Link
That's a thread from DemocraticUnderground.com, a website for members of the American leftist party (the Democratic Party)
The few reasonable posts in that thread are probably spies from FreeRepublic.com (an American right-wing site) who have somehow managed to reach a high post-count; I have no idea how considering you get banned if you say anything too pro-market.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Ego: Link That's a thread from DemocraticUnderground.com, a website for members of the American leftist party (Democratic Party) The few reasonable posts in that thread are probably spies from FreeRepublic who somehow managed to reach a high post-count. There are several anti-leftists who managed to reach several thousand posts; I have no idea how considering you get banned if you say anything too pro-market.
That's a thread from DemocraticUnderground.com, a website for members of the American leftist party (Democratic Party)
The few reasonable posts in that thread are probably spies from FreeRepublic who somehow managed to reach a high post-count. There are several anti-leftists who managed to reach several thousand posts; I have no idea how considering you get banned if you say anything too pro-market.
Thanks for the link. It's been a long time since I've seen to many consecutive economics fallacies. Wow, economists really suck at educating the public.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
If you post "leftist" one more time, I am going to scream.
Leftist this, Leftist that. Are you trying to draw a distinction between the socialists and the fascists?
Libertarians are above that (on a Nolan chart no less).
Oh, there's a difference between the left and the right...
Ego: Oh, there's a difference between the left and the right...
Not much, and from reading many of your posts, I think you're above those differences.
Your right. One of them is more easily defeated.
What isn't different, aside from the fact that they both want a government? There are libertertarians who want a government, too! Is everyone the same aside from us anarcho-capitalists?
Ego: What isn't different, aside from the fact that they both want a government? There are libertertarians who want a government, too! Is everyone the same aside from us anarcho-capitalists?
People on this board are starting to remind me of Marxists. If they aren't Marxists they are capitalists dogs (even progressives and fascists)!
As a side note, I was planning on being the first user with an animated avatar.
Ego: As a side note, I was planning on being the first user with an animated avatar.
Epic FAIL!
I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on.
I have a huge problem with the left/right political spectrum, as it inherently limits the entire discussion within the bounds of Statism, reinforced by the good-cop, bad-cop game of the Reformists. Its as if the State needs to exist in *some* form, in *some* amount of power, or else we would all de-evolve to violent simians going back to murdering our birth-defected babies so the Sun god doesn't tke our women and/or men away :\. I think the indivudals who continue to hijack an apolitical movement with their own political motivations are dragging the core concepts of libertarianism to the ground in chains, and cannot be seriously called libertarians. The assumption that the left is more capable of being Statist than the right is silly & ridiculous, and the sooner this is realized, the better. Leftists for social programs? As if the Right aren't for those, just suited to their own agenda? Leftists for nationilzed healthcare? As if the Right aren't going to implement such slower, only just suited for their own agenda? They will both pursue similar agendas, albiet with different methods, and will pursue similar programs, albiet with different objectives, because they are *both* Statist parties. Neither side is worse than the other because they are both represenative evils that stand for the evil that is The State. To say say "But Leftist this!" or "Rightist that!" is the exact type of crap that should've been left at the door when anyone realized that both parties (if not the entire politcal system) were shames, and became libertarian. Past my off-topic in the above, I think a better question would be: is it coercion really coercion, or only when it's rationalized? For the topic on hand, a question concerning the legitamcy of companies also might help.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict: I have a huge problem with the left/right political spectrum, as it inherently limits the entire discussion within the bounds of Statism, reinforced by the good-cop, bad-cop game of the Reformists. Its as if the State needs to exist in *some* form, in *some* amount of power, or else we would all de-evolve to violent simians going back to murdering our birth-defected babies so the Sun god doesn't tke our women and/or men away :\. I think the indivudals who continue to hijack an apolitical movement with their own political motivations are dragging the core concepts of libertarianism to the ground in chains, and cannot be seriously called libertarians. The assumption that the left is more capable of being Statist than the right is silly & ridiculous, and the sooner this is realized, the better. Leftists for social programs? As if the Right aren't for those, just suited to their own agenda? Leftists for nationilzed healthcare? As if the Right aren't going to implement such slower, only just suited for their own agenda? They will both pursue similar agendas, albiet with different methods, and will pursue similar programs, albiet with different objectives, because they are *both* Statist parties. Neither side is worse than the other because they are both represenative evils that stand for the evil that is The State. To say say "But Leftist this!" or "Rightist that!" is the exact type of crap that should've been left at the door when anyone realized that both parties (if not the entire politcal system) were shames, and became libertarian. Past my off-topic in the above, I think a better question would be: is it coercion really coercion, or only when it's rationalized? For the topic on hand, a question concerning the legitamcy of companies also might help.
