|
September 16, 2008
posted by Simon on 09.16.08 at 10:01 AM
Comments
A certain amount of socialism has always been necessary for the functioning of a large polity. It keeps the people at the bottom from revolting. The problem then is to keep it from being unfordable and thus damaging the "animal spirits" of the economy. I was once a purist like you. However, my understanding of the system (emphasis on system) has changed. M. Simon · September 17, 2008 02:10 AM I appreciate your support for capitalism. Thank goodness. Now I don't look at "the people at the bottom" in the way you do. That view of "people at the bottom" seems to suggest that "people at the bottom" just can't think, or see how a principle such as property rights is to their benefit, or do much of anything mentally beyond the immediate here-and-now; it suggests that such people are metaphysically dependent on others -- that such people do not have an efficacious faculty of reason or volition; for another that such people have no values or ambitions other than those entertained by Roman cicuses or bread. So then how to explain the "people at the bottom" who have become some of the greatest "people at the top?" Read, for example, "The Myth of the Robber Barrons" by Burton Folsom. A found a review at: http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/09/book-review-of-myth-of-robber-barons-by.htm. Or did Bill Gates start out with anything near what he has now? How about Steve Jobs? Where did Michael Faraday and Isaac Newton come from? It was not the rich part of town. How about Thomas Sowell? Look up his bio. What you say about "animal spirits" and "the people at the bottom" makes me wonder if you've been influenced by Plato, who said there were three parts to society, just as he thought there were three parts to each individual man; or by Marx, who said said religion was the opium of the masses, just as one could say socialism is the opium of the "underclass:" or by Roman thinking (or Aristotle's tragic mistake) that there was always a servile class and always a ruling class? I'd like to clarify that I have developed my position based on observation and induction, and on integration of inductions concerning man's nature, economics, history, political theory, psychology, technological development, philosophy -- given the limited time I've had since I am not a professional philosopher -- so I'd say I'm a realist, not a "purist." I live in Houston, TX...where we had Hurricane Ike...and where we're trying to get things going after that disaster...so I'm limited on time here, but I did want to respond since you were so kind to comment!! Michael Gold · September 18, 2008 12:18 AM Michael, Economics is as dependent on sentiment (animal spirits) as it is on rational calculation. It is why it is an art as well as a science. If socialism is not the opiate of the underclass (I like that) how do you explain its continued popularity despite its record? M. Simon · September 18, 2008 04:54 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2008
August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"the biggest issue that nobody's talking about"
Partnership Between Fannie Mae And Congressional Black Caucus Who Is The Party Of The Elite? Obama Gets Up Close And Personal With Regular Folks Sins of the flesh? Cash Cows and Pigs The government giveth standards, the government taketh them away Whose Side Is He On? Egad, yet another economic crisis! Stability versus sideshows
Links
Site Credits
|
|
This video had some good points. But the author/creator said that Obama does not understand capitalism.
I don't find the author's assessment credible when the author says contemporary America is capitalist. (Though I myself, on reasoning different from the author's, would say Obama, like most people today, does not understand capitalism.)
Such a statement shows the author of the video is the one who does not understand capitalism.
We live in a welfare state today, not a capitalist society.
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of each individual's natural and inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. No right can be exercised unless one has the right to property. We live in a physical, material world; it is the realm in which we take action and express our convictions, values, and love.
Now where in this America of a mortgage industry and banking industry damaged by the CRA and regulation do we have the right to property respected?
Where in this America of New Orleans post-Katrina, of Ike and Gustave, do we have the protection of property rights? Nowhere: we have massive governmental handouts, welfare, and control.
Our rights to free speech, gun ownership, income, home education of our own children, property (real estate, that is; the stuff that we have ownership of but the state has control of via zoning), and more, are undercut and under attack.
This all is not a recognition of rights. This all is not a recognition of self-sovereignty and self-ownership. This is not capitalism.