UK government about to start monitoring personal data on social network sites

[Skybird]

@ Lance, 2 of 2

The nice thing about private firms is that you don't have to wait that long, and all the people concerned actually vote (with their purchases and investments)

Tell that the big corporations, or any business that is not on very small family-level, or medium level (let's say less than 100 employees). I see them dancing around the laws, and eroding the laws by content. You can'T vote them out, and you can't tell them what to do. They tell you what you should buy and how you should live. Again I see you describing the idyll of small village communities - on that level, you would be right, like Newton is great for playing pool. On astrophysical and quantumphysical levels, you need other rules than that of Newtonian physics.

As I said in part 1 of this post, I think competition should help fix that. Nothing you can do about it without damaging incentive anyways. Why start a company here to make half a million a year when you could go somewhere else?

And I replied that capitalism has no interest in competition, but in establishing monopoles that make the business actor invulnerable, and denying others the option to compete. You have far too much trust in the self-regulation of the market, although it just has failed on monumental scale, and has worked for many years towards that logical outcome. This outcome - is no surprise at all. It was the only outcome possible.

This answer leaves me with the same question; What system do you use to do all this? How are these companies regulated? Who drafts the regulations? Who regulates the regulators? How is fiscal responsibility ensured? How do you stop the regulation from becoming invasive to the point of damaging competitive ability? What kind of taxes would be needed to pay for such a tremendous undertaking.
Imo, it has perpetually expanding state written all over it, leading to the harms you describe above.

I have answered that repeatedly now, as far as it could be answered. I said that although I am aware of the deformation of the democratic idea, I see no alternative to the state forming the legislative and being in control of the executive, and that under no circumstances I would leave any of these two to private enterprise with private selfish profit interests - you cannot have to create massive conflicts of interest by doing your way. On the individual form and shape of new laws and rules, i cannot answer in detail, that is a job for really indepth-experts and owners of insider-knowledge, so I leave it to pointing the general direction of where the trek must heading. But considering that the original spirit that our constitutions once were breathing, and considering that they were written down by people living in times of a challenging living environment, who went through harsh times we cannot imagine today, and considering that in past years and decades massive attempts have been undertaken to erode these rules and making them permeable, and considering that the ammount of laws we already have, with their plethora of appendices and appendices to the appendices and special rules and rules on exceptions from the rules, and the many self-maintaining lobby interests that live by keeping this labyrinth alive - I assume that a massive cleaning up and deletion of already existing laws would be a necessary part of it. for example, the german tax system is so complicated that experts say more than half of the world's literature about national tax laws is just about the German system. that you can hide perfectly in such a monster, that you can form your foxholes and hideouts, your evasion exits and cheating ways to fromally legally evade taxation, is clear, I think. And we know for sure that this is what is happening, on great scale.

So: we not only need new laws. We also need fewer laws, and a massive cleanup regarding already existing laws. Our states may be too compromised already to be seen as the most perfect authority to do so, but leaving it to private business is an even worse choice, since communal interests and private interests of the economy are natural antagonists. So the state is the lesser evil, still.

I do not believe in a sustainable system of economic prosperity for the entire globe in the forseeable future.

Neither do I. I believe that eventually a sustainable, enduring, balanced system of economy is possible - but not at that totally excessive level of living standards that we got used to take as granted, and only by leadership of a kind that we currently cannot even imagine to have, that acts not on the basis of craving for power and profit and ever-growing economy, but on the basis of reason and logic.

We live beyond our means, and very, very massively so. We must learn to live by less. Survival demands us to not take more from the pkanet than the plkanet can compensdate natureally, and ethics demand any part of mankind to not take more than any other part of mankind must live by. No matter whether you think we are toom many people on the globe, or material wealth is distributed too unfair - we in the West consume seveeral times too much. If all mankind would live by our living styles, then plnaet would die. and actually, it seem to head into a desaster big enough that it puts mankind'S survival into question. The planet will live on, in this form or any other. But man cannot say the same about himself. And this Science Fiction vision of getting ores and minerals from foriegn worlds - that is science fiction. One would be a fool to consider this vision a reasonable alternative to our current problems, evehn more so since even in this SF vision format, companies already try to monopolise theirt share in it - just in case "pessimists" like me are wrong and it all turns into reality nevertheless. But I personally give it a probablity of almost 0%. but I see a high probability that in a centuryor so, maybe even earlier - maybe we will not even be able to maintain a "space" program anymore. We fool ourselves if thinking we could ensure mankinds' survival in space in the forseeable future. But the forseeable future and it's vital threats are what we must deal with - and deal with NOW.
A good ammount of vulcan virtues, paired with some Roman and Prussian virtues, would come handy. Such a balanced economy I mentioned above can be reached then, but not by the forces of the market, nor by democratic populistic elections. Both procedures are flawed and prone to deformation. All ideas we have tried in our history, seem to be inadequate to adress the situation we are in today. We need something new.

