capitalism- is it workingFollow

Um... Smash? There was no Wiki involved. I quoted from a discussion board dedicated to Locke. The "expert" posting there agreed with my take on Locke.

I then quoted from his actual work (Locke's. Not the guy on that other board). Specifically Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. Specifically chapter XI: "Of the extent of the Legistlative Power".

That quote *also* showed exactly what I was talking about.


You don't get any closer to the source then quoting the freaking guy himself Smash. How about you actually do something called "reading" and maybe you'll learn something?

Finally. Someone who gets it.



Yes. That is exactly the reasoning behind capitalism. Capitalism recognizes that mankind is greedy. Thus, it endeavors to create an economic system in which that greed is channeled into positive productive output, with "just enough" regulation to prevent abuses and negative effects, but no more then that (the "preventing negatives" versus "creating positives" I've been arguing about for 2 pages now).

Socialism (and all offshoots, like communism) fails because the system assumes that somehow by seeking an ideal in which humans set aside their greed, the world will be magically transformed and everyone will work for the betterment of everyone else, and utopia will be achieved. Of course, the problem is that human greed still exists, but since the system is designed to only work if people *aren't* greedy, the greedy people end up controlling everything once they've convinced the suckers of the world to give them control of the wealth and means of production.


It's a trap. It looks great. It certainly appeals to the poor and downtroden as an "easy path". But nothing in this world is truly free. If you think you're getting something for nothing, you haven't yet figured out the price.

Not that you'd know anything about that eh, Gbaji?


Maybe if he writes fifteen paragraphs about it, no one will bother reading through it all and noticing just how filmsy it is...

Thanks. That's all you needed to say.

See how that's so much more honest then saying that I'm both wrong *and* saying something completely out of touch with the guy who's philosophies were used to base the founding principles of the nation I happen to live in?

The reality is that my statements and positions are *exactly* in tune with what Locke said *and* those founding principles. You just don't happen to agree with them. Which isn't exactly a shocker (I've been saying as much for years now). It's just that it would be nice if the next time I use Locke as a reference for my political positions, you not pretend that I don't know what I'm talking about.




Wait! Let me get this straight. So you are claiming that my statements about how government should act to prevent negatives rather then to create positives is somehow *not* the same thing Locke was talking about when he wrote that government should exist to prevent men taking away from other men that which they had naturally? Cause that sure sounds to me like we're talking about the same thing (in fact I *know* we're talking about the same thing, cause you see, I've actualy studied Locke and happen to agree with many of his fundamental ideas). Unless you'd care to regale us with some alternate version of Locke that you cooked up in your own head...

I did not go anywhere near wiki. I did use google to find an online copy of the specific work I quoted (and ran into the forum thing kinda randomly along the way).

You can of course choose to disagree with Locke. But the important thing for people to understand is *why* you've come to disagree with him. And it's extremely relevant to this conversation. In order to adopt a socialistic viewpoint you *have* to disagree with Locke. Because to Locke, the very idea of using government to redistrubute wealth is in gross violation of the very concept of human rights. Socialists therefore must disagree with him, because they can't possibly acknowledge or even examine the possibility that what they are doing might be lessening freedom instead of increasing it.

Just a thought for consideration.

I'd rather we do a mix of both. A bit of discussing, though labelling it "intelligent" is a bit far-fetched, and a bit of name-calling, cos this is the Asylum after all.

Anyway, I'm really busy this morning, but I will get back to you on Locke as soon as I have 15 mins or so. Though Nobby already said what mattered, I feel like adding some fluff to that.

So yeah, I'll be right back...

Because Locke was writing in opposition to a specific feodal system, and more specifically to the then prevalent theory of absolute monarchy derived from divine power.

As Nobby said.

And if you made Locke's "perfect society", the government would barely exist. It wouldnt even infringe upon the economy. So in practice, that would mean no infrastructure, no public schools/hospitals, lots of monopolies, etc...

Locke was great because of what he broke from. He was revolutionary in this sense. But his writing was mostly a reaction to a system and to the theories behind it, and his emphasis on property is a clear sign of that.

So plucking out one sentence and saying "well this is absolutely true today and we should follow it" for no other reason than because Locke said it, is a bit of weak argument.

And I know you're going to try to argue that the Middle Ages feodal system is somehow similar to having free health care...

So go ahead.

No, he wrote in teaties in response to Robert Filmer's Patriarcha: The Natural Power of Kings, which was published in 1680. It was a specifically written against the doctrine of the hereditary principle.

Second his whole doctrine was very simplistic. It was great as an antithesis to hereditary power, but it's nowhere near good enough as model for modern societites.



Who would've thought...



I'm arguing that you taking arguments made in teh 18th Century against the hereditary power of kings and using them against elected governments in democracies is a bit weak.

But, that's the kind of crazy radical I am!




A start is the fact it's a democracy.

And, for argument's sake, Locke talked about consent too. Because under his system, the state would be forced to take property from man too in certain situations, like war. Under his social contract, everyone in society gives their consent. It's a pre-requisite.

I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that the importance of Lockes statements about limiting the power of government is less valid today under democracy then it was in his day under monarchy?

Because Democracy implies consent. It's like talking to a four year old, I swear.

