New York Times: "The Downside of Liberty"

Permabear · 06-07-2012 12:21PM #1

This post has been deleted.

Belfast · 06-07-2012 02:05PM

WE ARE THE New York time. SURRENDER YOUR Liberties. WE WILL ADD YOUR taxes to more waste full spending AND this is for you own good. N. YOUR are here to serve the government. you WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE the US government and the liberals . RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

KyussBishop · 06-07-2012 02:49PM

Perhaps the NYT author has legitimate criticisms against him, but why frame the debate as being against 'the left'? This is not strictly on-topic I know, but rarely do peoples views converge as being 'left' or 'right'; most libertarians would be very left socially for instance, so doesn't presenting it as this kind of dichotomy not just set people a flag to take hold of for picking a 'side', when many posters views may converge?

It's odd, that fringe cases of discreditable people or parties that can be labelled 'left', get used as ideological targets for everyone who considers themselves 'right', to arm up and dig trenches against. In this instance, I think that NYT article is mostly waffle, with the author failing to make a concise point.

Why try to frame the debate, and setup faux talking points to be knocked down like that? I don't think there are many people on the forum (who may be considered 'left') who agree with this op-ed (what exact point would they be agreeing with anyway?), so is there that desperate a need to foster an "us vs them" dichotomy, that such fringe authors are used as straw men?

I think there are a lot of posters, both of a left and right persuasion, whose point of views would easily converge, without such trench digging.

I mean, how often do you find posters seeking out articles from 'right' authors which are as vacuous as this op-ed, and posting them as a target on the forum? It never happens, because nobody puts such credibility in writing which is that polarized, yet here it is taken, and used as a straw man to rally followers and frame the debate, and try to coax posters from 'the other side' into defending it.

Debates on the merits and demerits of Libertarianism have several times delved past the depths of individualism vs society, but it pays to frame the debate, and bring it right back to step zero again, because that's the way to rally followers and avoid engaging in any actual substance in debate.
Then if debate delve into more complex/specific topics, just let them drag on endlessly until people reading lose interest, and bring the discussion to a stalemate (so no failed arguments have to be conceded) by obfuscating the debate, so it can all be started again a few weeks later at step 0 once again.

It's prioritization of talking points over substance; it lacks honesty.

Belfast · 06-07-2012 04:07PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Perhaps the NYT author has legitimate criticisms against him, but why frame the debate as being against 'the left'? This is not strictly on-topic I know, but rarely do peoples views converge as being 'left' or 'right'; most libertarians would be very left socially for instance, so doesn't presenting it as this kind of dichotomy not just set people a flag to take hold of for picking a 'side', when many posters views may converge?
It's odd, that fringe cases of discreditable people or parties that can be labelled 'left', get used as ideological targets for everyone who considers themselves 'right', to arm up and dig trenches against. In this instance, I think that NYT article is mostly waffle, with the author failing to make a concise point.

Why try to frame the debate, and setup faux talking points to be knocked down like that? I don't think there are many people on the forum (who may be considered 'left') who agree with this op-ed (what exact point would they be agreeing with anyway?), so is there that desperate a need to foster an "us vs them" dichotomy, that such fringe authors are used as straw men?

I think there are a lot of posters, both of a left and right persuasion, whose point of views would easily converge, without such trench digging.

I mean, how often do you find posters seeking out articles from 'right' authors which are as vacuous as this op-ed, and posting them as a target on the forum? It never happens, because nobody puts such credibility in writing which is that polarized, yet here it is taken, and used as a straw man to rally followers and frame the debate, and try to coax posters from 'the other side' into defending it.

Debates on the merits and demerits of Libertarianism have several times delved past the depths of individualism vs society, but it pays to frame the debate, and bring it right back to step zero again, because that's the way to rally followers and avoid engaging in any actual substance in debate.
Then if debate delve into more complex/specific topics, just let them drag on endlessly until people reading lose interest, and bring the discussion to a stalemate (so no failed arguments have to be conceded) by obfuscating the debate, so it can all be started again a few weeks later at step 0 once again.

It's prioritization of talking points over substance; it lacks honesty.

I agree left and right wing are just labels and I could not put my self on the right or left.

