control over their section of the market, thus gaining greater power.

This in general would actually incentivize economic instability, so that unemployment can be kept high, keeping the balance of power in the hands of employers.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thought so. I suppose the problem is facebook, twitter, picture messaging etc. poses a huge dilemna between privacy and responsibility. I'd have no particular problem with the a teacher posting a picture holding a gun in their own time.

Unfortunately in this day and age, posting a public picture of myself in an intimate position is going to cause risks! Unless I can find a school that ahem! agrees with my position, I'm at a bit of a loss. So we can post pictures of ourselves in sexual positions and all is fine?

I do see your point and the stupidity of those cases, but your position doesn't seem logical either.

Chuck Stone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In this case I believe Weber's assertion that 'the state' is the legitimised monopoly of force is apt. To imagine that this monopoly of force would not be used to the ends of a cabal of vile men is naive (it already has plenty of that going on but is held back somewhat by the majority).

If all 'the state' was were courts, police officers and defence forces who do we think would make laws and use them to their ends? Those with the most power/property. Again, freedom for the shark is tyranny for the sardine.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duggys Housemate

My position is simply that this has nothing to do with ideology or any so-called "Libertopia." It's the way things are right now.

The non-ideological position is that criticism of the existing system is not enough, but proof that the proposed system is better.

Its a mistake to confuse social libertarianism with economic libertarianism. In general - although I suppose pure libertarians might exempt themselves from this - the free marketers, the conservative parties, are also the hang 'em high parties. The rise of capitalism saw, in the British Empire, the massive increase in capital offenses in the criminal code, mostly property related. They'd hang you as soon as look at you. They'd hang you for stealing a handkerchief.

bloody code.

In 1688 there were 50 offences on the statute book punishable by death, but that number had almost quadrupled by 1776,[1] and it reached 220 by the end of the century.[2] Most of the new laws introduced during that period were concerned with the defence of property

But it was, nevertheless, an economically libertarian time. The State, acting as the defense of the property owning class, saw protection of assets as it's main duty.

Libertarians, as we have been informed, are not anarchists. They agree the State should exist, and enforce laws, in particular property laws; and these - empirically - are the kind of laws you get.

In a pared down State, where the liberty of the rich to keep their money is not infringed, and welfare removed, the rich get richer and their control of the State is even more entrenched. Without welfare property crimes are inevitable.

And the historical record shows that, with economic libertarianism, the severity of the punishment for crimes against property increase, in those days to capital offenses. It was the rise of Christian anti-capitalism ( often written out of history these days), democratic movements like the chartists, the rise of socialism and social democracy which saw opposition to these laws increase. Conservative and free market parities supported the laws, in general. As the rise of economic statism increased, the state became less severe in it's treatment of normal citizens. Social liberalism, is inverse to economic libertarianism. The higher the tax rate in democracies, the more progressive the tax, the less likely they are to kill you, or imprison you.

ButtimersLaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd love to be present to hear the arguments put forward at the EAT, where nudity is equated with immorality. I had hoped Ireland has moved on from a time when the disgraced religious ideology which runs some of the schools felt able to morally pontificate to others in light of their particular recent past, and not so recent past.

Memnoch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're dodging the question that Libertarians on these forums always dodge. Which is how would a Libertarian state ACTUALLY WORK. Pointing out that government does this or does that is not a defense nor evidence in support of what a Libertarian state would be able to do. Your solution has to stand on its own merits not simply on criticism of the current situation.

In terms of practical issues:

1) How would a libertarian state ensure that all children would have the opportunity to have the same quality of education? The differences between public and private education in modern western society are already an issue, would these not worsen when the state stops supporting education for those that can afford it?

2) How would a libertarian state protect the environment? Without regulation to stop corporations from engaging in pollution? In your private property paradise they can pollute the air above their factory and the water next to it, but those are natural resources (air and water) that are used by all? How can global warming be combated without the centralised and organised cooperation of not just one nation but the majority of the countries in the world.

3) How would a libertarian state protect workers from being exploited?

I think the problem for us non-libertarians is that there are certain things that are important to us that don't seem to matter to you. I.E. A fair society with equal opportunity for everyone. This would include access to education and healthcare. A non-exploitative society. Protecting the environment. Combating global warming.

The version of libertarianism you preach seems to me indistinguishable from social darwinism. It will be to the benefit of only those who are already in positions of wealth and power and will result in a less fair, less stable and ultimately less free society.

SupaNova2

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Libertarians, as we have been informed, are not anarchists. They agree the State should exist, and enforce laws, in particular property laws; and these - empirically - are the kind of laws you get.

In a pared down State, where the liberty of the rich to keep their money is not infringed, and welfare removed, the rich get richer and their control of the State is even more entrenched. Without welfare property crimes are inevitable.

How can anyone take this post seriously??

Firstly with welfare we still have property crimes.

Then what your trying to imply that laws would be passed where public executions were punishment for theft if we didn't have a welfare state. To make this claim you are taking a single correlation and assuming causation(still not getting correlation does not equal causation I see:o) whilst ignoring all instances where there is no welfare state and public executions have not been the punishment for theft. And funnier still your correlation is taken from a time when public execution was common for such things as witchcraft.

Dr Galen

This is not a (another) thread in the endless debate about Libertarianism

The OP is actually pretty clear in what it sets out and how the discussion should lead from that.

Please stay on-topic

Cheers

DrG

Duggys Housemate

SupaNova2 wrote: »

How can anyone take this post seriously??