Exactly. One would think that a rejection of or disillusionment with the left-right spectrum is part of what drove one towards libertarianism to begin with.
CopperHead: I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on.
From this nonsensical premise, it would logically follow that anarchism = "the far right". Which is absurd.
No offence to any of you, but what has the above got to do with the topic? On a free market, there is no such thing as "too much" profit.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon is exactly right. Haha I think we have been around this "leftist vs. rightist" argument a few too many times. Anyway, I agree with Jon again, there is no such thing as too much profit in a free-market.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
By the way, to illustrate that profit isn't exploitation, it would be great to come up with a situation where two people have a symbiotic exchange ecosystem, where they depend on each other to have enough to keep the cycle...
i mean, for instance, a cowboy and a farmer. The cowboy would run into losses if he exchanged a pig for less potatoes than he needs to feed it (in order to breed another), and he wants to make a profit, in order to have potatoes in his dining table, and possibly expand his business. On the other hand, the farmer needs pig to feed his body to work the land and he wants to have it in his dining table as well...
This illustration needs improvements though... I would like their relationship to be more dependable -- maybe the farmer needs maneuver :/. Anyone can think of a better direct, closed situation where both people profit from each other...
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
If that is the case why is Hitler, and the Nazi party, always refered to as "right wing?"
Aristotle100:If that is the case why is Hitler, and the Nazi party, always refered to as "right wing?"
I guess this either has its roots on the old view of right and left, or I read people believed then that it was an example of an unregulated economy from pro-URSS propaganda. Anyway, right and left has become meaningless. Left used to be the liberty, free markets position for goodness sake. Ronald Reagan was right: there is only up and down. ;P
BlackSheep:there is only up and down. ;P
I couldn't agree with you more on this issue :)
Now as for this post, there is no such thing as too much profit. I think we all agree on that. If we didn't I highly doubt we all would be on this forum lol.
More seriously though, I liked Walter Block's lecture where he calls for a "more and less control" axis, and that we should factor the different politiceans positions.
Neoclassical analysis has led some to actually believe that due to the earnings reported by the oil firms, and the speculative nature in which they are profiting as opposed to a type of technological or theoretical innovation, a windfall tax is more than necessary as this is a situation of "abnormal" profits. The media has really taken sides on this, and there is even propaganda in the form of "big oil making record profits, while Americans are losing everything" junk.
Yet when we analyze the situation by applying a more market orientated analysis, this is just another example of dynamic conditions that bestows the global market. The firms that can encompass such conditions more effectivly than others will succed in a more rewarding fashion than others.
Besides, it was not long ago when energy firms were making less than 5% on the margins...
Nitroadict:I have a huge problem with the left/right political spectrum, as it inherently limits the entire discussion within the bounds of Statism, reinforced by the good-cop, bad-cop game of the Reformists. Its as if the State needs to exist in *some* form, in *some* amount of power, or else we would all de-evolve to violent simians going back to murdering our birth-defected babies so the Sun god doesn't tke our women and/or men away :\.
The US scheme classifies more statsist as more leftwing, the European one classifies more traditional as more right-wing.
My main charge against this classification scheme is that it doesn't address the complexity and possibilities of combining social political thought. I also may ask, whether the scheme only serves the purpose of polarising instead of defining. Personally I can subscribe to certain statements from several schools of political thoughts without contradicting myself. I would be able to say that state intervention tends to disrupt an economy negatively and at the same time I would say that social power relations influence the access to wealth of people. However I won't define the state as evil per se, neither would I define unequal distribution of wealth as a bad thing.
Back to the subject - What does this have to do with "too much profit"?
I'm not saying that the left-right spectrum is consistent, and I'm definitely not saying that it's exclusive; I'm saying that it's insane to ignore distinctions between people like Neal Boortz and Paul Krugman purely because they both want a state.
