Any Other Leftists on T-Nation?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
If you believe that people are inherently good you tend to be left of center.

Hmm. I look at as the reverse. The left, not having faith in the goodness of the American people, favor stricter gun laws and a cradle to grave welfare state. [/quote]

Now these are two very interesting points. One says that people who view people as inherently good tend to be left of center, the other says that left of center indicates the opposite…that we need government controls because we are not good.

Believe it or not, I think I kind of agree with Uncle Gabby on this. Obviously if I thought people were inherently good, we could just have laissez-faire capitalism and everybody would live well, etc. But I don’t.

However, let’s admit it, it comes down to not just being good BUT the system that we find ourselves imposes certain rules on us. Let’s give a hypothetical example, that’s not so hypothetical:

Mr Smith is a nice guy who also owns a shoe factory. He wants to pay his workers well, give them the best health care he can, maintain the safest possible working conditions, reward those who do the best job, etc.

Mr. Jones who also owns a shoe factory. Interested only in the bottom line, he decides to move his factory to a Third World country with child labor, where workers are paid just enough to get by, safety and environmental conditions are not regulated and he needn’t spend any money on those things.

As a result, Mr. Jones is able to produce and sell shoes on the market for a fraction of what Mr. Smith can. Of course, consumers tend to buy Mr. Jone’s shoes…So what is Mr. Smith to do? He is either going to have to imitate Mr. Jones or go out of business.

Mr. Smith who is a nice guy must follow suit OR go out of business.

Ok, it’s a simplification maybe, but this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in with globalization. Is it not?

22

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I don’t think anyone should be flamed for being a little slow. .[/quote]

Zap, I will take that as a compliment that you think that I am JUST a little slow :wink:

23

The meaning of right and left is different in Northern Europe and the US. By the standards of this site, what am I? Not right, thats for sure. I believe in the priciple of a welfare state.
I think I would have difficulties to find my place in the political map of america.

24

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Let’s give a hypothetical example, that’s not so hypothetical:

Mr Smith is a nice guy who also owns a shoe factory. He wants to pay his workers well, give them the best health care he can, maintain the safest possible working conditions, reward those who do the best job, etc.

Mr. Jones who also owns a shoe factory. Interested only in the bottom line, he decides to move his factory to a Third World country with child labor, where workers are paid just enough to get by, safety and environmental conditions are not regulated and he needn’t spend any money on those things.

As a result, Mr. Jones is able to produce and sell shoes on the market for a fraction of what Mr. Smith can. Of course, consumers tend to buy Mr. Jone’s shoes…So what is Mr. Smith to do? He is either going to have to imitate Mr. Jones or go out of business.

Mr. Smith who is a nice guy must follow suit OR go out of business.

Ok, it’s a simplification maybe, but this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in with globalization. Is it not?
[/quote]
Competition rules the market. Competition is what drives technology and better processes. Cosumers benefit when businesses are allowed to compete.

Mr. Smith would lose his shirt because he lets his heart get in the way of his shoes. In a free market society no transactions take place unless both parties benefit. Mr. Smith benefits from his employees labor and the employees benefit from the job he offers. That is all there is to it. If he did not pay market wages they would not work for him. His shoes are sold at market price and have nothing to do with the cost of labor only that he may not profit as much if he had to pay more for labor.

In all actuality, Mr. Jones is forced conform to minimum wage laws for non-skilled labor, he can only employ union labor for skilled positions, he must be licensed, and he has to conform to federal regulations to offer health care to his entire staff. He can barely afford to keep his business so Mr. Smith doesn’t really have to worry. Mr. Jones will use cheaper material to ensure his customers will have to replace their shoes every six months.

25

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The only standard is a belief in individual liberty and laissez-faire government.[/quote]

Incorrect - classical liberalism is not based in the idea of laissez-faire, but rather, limited government combined with other institutions. Not the same. A rejection of institutions - a popular notion among looneytarians on the way to a “free” utopia - is anathema to classical liberalism.

Incorrect, because it is not a matter of linear degree between “moderate” and “extreme”. The bases of principles are substantively different. Classical liberals reject the Rousseau-esque assumptions that the anarchist relies on to promote his version of utopia.

“Wild eyed” is a charitable way of saying “stupid, naive, and radical-for-the-sake-of-being radical”. Anarchism has no legitimate underpinning to bother with and is mere intellectual junk food.