I agree the author does not seem to be making any clear points.

Can some one writing an op-ed in The New York Times be considered 'fringe' if so the new york times must be lowering it standards.

Mjollnir · 06-07-2012 07:58PM

The NYT is not "chief media organ of the American liberal left".

Starting off w/intellectual dishonesty doesn't exact set up an argument worth making.

Sand · 06-07-2012 10:43PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why cant we?

In the Roman Republic, it was a great affront to strike another Roman and carried a hefty fine. As Rome became richer and richer, a certain politician arose who was so wealthy that he enjoyed striking other Roman politicians and paying the fine off there and then on the spot. He was so wealthy that the fine was no longer an impediment to the crime - It was an opportunity to humiliate a rival citizen and to demonstrate his own wealth.

It led to reform of course, but the Roman Republic eventually declined to the point where it was the plaything of various incredibly wealthy and ambitious men, until one of them finally declared themselves Emperor and put the old institutions out of their misery. The Republic was maintained only as a habit, a museum piece.

Incredibly wealthy young billionaires like Sergey Brin, Larry Page, or Mark Zuckerberg sleep soundly in their beds because minimum wage young men and women watch over them while they sleep. There is a social contract - Brin, Page and Zuckerberg are only wealthy in that society, and within that society's rules: if enough people are driven down and out in that society then those people will quit *out* of that society. They then might begin to "indulge their self-expressive and hedonistic impulses" on Zuckerbergs lawn.

Stalin was a realist - how many divisions does Zuckerberg have?

Its also a pretty bad time to be championing economic individualism in the US sense, given that main street bailed out wall street in a huge, huge, huge fashion not so long ago. Main street could quite reasonably feel their *owed* something back from the young billionaires who they rescued a few years back.

poeticseraphim · 07-07-2012 07:10AM

The media is simply presenting an arguement that you can have too much of good thing.

Too raw a capitalist system defeats capitalism. It was laissez faire to the extreme which necessitated the biggest government intervention in banking history.

Associating economic liberalism with social liberalism is does not reflect reality. The two do not go together all the time.

Socialism and capitalism can co-exist in one economy and complimeny one another.

Germany has a social market economy the model is a middle path between socialism and laissez faire capitalism with a free market with some Govt regulation and intervention..good services and welfare..a balance between low inlation and high economic growth by using Govt intervention ..and promoing fair competition..which in reality can mean a freer economy...

And it is quite a soially liberal country with high living standards and working conditions.

It is possible to become rich ....you just don't lose it over night...

I think the label left and right come from the fact that America is only a two party system...whereas in Europe there are multi party systems....American politics and politicians create a false dichotomy to polarize voters to generate support and loyalty. They even try to identify cultural labels and groups with one side...like if your Christian then you are republican....if you are Irish American you are Democrat etc

Valmont · 07-07-2012 10:35PM

Sand wrote: »

Incredibly wealthy young billionaires like Sergey Brin, Larry Page, or Mark Zuckerberg sleep soundly in their beds because minimum wage young men and women watch over them while they sleep. There is a social contract - Brin, Page and Zuckerberg are only wealthy in that society, and within that society's rules: if enough people are driven down and out in that society then those people will quit *out* of that society. They then might begin to "indulge their self-expressive and hedonistic impulses" on Zuckerbergs lawn.

Stalin was a realist - how many divisions does Zuckerberg have?

I've read this about four times now and I still don't understand your point and how it relates to the separation of social and economic freedom. Could you elaborate?

Sand wrote:

Its also a pretty bad time to be championing economic individualism in the US sense, given that main street bailed out wall street in a huge, huge, huge fashion not so long ago. Main street could quite reasonably feel their *owed* something back from the young billionaires who they rescued a few years back.

'Economic individualism' in the sense of bailing out large banks with tax money is an oxymoron -- so what are you arguing against?

Valmont · 07-07-2012 10:53PM

Perhaps we should begin the debate at the separation of economic and social freedom. What is the basis for assuming these two distinct spheres of existence? How is constraining one not constraining the other? What is economic freedom if not the ability to direct one's own resources toward ostensibly social ends? Starting a business, hiring employees, buying luxury goods -- I can't think of many uses of money that aren't inherently social.