Ego: I'm not saying that the left-right spectrum is consistent, and I'm definitely not saying that it's exclusive; I'm saying that it's insane to ignore distinctions between people like Neal Boortz and Paul Krugman purely because they both want a state.
Exactly. These people make it sound as if the election was down to Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton they would have no preference for one over the other. Absolutely rediculous!
Are Bill Clinton and Stalin about equivalent simply because they are both "big government"? No? Then it makes sense to have words that distinguish the two.
What about if we talk about psychic profit? I think all people should have to report on that and be taxed for it. Not only can we not have people getting too much monetary profit, but we can't have anyone getting some sort of psychic gain from the disutility of their labor either. Especially while other people are miserable, bored, or non-artistic... or perhaps atheistic (atheists need a government welfare to make up for the God and religion they've been cheated out of... or we can pass non-discrimination laws that will force churches to accept atheists and maybe even force atheists into the churches).
Brainpolice: CopperHead: I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on. From this nonsensical premise, it would logically follow that anarchism = "the far right". Which is absurd.
And what's wrong with the Nolan Chart? There ARE differences between left and right, and those differences are most obvious in the middle. The more pro-statist (or anti-statist) they are, the less those differences matter.
The posts from DemocraticUnderground seem to be focused on the Lockean Proviso; that property may be owned by individuals "so long as there is as much and as good." According to many of them, it is acceptable if there are high profits as long as the product produced is not wanted by many (i.e. yachts). If the product is a "necessity," (e.g. oil, food, airline travel?) then profits should be low (or non-existent).
The Lockean Proviso creates a major problem: when a good is not scarce, then it may be owned; whereas, if the good is scarce it may not be owned. Therefore, the DemocraticUnderground allows high profits on yachts, which are to them non-scarce (i.e. not needed) and would not allow high profits on necessary goods. Taken to its logical conclusion, the Lockean Proviso would allow the ownership of air (a non-scarce good - although even this is debatable given the growing global warming hysteria) and not much else. The ownership in all other goods which are by definition scarce, should then not be owned and the market would not be able to function.
In 1650, the Lockean Proviso may not have made much difference, as he was mostly referring to land ownership and the fact that the New World increased the land mass available substantially (almost infinitely relative to the population of England). It also may have been politically appealing. However, it is still a major subject in law and treated as an undeniable premise. However, it seems to me that modern economics, especially Austrian econ, has proven this premise demonstrably and absolutely false. Too bad the legal community has not gotten this message.
Aristotle100: Now as for this post, there is no such thing as too much profit. I think we all agree on that. If we didn't I highly doubt we all would be on this forum lol.
There is something as too much profit: any profit derived from state privilege, or through coercive means in general.
I'm usually sympathetic to socialist claimst made in ignorance that "greedy" corporations are making too much. Often it's true, given that we have nothing resembling a free market in reality. In a fixed context of a controlled market economy, it's perfectly reasonable to think that regulations, etc would be necessary to reign in these corporations.
These people just have no clue about the free market alternative. But, if you start from a common base, then it's alot easier to make some progress with them.
John, that's an amusing point, and similar to what Nozick says in ASU as well - he mentions that some people prefer leisure over work, and thus derive psychic profit therefrom. If it is alright to tax income, beyond the "necessary" level needed to survive, then it should also be alright to tax psychic income, lest one greedily acquires too much of it.
Jon Irenicus: If it is alright to tax income, beyond the "necessary" level needed to survive, then it should also be alright to tax psychic income, lest one greedily acquires too much of it.
If it is alright to tax income, beyond the "necessary" level needed to survive, then it should also be alright to tax psychic income, lest one greedily acquires too much of it.
Do we really need to give them ideas to generate more tax revenue through even more invasive means than the income tax?
Thankfully, for now, we are protected by the ban on direct taxation in the Constitution from a "psychic tax". Besides, this would be very difficult to quantify. Would we tax someone based on the amount of time they spend not working?
History teaches us that fines have been used to protect against unneccesary leisure, particularly by the Massachussetts Bay Colony in the 17th Century. In that case, the idea was to make sure that sufficient goods were produced by people that didn't have the proper incentives based on property ownership. Now, there is not enough money to fund the government leviathan because of inflation. I guess you're right, we will need to be on the lookout for this "new" intrusion into our liberties and freedom.
wuzacon:Thankfully, for now, we are protected by the ban on direct taxation in the Constitution from a "psychic tax".