I am often amused by those advocating anarchism - because they are most often would be the first victims of the lawless world they advocate. There is zero doubt that if we lived in the anarchic world you promote, you’d be the first one banging on my door begging for a job or bread.

Nope, it isn’t - classical liberalism is a “thing” that has reasonably defined parameters. The genesis of classical liberalism rejected the sloppy relativism you love to tout. You are an anarchist, a relativist, and a nihilist - that’s fine. But that means you aren’t a classical liberal as that philosophy is defined.

Don’t worry about it - but classical liberalism it ain’t.

26

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
If you believe that people are inherently good you tend to be left of center.

Hmm. I look at as the reverse. The left, not having faith in the goodness of the American people, favor stricter gun laws and a cradle to grave welfare state.

Now these are two very interesting points. One says that people who view people as inherently good tend to be left of center, the other says that left of center indicates the opposite…that we need government controls because we are not good.

Believe it or not, I think I kind of agree with Uncle Gabby on this. Obviously if I thought people were inherently good, we could just have laissez-faire capitalism and everybody would live well, etc. But I don’t.

However, let’s admit it, it comes down to not just being good BUT the system that we find ourselves imposes certain rules on us. Let’s give a hypothetical example, that’s not so hypothetical:

Mr Smith is a nice guy who also owns a shoe factory. He wants to pay his workers well, give them the best health care he can, maintain the safest possible working conditions, reward those who do the best job, etc.

Mr. Jones who also owns a shoe factory. Interested only in the bottom line, he decides to move his factory to a Third World country with child labor, where workers are paid just enough to get by, safety and environmental conditions are not regulated and he needn’t spend any money on those things.

As a result, Mr. Jones is able to produce and sell shoes on the market for a fraction of what Mr. Smith can. Of course, consumers tend to buy Mr. Jone’s shoes…So what is Mr. Smith to do? He is either going to have to imitate Mr. Jones or go out of business.

Mr. Smith who is a nice guy must follow suit OR go out of business.

Ok, it’s a simplification maybe, but this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in with globalization. Is it not?
[/quote]

Sure…

And as a result Mr Jones has made the world a better place by giving children work that otherwise had to prostitute themselves or starve and consumers get cheaper shoes.

The invisible hand has turned Jones´ “greed” into something that serves the common good.

Mr Smith, who is not only nice but also tries to defy reality goes out of business which is a good thing because it stops him from wasting more capital.

A few hundred years of that and we turn from the Dark Ages with 80% agriculture into the richest healthiest and best educated society there ever was.

27

[quote]orion wrote:

Mr Smith, who is not only nice but also tries to defy reality goes out of business which is a good thing because it stops him from wasting more capital.

A few hundred years of that and we turn from the Dark Ages with 80% agriculture into the richest healthiest and best educated society there ever was.

[/quote]

Haha, you sound like a communist, Orion. The downfall of a good man is necessary for the common good. Is it that what you are saying?

28

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nope, it isn’t - classical liberalism is a “thing” that has reasonably defined parameters.[/quote]

All definitions, by definition have defined parameters – that is what makes concepts knowable. Whether they are reasonable or not is subjective and thus relative.

29

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If he did not pay market wages they would not work for him. His shoes are sold at market price and have nothing to do with the cost of labor only that he may not profit as much if he had to pay more for labor.
[/quote]

Yes, but what about within the context of globalization?
You say if he did not pay market wages, they would not work for him. But here, they don’t even have a choice. The jobs are being sent overseas. There is no way they can live in America and compete against a Chinese person who has no real union, is used to a low standard of living, etc.

[quote]
In all actuality, Mr. Jones is forced conform to minimum wage laws for non-skilled labor, he can only employ union labor for skilled positions, he must be licensed, and he has to conform to federal regulations to offer health care to his entire staff. .[/quote]

No, he doesn’t he is sending jobs over to India or China where there are either no minimum wage laws (maybe there are but much lower than in the US).

Even if we take this out of the context of globalization and say that this scenario is limited to the United States, you admit that he must conform to federal regulation to offer health care. Yes, but if there were not that federal regulation, he (or some other business) could just not offer health care. In fact, many businesses don’t.

Anyway, my point in presenting my hypothetical situation is to say that often it is not that a given capitalist is good or bad on a personal level but that he must operate within certain rules in a laissez-faire situation, rules that might make him do something morally questionable if he is to stay in business.

30

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Haha, you sound like a communist, Orion. The downfall of a good man is necessary for the common good. Is it that what you are saying?[/quote]

A communist would not consider the notions of competition which is what orion is talking about.