Is this separation just a conceptual bait-and-switch perpetrated by those who simply wish to justify their limiting of individual freedom in terms of promoting their vision of 'good' freedom and restricting of the 'bad' kind?

KyussBishop · 08-07-2012 03:42AM

As I touched on in my previous post, the argument on personal 'freedoms'/choice versus social 'freedom'/choice has been one of the primary elements of any discussion on the forum involving Libertarianism.

Mainly what this discussion does, is remove the entire context of discussing any individual policies Libertarianism promotes, to reframe the discussion all the way back to step 0.

It's the difference between weighing two sets of systems/policies against each other, and determining based upon likely (or even better, statistical) real world results, whether one system/policy works better than the other, versus saying "system A is built in individualist principals therefore it automatically works better".

That's the principal which all of Libertarianism hinges upon, but in discussions about Libertarianism its supporters never fully discard collective morals (as opposed to individual morals); if they did, then the response when a Libertarianism policy causes more overall social harm than good would be "so what?", but instead it's usually a notable silence.

That silence still leads me to wonder whether people are reconsidering their thoughts, or if they still favour the socially harmful policy but are unwilling to acknowledge that or that there would be any actual harm.

It makes me very (justifiably, I feel

) cynical; I think there's a massive amount of intellectual dishonesty when stuff like that goes unacknowledged, or arguments get obfuscated to try and stalemate them, only to start again at step 0 some weeks down the line(!), to avoid substantive discussion and make the same ideologically polarized arguments from that start, to rally a cause into their trenches.

Denerick · 08-07-2012 11:50AM

Unfortunately libertarians have a tendancy to think and speak in extremes, which rarely does justice to the strawmen they hope to create.

Do I hate rich people? No.

What I do hate is the concentration of capital in ever fewer hands, and the unholy influence these capital interests wield on our democratic institutions.

Placing limits on the powers the ultra wealthy have is not a particularly socialist idea, it merely places a greater emphasis on the rights of the majority to have a say in how they are governed. If people could only understand the level of access and power that the super rich have over our institutions it would spark a new radical movement, like the chartists.

The example of Steve Jobs is a useful one - somebody who became rich because of their own inherent intelligence and genius. I don't think that can always be said about the average industrialist, most of whom enjoyed advantages and opportunities from an early age that us mere plebs could only dream about.

There is no contradiction in opposing the unrestrained animal impulses of raw capitalism whilst still believing in personal liberty. As a social libertarian I believe that what I do in my spare time - providing it does no harm to anyone else - is no one elses damn business, especially the governments. The supposed 'liberty' in raw capitalism infers exploitation and mass suffering, by affecting the standard of living of the populace and in turn increasing the net wealth of those who live a very plush existence anyhow. Just look at how median wages have been declining for generations, whilst the incomes of the wealthy have skyrocketed. I don't see anything to be proud of when children can grow up without having access to a doctor or a dentist whilst industrialists are able to spend a quarter of a million dollars on a bottle of champagne.

Denerick · 08-07-2012 11:59AM

Valmont wrote: »

Perhaps we should begin the debate at the separation of economic and social freedom. What is the basis for assuming these two distinct spheres of existence? How is constraining one not constraining the other? What is economic freedom if not the ability to direct one's own resources toward ostensibly social ends? Starting a business, hiring employees, buying luxury goods -- I can't think of many uses of money that aren't inherently social.

Is this separation just a conceptual bait-and-switch perpetrated by those who simply wish to justify their limiting of individual freedom in terms of promoting their vision of 'good' freedom and restricting of the 'bad' kind?

The distinction which I believe you may be deliberately overlooking is that unrestrained 'economic liberty' causes mass suffering incomparable with the much more harmless 'personal liberty' that most social democrats would espouse.

An oil firm, which invests in a poor African country and then negates to clean up once they have extracted all of the oil, may be engaging in its own form of liberty but at the expense of the villager who has to deal with the pollution caused by this. (Plenty of African villagers could tell you a story or two, if you felt inclined to listen)

In world without a minimum wage or labour laws, an employer could quite feasibly hire a vietnamese person to work in their factory for 70 hours a week and at one euro per hour. After all, if the person is willing to work for those conditions, why shouldn't the industrialist take advantage of it? He is only expressing his own 'god given' right to economic liberty.