Firstly with welfare we still have property crimes.

Then what your trying to imply that laws would be passed where public executions were punishment for theft if we didn't have a welfare state. To make this claim you are taking a single correlation and assuming causation(still not getting correlation does not equal causation I see:o) whilst ignoring all instances where there is no welfare state and public executions have not been the punishment for theft.

Sure. We do have property crimes. I wasn't talking about the crimes but the level of punishment for the crimes.

You've latched onto the correlation and causation bit - like most of the libs on this thread ( i have a post on that overworn fallacy later) - but what you are missing is your own data. I have data, the economic liberal states in the West had hundreds of capital offenses, most of them property related, until the states became less free in terms of economic liberalism - i.e. higher progressive taxes, larger states as a percentage of GDP. And further data, the left supported most of the liberalization, as it still does ( i.e. abortion in Ireland etc.). Today Sweden has less incarceration than the US, and no death penalty.

And funnier still your correlation is taken from a time when public execution was common for such things as witchcraft.

Hard to see why this would be funny but it is utterly wrong. The age I am talking about is well into the enlightenment, the severe property laws were part and parcel of the Enlightenment. Witchcraft laws were abolished, what was made illegal was the claiming that somebody was a witch.

The Witchcraft Act (9 Geo. II c. 5) was a law passed by the Parliament of the Great Britain which made it a criminal offence to claim that any human being had magical powers or was guilty of practicing witchcraft. The maximum penalty set out by the Act was a year's imprisonment, and its implementation repealed the earlier statutes dealing with the issue which dated back to the Early Modern period, and which had prescribed far harsher penalties for those accused of practicing witchcraft.[1] The law was "a heavy-handed piece of Enlightenment rationalism", designed by supporters of the new rationalist theories who believed that, contrary to popular belief at the time, "witchcraft and magic were illusory", and the law was therefore designed to "wean" the public out of a belief in them.[1]


Thats twice you have shown an ignorance of basic facts in the issues here.

The rise in property crimes is a function of early capitalism.

SupaNova2

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Thats twice you have shown an ignorance of basic facts in the issues here.

Erm, The stats you posted were from 1688 to 1776, the date of the Witchcraft Act which for some reason you didn't include is 1735.

You've latched onto the correlation and causation bit - like most of the libs on this thread ( i have a post on that overworn fallacy later)

I can't wait.

Duggys Housemate

Back to the general theme and the correlation/causation ruckus. I'll put this as generally as possible.

1)It's true that correlation is not causation.
2) It is not enough to just state that that, and disappear. For instance: By and large the evidence for AGW is correlative, i.e. there is a process, carbon in the air which can raise temperatures, and temperatures have risen. The degree of increase is based on the idea of forcing, which was estimated from the increases in the 1990's. We won't be able to falsify or prove a theory of 2 degree rises per century until a century is up. However, opponents of AGW can't just dismiss that correlation - instead they have to have some other proposal
3) Unless there are extraordinary proofs to the contrary a negative correlation generally disproves causation. Some other theory is needed.

So in the previous discussions here on high taxation and economic growth we found a negative correlation between economic growth and neo-liberal theories about low taxation on higher incomes from 1945 - now. That disproves the theory. You need another ( in fact PB tried another, the war did it, but I am not getting into specifics).

Similarly AGW would have been abandoned if the temperature dropped since the 1980's.

The searching around for another theory, rather than accepting that your ideology is wrong, is ideological not empirical.

Duggys Housemate

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Erm, The stats you posted were from 1688 to 1776, the date of the Witchcraft Act which for some reason you didn't include is 1735.

Yeah, well within the period I was talking about. And property offenses increased in this period, after witchcraft laws were removed. Lets not hide the fact that you had no idea when witchcraft ended , or the enlightenment began.

I can't wait.

you don't have to ^

SupaNova2

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The searching around for another theory, rather than accepting that your ideology is wrong, is ideological not empirical.

So what your saying is Permabear should have just accepted that higher taxes cause higher growth, and it was not empirical for him to look for other factors that were not accounted for. Stellar post.:pac:

KyussBishop

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Back to the general theme and the correlation/causation ruckus. I'll put this as generally as possible.

1)It's true that correlation is not causation.
2) It is not enough to just state that that, and disappear. For instance: By and large the evidence for AGW is correlative, i.e. there is a process, carbon in the air which can raise temperatures, and temperatures have risen. The degree of increase is based on the idea of forcing, which was estimated from the increases in the 1990's. We won't be able to falsify or prove a theory of 2 degree rises per century until a century is up. However, opponents of AGW can't just dismiss that correlation - instead they have to have some other proposal
3) Unless there are extraordinary proofs to the contrary a negative correlation generally disproves causation. Some other theory is needed.

So in the previous discussions here on high taxation and economic growth we found a negative correlation between economic growth and neo-liberal theories about low taxation on higher incomes from 1945 - now. That disproves the theory. You need another ( in fact PB tried another, the war did it, but I am not getting into specifics).

Similarly AGW would have been abandoned if the temperature dropped since the 1980's.

The searching around for another theory, rather than accepting that your ideology is wrong, is ideological not empirical.

This seems to get to the heart of a lot of what I was saying as well; it's about the credibility of a theory, not about deductively disproving it in a fashion similar to disproving a mathematical formula.

Generally, the more contradicting evidence you need to discard or reject in a handwavy fashion to support a theory, the less credible that theory is; economics (through almost all schools) is chock full of problems surrounding improper judgement, of the credibility of parts of their respective theories.