LOL!
A-R: There is something as too much profit: any profit derived from state privilege, or through coercive means in general.
A-R: I'm usually sympathetic to socialist claimst made in ignorance that "greedy" corporations are making too much. Often it's true, given that we have nothing resembling a free market in reality. In a fixed context of a controlled market economy, it's perfectly reasonable to think that regulations, etc would be necessary to reign in these corporations.
If you think in a different state, it could be considered Interstate Commerce LOL!
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Well yeah if as I said moving to the left meant increasing statism than it would naturally follow that anarchism="the far right" and just what is the problem with that? Do note of course that the terms left and right can easily be alternated however on would see fit. The important thing is that one end represents totalitarianism and the other "anarchy'. If you wish to call the end that represents anarchy the far left thats fine with me but it does not change the premise of the spectrum.
CopperHead: Brainpolice: CopperHead: I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on. From this nonsensical premise, it would logically follow that anarchism = "the far right". Which is absurd. Well yeah if as I said moving to the left meant increasing statism than it would naturally follow that anarchism="the far right" and just what is the problem with that? Do note of course that the terms left and right can easily be alternated however on would see fit. The important thing is that one end represents totalitarianism and the other "anarchy'. If you wish to call the end that represents anarchy the far left thats fine with me but it does not change the premise of the spectrum.
The problem is that if you apply such a spectrum to contemporary politics involving the self-proclaimed and commonly identified "left" and "right", it is entirely disingenous or misleading, as "the right" most certainly are not a bunch of anarchists and "the left" is not entirely made up of statists. I'd prefer to treat a genuine axis measuring political power as up and down rather than "left" and "right", so that people are not confused into applying it inaccurately to modern conceptions of "left" and "right".
Brainpolice: The problem is that if you apply such a spectrum to contemporary politics involving the self-proclaimed and commonly identified "left" and "right", it is entirely disingenous or misleading, as "the right" most certainly are not a bunch of anarchists and "the left" is not entirely made up of statists. I'd prefer to treat a genuine axis measuring political power as up and down rather than "left" and "right", so that people are not confused into applying it inaccurately to modern conceptions of "left" and "right".
Well theres no doubt about its being confusing. I mean I have no clue how people like William Gladstone and Vladimir Lenin are both considered "leftists" or how Neville Chamberlain and Benito Mussolini are both "rightists". But that is the perception by most people and I suppose that does make having a left/right scale that is universally understood pretty damn impractical. Still thought all the other political scales I have seen haven't been much better.
A-R: There is something as too much profit: any profit derived from state privilege, or through coercive means in general. I'm usually sympathetic to socialist claimst made in ignorance that "greedy" corporations are making too much. Often it's true, given that we have nothing resembling a free market in reality. In a fixed context of a controlled market economy, it's perfectly reasonable to think that regulations, etc would be necessary to reign in these corporations. These people just have no clue about the free market alternative. But, if you start from a common base, then it's alot easier to make some progress with them.
This is a very good point, I was assuming we were talking about profits made completely on the free market. Thanks for the correction, and I totaly agree. Like I said I was speaking in terms of real, non coerced free market profits. Something we do not have today in this country. Many businesess do get privledge and special treatment from government and this is unfair profit.
Too much profit depends on circumstances. Ethiopia had a (maybe still has) a tax of 90% on all income over $67 and a 10% tax on income under $67. Therefore earning $68 would be "too much profit". But the real problem there is taxes and not income.
Someone who suddenly makes money, but is not prepared for having money and what to do with it when you have it can likely have "too much profit". I know someone who came from a poor background who got a good job on Wall Street years ago and then suddenly everyone from her past like old friends, neighbors and relatives suddenly decided to come visit her. People who normally would never ask for money started asking her for loans to start a business or some other venture and she decided she made too much money and quit her job and also quit many of her friends and family. But the fault here is not profit itself but the carrying capacity of good and money that all individuals have (even if they do not realise it).
How much profit is too much for someone who honestly earns it? I, and no one else is at liberty to decide for them.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.