Which again leads us to the point that economic liberty inevitably causes harm and suffering to people, in a way that personal liberty cannot.

Valmont · 08-07-2012 10:14PM

Denerick wrote: »

Unfortunately libertarians have a tendancy to think and speak in extremes, which rarely does justice to the strawmen they hope to create.

Do I hate rich people? No.

Denerick wrote: »

The distinction which I believe you may be deliberately overlooking is that unrestrained 'economic liberty' causes mass suffering incomparable with the much more harmless 'personal liberty' that most social democrats would espouse.

In world without a minimum wage or labour laws, an employer could quite feasibly hire a vietnamese person to work in their factory for 70 hours a week and at one euro per hour. After all, if the person is willing to work for those conditions, why shouldn't the industrialist take advantage of it? He is only expressing his own 'god given' right to economic liberty.

So you don't hate rich people but just people getting richer, right? Makes a ton of sense. You also hate how rich people spend their money lobbying the social-democrats like Obama, whom you so admire. Makes a ton of sense to blame that on economic freedom and not say, the inherent corruption of the modern state.
You also seem to ignore that western factory jobs are highy sought after in third world countries, often paying well above the local wage. In short, how you end up at your conclusion of

Denerick wrote: »

Which again leads us to the point that economic liberty inevitably causes harm and suffering to people, in a way that personal liberty cannot

is entirely unconvincing. Not to mention, you ignored my post asking why we should even separate social and economic freedom in the first instance; do you have justification for that state of affairs?

Chuck Stone · 08-07-2012 11:37PM

Denerick wrote: »

An oil firm, which invests in a poor African country and then negates to clean up once they have extracted all of the oil, may be engaging in its own form of liberty but at the expense of the villager who has to deal with the pollution caused by this. (Plenty of African villagers could tell you a story or two, if you felt inclined to listen)

Indeed, liberty for the shark is tyranny for the sardine.

jank · 09-07-2012 07:51AM

Sand wrote: »

Stalin was a realist - how many divisions does Zuckerberg have?

.

Given that that Facebook thrives on an open and global free market across the world I would say Zuckerberg has the entire might of the United States military via proxy as it is the United States number one aim to keep world trade open and capitalism as the world ideaology.

Permabear · 09-07-2012 10:09AM

This post has been deleted.

Denerick · 09-07-2012 05:05PM

Valmont wrote: »

So you don't hate rich people but just people getting richer, right? Makes a ton of sense. You also hate how rich people spend their money lobbying the social-democrats like Obama, whom you so admire. Makes a ton of sense to blame that on economic freedom and not say, the inherent corruption of the modern state.

I don't hate rich people but they should understand that society must place limits to their ambition. A properly free market will have robust competition laws, for example. You don't think it dangerous that someone as... high minded... as Rupert Murdoch can own such a large slice of the global media?

I hate money in politics. full stop. The sooner we introduce a 'party tax' whereby political parties are funded by general taxation as opposed to relying on the help of magnates and Monty Burn's characters, the closer we will come to have a truly democratic republic (In Ireland as in the USA)

You also seem to ignore that western factory jobs are highy sought after in third world countries, often paying well above the local wage. In short, how you end up at your conclusion of
is entirely unconvincing. Not to mention, you ignored my post asking why we should even separate social and economic freedom in the first instance; do you have justification for that state of affairs?

I didn't ignore the fact that those jobs in third world countries are sought after by people in those countries. In fact, that was my point - that Vietnamese woman would be grateful to work for a dollar an hour, after all. My point is that the gigantic markups earnt as a result of this indisputable exploitation is what makes raw capitalism so inherently grotesque. A slave, after all, is glad to have a meal after a long day in the fields. Does this somehow infer their consent to slavery? Desperation is a powerful motivator.