To a communist competition engenders class struggle.

To a liberal competition is the cultivator of all society.

31

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Yes, but what about within the context of globalization?
You say if he did not pay market wages, they would not work for him. But here, they don’t even have a choice. The jobs are being sent overseas. There is no way they can live in America and compete against a Chinese person who has no real union, is used to a low standard of living, etc.[/quote]

Yes, I agree. Certain sectors cannot compete for cheap labor but this is a good thing because it means cheaper goods for us. It also allows us to free up labor for newer and more innovative technologies domestically. Have you ever wondered why America is the first to develop new technologies for commercial use? It is because we have an ever changing and adapting labor market.

It is a myth that our economy is hurt by outsourcing.

If the federal government didn’t require companies to provide health care it would be far cheaper because there would be competition in that indistry. As it stands, most people do no have a choice who their provider is – nor do they have much choice about their health care in general. They have to go with the company/doctor chosen by their employer. That is real bad for the consumer and the self-employed guy that cannot afford the real cost of health care.

Regulations ultimately hurt the consumer. The best government can hope to do is protect life, liberty and property – and even then I don’t trust them.

32

[quote]orion wrote:
Sure…

And as a result Mr Jones has made the world a better place by giving children work that otherwise had to prostitute themselves or starve and consumers get cheaper shoes.

The invisible hand has turned Jones´ “greed” into something that serves the common good.

[/quote]

Ok so we’ve discovered that child labor is a good thing.
Now what happens, in the era of globalization when the kids decide that they are sick of working 14 hour days, sick from the poor working conditions in the factory and decide to unionize to force some kind of improvements.

Well, the owner might make some kind of reforms or, having learned about the law of rising expectations he might not.
In any case, he will be happy that he is in a country where the government will gladly smash any attempts at unionization. If things get too bad, such as an evil politician comes to power who might just be interested in giving workers the right to unionize or regulate for better working conditions, well, he might just decide that it’s worth his while to move operations to yet another country where there is a GOOD government (one that doesn’t allow unions, environmental laws, etc).

And so goes the world…workers competing over increasingly crummier jobs. Environmental damage. etc etc.
If you don’t believe me, check out the environment in Taiwan or China. Horrible! I am not saying that those places weren’t already like that, but with the above practices we are encouraging poor worker safety, poor environmental conditions, etc. Am I wrong?

Let’s face it…there is nothing special about China. What’s it got? Cheap labor, fake trade unions and a government that won’t think twice about violently squelching dissent. Capitalists absolutely LOVE “communist” China. It’s not a worker’s paradise, it’s a capitalist paradise.

33

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Haha, you sound like a communist, Orion. The downfall of a good man is necessary for the common good. Is it that what you are saying?

A communist would not consider the notions of competition which is what orion is talking about.

To a communist competition engenders class struggle.

To a liberal competition is the cultivator of all society.[/quote]

And how is the class struggle absent in mr. Smith’s actions? What does he cultivate?

34

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:

Mr Smith, who is not only nice but also tries to defy reality goes out of business which is a good thing because it stops him from wasting more capital.

A few hundred years of that and we turn from the Dark Ages with 80% agriculture into the richest healthiest and best educated society there ever was.

Haha, you sound like a communist, Orion. The downfall of a good man is necessary for the common good. Is it that what you are saying?[/quote]

It is more like , be careful not to confuse clinging to the past and weakness with kindness or good intentions.

And, even if he has the best of intentions he should still operate in the economic realities of his time.

35

[quote]entheogens wrote:
orion wrote:
Sure…

And as a result Mr Jones has made the world a better place by giving children work that otherwise had to prostitute themselves or starve and consumers get cheaper shoes.

The invisible hand has turned Jones´ “greed” into something that serves the common good.

Ok so we’ve discovered that child labor is a good thing.
Now what happens, in the era of globalization when the kids decide that they are sick of working 14 hour days, sick from the poor working conditions in the factory and decide to unionize to force some kind of improvements.

Well, the owner might make some kind of reforms or, having learned about the law of rising expectations he might not.
In any case, he will be happy that he is in a country where the government will gladly smash any attempts at unionization. If things get too bad, such as an evil politician comes to power who might just be interested in giving workers the right to unionize or regulate for better working conditions, well, he might just decide that it’s worth his while to move operations to yet another country where there is a GOOD government (one that doesn’t allow unions, environmental laws, etc).