Naive? Only if I would seriously believe that would come true. I just outline what in theory should happen. If I really think it will happen, is something different.
I think the chances for us falling, and disappearing, are much, much greater. the evolutionary concept of individualism seems to get it'S own problems if the technical intelligence of the individual grows beyond a certain quality level. seen that way we maybe are a blueprint that evolution already has thrown into the waste bin, like so many before. the sad thing is that in individual people you sometime see the qualities I called for. But they must become a racial characteristic of most of our species, not just a potential mark in some few individuals.

relax restrictive economic policy and lure companies(not factories or whatever) back to our nations with business-friendly policy. Who cares where the factories are if we own everything? An auto worker can just as easily become a retail manager or work in some other non-exportable industry.
Then we transition from a service economy to a corporate economy, the next step up the ladder. Some say it wouldn't happen that way, but they forget the lessons of the industrial revolution and the computer age. For all the industry we have exported, America's GDP per capita has been on a steady rise since those times. Excepting the probable results of the current crisis, people live better now, and there are more of us, and we live longer.

For my tatse you ignore too willingly the many shadow sides of what you described, but that is a discussion in itself, and this one already has become long. I leave it to saying that it is not as simple as you describe it in that paragraph.

Of course, all of this requires that the state keep its' over-taxing, over-regulating, over-spending nose out of business and not go wild with its' fiat money. That means limiting the state, whether in business or security or whatever.

We can have freedom, and security, and prosperity, but the state has proven time and time again that it cannot be the agent.

So has private economy. With it'S ever existing trend for monopolism, and it's profit interests often colliding head on with communal interests, you can't trust the market as well.

And to mention that at least once: Africa for example is full of examples - murderous, mass-killing examples - where it leads to when Western market elements are left to themselves to regulate the market. It's hell. We all live because we suck blood of people far away, and will war and mass dying on epic scales. Each of us in the West - is a killer, from the cradle on.

[jumpy]

A bit too much text to read there guys

Suffice it to say, this government is a dick.
End transmission.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by jumpy

A bit too much text to read there guys

Consider it a pas de deux anyway.

[jumpy]

hehe

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

@ Lance, 1 of 2
Through elections and a legally binding system of checks and balances, that's what power regulation in a democracy is about.

And it is obviously working wonders. What have checks and balances done to properly administrate either of our governments? Do they both not overreach and expand their power every year? Why do you think everyone hates politicians? It's because they lie and work around the checks and balances system to push their own agendas.
Don't get me wrong, checks and balances are needed, but they work a lot better if the state's power is so limited and clearly defined that there is little to be gained from circumventing them.

But try to vote a monopolistic corporation out of power - it does not work. Try to get riod of one of the "bosses" - many names plagueing German ecomy on my mind, and you cannot and cannot get rid of them and they still sit on their chairs and open the hands for more. In some cases this goes for many years now.

What? Monopolistic corporations can be and have been voted away frequently, both by legislation and consumer choice. Just look at the U.S. auto industry, or AT&T before them, or Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, Pullman Railways, General Electric, IBM, etc. etc.
If the "bosses" of a company continue to keep their chairs it is either because enough consumers still want their products or because the state keeps them there. Perhaps the boards of these companies earn obscene wages, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the wealth and jobs such ventures create. And if they fail utterly, as American Airlines did for example, it isn't the market that keeps them in their place, it's the state.

The state is a monopolist in certain areas, yes,

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the state must have something of a monopoly on power, I'm saying we should be especially wary because of it. And even though the state must have some power monopolies, these can be diffused by reserving power to sub-states, amongst which the populace and industry are free to choose. The U.S. Constitution attempted to do this, but the total monopoly of the Federal state managed to find ways around it. At least it took them a long time.

An economic enterprise having such powers essentiaolly would be oputside the checks and balances, and would try to keep it that way so that it can have it'S ways for the sake of it'S maximising of profits. Beyond a certain scale of such companies, market regulation does not affect them so much anymore - usually the more the more they reach their goal of establishing monopoles.

Even if there ever had been a successful monopoly on any industry since the East India Company, they can be easily broken up by even a severely limited state with anti-trust powers, assuming they don't just piss everyone off and run themselves into the ground like AT&T or American Airlines.
The real danger is wealthy corporations buying state power to shut out competitors, something which has been done very frequently and is still rampant today.