I believe I adequately stated why I believe economic and social liberty to be seperate spheres - one causes harm to no-one, the other causes intentional and continuous harm to billions across the planet (When its not constrained and properly regulated)

Denerick · 09-07-2012 05:17PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The political power of labour unions is a natural consequence of the unlimited financial power of the moneyed classes. Thank Christ for the unions, without them there would be no-one to stand up for the minimum waged (Constantly under attack for having the gall to expect a living wage in one of the most expensive countries in the world - I'm talking about Ireland here)

A conservative Christian might just as well say that there is no contradiction in opposing the unrestrained animal impulses of raw sexuality, while still believing in personal liberty. Everybody has his or her blind spot, it would seem. It ultimately amounts to "You should have full personal liberty to pursue the things I approve of, but not the things I disapprove of."

I believe that people should be free to pursue their interests provided it causes no harm to others. When people have full economic liberty they naturally - somewhat mechanistically - cause harm to others.

I don't see the contradiction, try as you might to make it appear ridiculous.

So you only want freedom from government interference in your "spare time"? You're quite happy to live under the shadow of Big Government in your professional life?

So long as that government protects my contract rights and ensure that I don't get exploited, I'm happy enough.

Do you have any data to back up your claim that "median wages have been declining for generations"? In reality, household incomes in the USA have moved sharply upward in recent generations (in no small part thanks to the large-scale entry of women into the workforce) despite the fact that the average hours worked have declined markedly.

I'll level with you - I don't. I may be wrong. Its a statistic I've heard and read numerous times but now I think about it, I'm not sure I've ever seen or read a proper study investigating real wage decline (Taking account of inflation etc.) over the past 30/40 years.

Otacon · 10-07-2012 07:44AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Denerick wrote: »

I'll level with you - I don't. I may be wrong. Its a statistic I've heard and read numerous times but now I think about it, I'm not sure I've ever seen or read a proper study investigating real wage decline (Taking account of inflation etc.) over the past 30/40 years.

http://www.governing.com/gov-institute/col-decline-labor-force-participation-livable-communities.html

There's another aspect of these labor statistics that we should keep in mind. While worker productivity has been rising for decades, incomes have been falling. Median household income fell last year by 2.3 percent, to $49,445, and has declined by 7 percent since 2000 after adjusting for inflation — the first decade-long decline in at least half a century. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the median hourly wage for all workers is now $16.57. At that rate, it takes 2,984 hours — more than 900 hours beyond full-time at 40 hours a week — to achieve that median income of $49,445.

A brief search threw up this. While it doesn't mention generations, it does take into account 12 years.

Permabear · 10-07-2012 09:33AM

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 10-07-2012 10:32AM

Denerick wrote: »

So long as that government protects my contract rights and ensure that I don't get exploited, I'm happy enough.

How is the state actively ensuring you aren't being exploited?

Permabear · 10-07-2012 11:39AM

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 10-07-2012 12:11PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd contend that having to pay 20% of my income for the privilege of even having a job in the first place constitutes exploitation more than earning below what is essentially an arbitrary quantity.

Curious then, that two individuals earning the exact same hourly wage, with one living in Dundalk and the other in Newry, could be described as being exploited and not exploited, respectively. This definition then would make exploitation a function of geography or political culture which is silly, really. Although now that I think of it, this very use of the term exploitation is Marxist in nature and in turn based upon his labour theory of value which was conclusively debunked by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk. Why then, do these out of date Marxist sentiments still inform our everyday thoughts on freedom and liberty?

Permabear · 10-07-2012 01:32PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 10-07-2012 02:08PM

This post has been deleted.

Channel Zero · 10-07-2012 05:42PM

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

"Household incomes in the USA have moved sharply upward in recent generations."

"Average hours worked have declined markedly."

These statements are misleading and don't tell the true story of what's happened since the '70's. I fully agree with the sentiments of the NYT article, as do a lot of people who get their info from credible sources.

KyussBishop · 10-07-2012 05:51PM

I don't think I'll bite this time, I'll focus on the bigger picture surrounding all these discussions (besides, we've already had the minimum wage discussion, and I showed pretty well how it's better to have than not):
One of the most common dishonest methods of argument I've seen used in these discussions, is to take an economic policy someone argues in favour of, find out a label to pin it to (Marxism/socialism being some of the big ones), then construct a straw man out of it by applying all policies associated with that label to the poster, and trying to beat them all as a whole instead of addressing the actual argument.