And so goes the world…workers competing over increasingly crummier jobs. Environmental damage. etc etc.
If you don’t believe me, check out the environment in Taiwan or China. Horrible! I am not saying that those places weren’t already like that, but with the above practices we are encouraging poor worker safety, poor environmental conditions, etc. Am I wrong?

Let’s face it…there is nothing special about China. What’s it got? Cheap labor, fake trade unions and a government that won’t think twice about violently squelching dissent. Capitalists absolutely LOVE “communist” China. It’s not a worker’s paradise, it’s a capitalist paradise.

[/quote]

There is a name for your fallacy, unfortunately I have forgotten it. It was something about the inability to see that other places work differently than your own village.

Yes, they are paid lousy, yes there is environmental damage and yes life is hard in Chinese cities.

And yet, millions of Chinese farmers move to this cities in order to find a better life.

Sure, they work 14 hours a day, as they would have back at home, but they have water, indoor plumbing and can save for their childrens education.

What would be a step down for you, is an enormous step up for them.

And yes, given the circumstances, child labor is good. OR would you rather have them work the fields all day long or suck cock for a living?

Plus, what is special about China is that they provide enough security that it makes sense to invest in China.

Take a look at African nations that are unable to do that and tell me you would not rather live in China.

36

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It is a myth that our economy is hurt by outsourcing.
[/quote]

Really? Yes, I have no doubt that some people are getting much richer off of it.

Now let me tell you a story from my experience. It is true that I presently live in California, but I grew up in a small coal-mining town in southern West Virginia. Up until I was in my teens, it was reasonably prosperous. Oh, most people were poor and/or working class,but at least they could do OK, get by.

Then came the de-industrialization of the 70s. Steel industry, etc, started setting up coal mines or gettng coal from such enlighted places as South Africa or Taiwan.
Cheaper labor costs, didn’t have to worry about unions, safety regulations, etc. Somebody got really rich.

However, my poor little town got decimated. People had to start moving away to places like Charlotte, North Carolina where they got great jobs at McDonald’s.

Tough luck, you say, maybe. And maybe I don’t have a solution to counter it. But, please, don’t tell me that working class people in this country are better off for globalization.

Here’s the point…it’s a very complex situation. And to say the solution lies exclusively with the free market or, for that matter, exclusively with government regulation skirts the complexity and is just overly-simplistic in my honest opinion.

37

[quote]orion wrote:

And, even if he has the best of intentions he should still operate in the economic realities of his time.

[/quote]

Of course he should, but there is nothing good in his failure.

38

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:

And, even if he has the best of intentions he should still operate in the economic realities of his time.

Of course he should, but there is nothing good in his failure. [/quote]

Sure, the time and money invested in his business can be used more productively elsewhere.

39

[quote]entheogens wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It is a myth that our economy is hurt by outsourcing.

Really? Yes, I have no doubt that some people are getting much richer off of it.

Now let me tell you a story from my experience. It is true that I presently live in California, but I grew up in a small coal-mining town in southern West Virginia. Up until I was in my teens, it was reasonably prosperous. Oh, most people were poor and/or working class,but at least they could do OK, get by.

Then came the de-industrialization of the 70s. Steel industry, etc, started setting up coal mines or gettng coal from such enlighted places as South Africa or Taiwan.
Cheaper labor costs, didn’t have to worry about unions, safety regulations, etc. Somebody got really rich.

However, my poor little town got decimated. People had to start moving away to places like Charlotte, North Carolina where they got great jobs at McDonald’s.

Tough luck, you say, maybe. And maybe I don’t have a solution to counter it. But, please, don’t tell me that working class people in this country are better off for globalization.

Here’s the point…it’s a very complex situation. And to say the solution lies exclusively with the free market or, for that matter, exclusively with government regulation skirts the complexity and is just overly-simplistic in my honest opinion.

[/quote]

That is because you see the marked as a blunt and threatening instrument instead of the most powerful economic problem solving mechanism that ever evolved through human interaction.

And yes, the working class in your country are better off for globalization.

After all, the are probably the richest people on this planet because of it and the few people that are even richer do not change that.

40

[quote]orion wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:

And, even if he has the best of intentions he should still operate in the economic realities of his time.

Of course he should, but there is nothing good in his failure.

Sure, the time and money invested in his business can be used more productively elsewhere.

[/quote]

You like to soar like an eagle. Or like a vulture, that has magnification in the center of the retina. I prefer to look at the world from the eye level.