Why do you think we have a Bill of Rights here in the US Red? Afterall, if a democratic process always results in the best decision "for the people", why do we need amendments ensuring those protections? Clearly (again) your assumptions are wrong. If they were right, we wouldn't need a Bill of Rights in our Constitution.

Hi. Amending the Constitution is a democratic process. There's nothing in the bill of rights preventing any or all of them from being changed or eliminated.

So, no, the bill of rights does nothing to protect people from the inherent weakness of the democratic process. Remember Prohibition?


When did his work cease to be "good enough"?

Around 1768. See if you can google your way to figuring out what happened then.

It's based on the moral concept of the social contract. Basically, enough people agree that if enough people agree that it's a good idea, then we do it. That's how our entire government works on principle. I can safely assure you that no American can or will with a majority vote arbitrarily choose a person to rob and use that money for services serving the commonwealth. So relax, or go to another country.

The beautiful thing about America's social contract is that you can easily get out of it by moving to a crappier nation.

*cough* Earth to Kachi. We live in just such a society. Heck, socialism assumes this from the start. While I'm sure this isn't what you meant, what do you think people are doing when they attack people for being wealthy? Clearly, they don't understand that they benefit from other people getting what they want. I've been trying to get this point across for years (with much resistance), that when someone succeeds in our society we *should* view that as a positive thing, yet far too often we view their success as negative and attempt to take it away from them. The sheer number of times I've debated against simplistic "wealth is bad" arguments on this very forum is evidence enough of this.

It simply makes no sense to advocate an ideology that condemns greed when it results in people obtaining success of their own means, but rewards greed when it results in people using the power of government to take away from the first group and give to themselves. One rewards productive constructive output. The other simply rewards "the people" for being large in number. Both are greed at work. You're only deluding yourself if you think the "majority" who democratically support socialistic programs do so out of some sort of altruistic motives.


And Smash?



That's not a valid answer to the question. It is just as dangerous to give your government too much power under a democracy as it is under a monarchy. The difference (as you only seem to halfway understand) is that under a democracy we "the people" have to give the government that power in the first place (the consent part).

That's my whole point. We should not consent to give the government that power. Get it? As voters in a democracy (ok, republic), we have the power to make a choice *not* to hand that power to our government. I'm advocating that we don't. For all of the reasons I've already provided in this thread (and many others over the years).


Under a democracy the check to this is exactly that we have a choice in the matter. We must give consent. But you (and several others) seem to be laboring under the preposterous notion that somehow since we have that power, we don't have to actually use it to make good choices. It'll somehow magically happen all on its own. You can advocate really stupid decisions, suppport them, and vote for them, but no bad consequences can ever occur because "we live in a democracy" is a talismen that automatically wards off the potential evils that an overpowered government can bring.


The only power that our democratic system gives us is to vote *not* to grant the power to the government in the first place. What's bizaare about this is that in your statement about consent, you've hit on exactly the reason why I'm a conservative. I understand that the government can only gain such power if "we the people" choose to give it to them. So I have made a choice not to do so. And I will always speak up and argue and debate with anyone on this issue and attempt to get them to understand why they should choose not to give that power either.


See. Cause just being in a democracy doesn't protect you from that power unless the voters actually *vote* to prevent it. Hence my argument. I thought that was obvious. Apparently, it's not so obvious to you...

Don't make me reach through your monitor and strangle you to death...

Hah! I have leet haxor skills... Honest! ;)


Seriously though, the argument in question (in either direction) really doesn't bank on the relatively minor differences between a "true democracy" and a republic. At least the point I was getting at is that bad leaders can make bad choices for the people. Period. How those leaders come to power isn't really that important except as an historical footnote.


It's not like all monarchs throughout history were evil and oppressed the people. And it's also not like all democratically elected leaders were good and worked only to release the people from oppressive burdens. Either system can generate both good or bad results. What Locke was getting at was the types of actions by government that result in a reduction of the liberties of the people (or never grant them in the first place). Clearly, classical monarchies start at a disadvantage since the ruler has nearly absolute power and since that was the situation when he was writing, that's the context within which his work exists. Thus, there's nothing within the system itself to prevent the government from taking those actions and thereby depriving the people of liberty (or never allowing them to have it in the first place).


However, it was those specific types of government action that he was ultimately talking about. Not just the forms of government that may generate them. He wasn't just saying that monarchies are "bad" and representive forms of government are "good". He was saying *why* those things were bad or good. And the "why" is the most important part. If you've read Locke and didn't get that, then you completely missed the point of his works. Furthermore, you wont understand why it's important within a representative government to be dilligent about what sorts of powers and actions you allow your government to take. Because actions by a representative government that infringe on people's liberties are just as "bad" as a non-representative one that does.


I just find the very argument that it's ok for the government to take the aforementioned actions because it's a democratically elected government to be the height of retardedness. It's akin to claiming that getting a flat tire isn't a problem because "I've got GoodYear tires!". Absurd...


Or. A better analogy: Someone who's so unconcerned about getting in a car wreck because he's driving in a car with seat belts, that he doesn't bother putting the steat belts on. Having the power in a democracy to prevent your government from becoming abusively powerful only works if you choose to use that power. Thus, it's important as citizens of a representative government that we both be aware of what kinds of government powers should be avoided *and* act to ensure that we limit those powers as much as possible. Because if we don't, then our "democracy" isn't actually protecting us in any way.

Edited, Jun 25th 2007 8:01pm by gbaji