These discussions always draw down to beating on labels rather than discussion anything of substance; is there anyone watching these discussions who does not see or acknowledge that?

Read back on my other two posts on this topic as well, it's the pattern these discussions take; does anyone think that isn't completely intellectually dishonest? (at the very least, it certainly doesn't add to any discussion, it just steers people toward their trenches)

I don't fully know what to think about that, whether people making them really are aware of their dishonest arguments (or if those that support them are aware), I've just encountered them so many times now I find it difficult to believe they don't (hence my cynicism).

If people aren't aware when making dishonest arguments like that, again I find it very curious but fair enough, but if people are aware, it makes me really wonder what would be the motive for that?

As much as many would prefer a kind of monopoly on authority to talk about economics, and thus denigrate my views to try and discredit them, it takes very little skepticism and reading to see the faults in most Libertarian policies put forward thus far.

I've learned a lot about economics in all these discussions (and researching the topics surrounding them) over the last few months, and it's a topic I have an interest in now as a result, so am happy enough to debate Libertarianism every now and then to develop my views; a major caveat of that though is the inevitable label bashing and trench digging that ensues, which puts a limit on what can be learned from any discussion.

Denerick · 10-07-2012 06:33PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thanks for misrepresenting my position in such an absurd way. In no way did I make that distinction (Which is ridiculously arbitrary) between the exploited and the unexploited.

For the last year I have worked for a corporation and it is only since moving into this new area of work (Following a lenghty period on the minimum wage) that I have come to see the economic orthodoxies of our age for what they really are. Curious really, I was more right wing when I was a student.

sarumite · 10-07-2012 06:39PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Slightly off topic, but if I am French, Swedish, Dutch, Danish, Finnish etc chances are my second 'foreign language' is more than likely English and I find myself in the exact same position as the Irish, stuck in my own country or emigrating to a far flung Anglophone country.

Denerick · 10-07-2012 06:39PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Youth unemployment has little to do with structural problems caused by 'regulation' or 'the minimum wage' (At least not in Ireland - perhaps in some Latin countries like Italy or Spain, the labour regulatory system has added to youth unemployment)

The real cause of youth unemployment in Ireland, and in most countries, is the economic crisis. At the height of the boom we had full employment. Your argument is disingenous. I know the forces of capital are attempting to roll back all labour market protections in order to increase their margins, but most people see this strategy for what it is. Unemployment is caused by a lack of demand in the economy, that demand can be created through a greater distribution of wealth and its transfer to the poor and middle classes (Who are more likely to spend it productively than the idle rich)

In my experience, it's because the humanities, social sciences, arts, and media are infested with self-styled Marxists who have never cracked an economics textbook in their lives, but who nevertheless influence the young and naive to believe that capitalism is inexcusably exploitative while Marxism is the one true path to social and economic justice.

A bit personal?

As I said in my last post, I've only really become a fully fledged social democrat since I started working for a major company and directly experienced how its strangles suppliers, ensures maximum margins for itself, all for the personal enrichment of a family who seem to spend their time re-investing those profits in beach houses in America and the latest sports cars.

I've read my fair share of economists too by the way, so you can take your patronising tone elsewhere.

Denerick · 10-07-2012 06:43PM

Valmont wrote: »

I'd contend that having to pay 20% of my income for the privilege of even having a job in the first place constitutes exploitation more than earning below what is essentially an arbitrary quantity.

Curious then, that two individuals earning the exact same hourly wage, with one living in Dundalk and the other in Newry, could be described as being exploited and not exploited, respectively. This definition then would make exploitation a function of geography or political culture which is silly, really. Although now that I think of it, this very use of the term exploitation is Marxist in nature and in turn based upon his labour theory of value which was conclusively debunked by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk. Why then, do these out of date Marxist sentiments still inform our everyday thoughts on freedom and liberty?

I've already adressed the silly strawman argument about the minimum wage.

As for the rest of your post, let me summarise:

Says vaguely left wing things = Marxist = somebody who rebuked Mark = Valmont is Queen of the internet.

New York Times: "The Downside of Liberty"

Comments