And where market regulation comes into play - I do not say that it never works - , eventually it may work too late and too slow, and only at the price of too much damage being done until then.

I assume you're talking about self-regulation here. The market only very rarely works too slowly, and when it does, fraud is usually involved. Take the example of U.S. fuel prices. Within a week of the announcement of legislation being planned (not even written or enacted!) to tap domestic reserves, fuel prices dropped dramatically. All of the speculators dumped their fuel commodities in anticipation of a market glut. When Enron was exposed, the company fell to pieces in a heartbeat.
The power of the market comes from hundreds of millions of investors and consumers who react immediately to even the smallest change in the economy. It can be as simple as one housewife deciding not to buy a can of vegetables because the price has gone up(maybe because a CEO is doing something unscrupulous). That decision, multiplied over millions of consumers thinking the same thing, will make the product more affordable again. The producer must streamline or increase production or do something and do it fast or they lose money.
The state, in the same situation, interferes with this process. Agricultural subsidies or taxes artificially affect the prices based solely on the judgement of out-of-touch legislators. Perhaps they see the decline in the product's sales and rush to save the jobs of their constituents with subsidies. Now, rather than the industry being forced to become more efficient, it remains competitive to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars. Thousands upon thousands of hours of productivity out the window, doing nothing. But the harms of state do not stop there. That money has to come from somewhere, either in taxes, printing or loans. The former directly removes money from productive use, and the latter two inflate the currency, with the last also being victim to compound interest, resulting in even more inflation.
The market is a lot faster and more effective than the state in most cases. The state is better suited to penalizing fraud and enforcing limited anti-trust regulations.

Environment-related contexts may serve as less harmless examples. I am not satisfied to leave it to nrepair the damge once it has been done. I'm about preventing it so that the need for repairs falls to a minimum.

If there is one thing we will probably disagree on forever, this is it. I can respect your concern for the environment, and I do not have a be-all end-all argument against such concern. I was quite the environmentalist at one time, believe it or not
However, I lean towards less environmental regulation because of what the state has done with it. Here in the U.S., the EPA is infamous for excessive regulation and even outright brutishness in some cases. The town of Aspen Colorado attracted their scrutiny a few decades back because it was once a mining area. They feared the soil was contaminated with lead, and wanted to declare the entire area as a "hazard-zone", which would destroy the town. In case you are not familiar with the town, it is a very wealthy community, so the citizens could afford lawyers to fight in court. Even then, it took 3 (or maybe five, I can't remember) years of court battles before the court finally permitted soil testing (which the EPA fought against). They found that Aspen had below-average lead content. Many other towns were not so fortunate as to be able to afford such costly legal battles, and no longer exsist.

On a more contemporary note, let's look at Global Warming, or climate change or whatever. The globe is cooler now than it has been on average. It has been ten thousand years since the last ice age (much longer than usual) We're also facing a purportedly impending swap of magnetic poles.
What purpose does economically-damaging "green" regulation serve in all this? It won't stop an ice age or a natural heating of the globe. It just wastes money that could be better spent in economic development, which in turn generates prosperity that affords us the luxury of dealing with such issues should they arise.

The market needs limitations. The whole Anglosaxon idea of economic globalization has gone very wrong for those having the idea - us, europe and North America. We have lost the lead in technologies we once had. We have exported our jobs to other nations. Capital of companies avoid taxation in our countries, although our countries pay for their rise, and compensate for their eventual losses. Profits gets exported to outside places. Rivals got strengthened. Home economies got weakened.

Only the state can be blamed for that. Let's start with WW1, a completely useless war that can only be blamed upon states (mostly England and France, imo) that resulted in WW2. WW2 destroyed what remained of the European empires. After that came the post-war Socialist movement, which generated the taxes you speak of, leading to mass outsourcing of industry. And did those taxes buy you a more prosperous or free society than free-market nations? Even Germany, Europe's centerpiece, only barely keeps pace with the Southeast Asian "Tigers", all of which have very free-market economies(and are nearly devoid of natural resources, I might add)
Once again, the fault lies with the state. What was supposed to be a responsible social-market economy became socialism, which is just a friendly word for "statist economy"
The U.S. has been slowly adopting the same path, and the consequences will manifest themselves soon, if they aren't apparent to you already.

I understand that you do not support such reckless statist policy, but that is what you get when you do not limit the power of the state very strictly. Even then, I have no doubt that the state will overcome its' limitations eventually. One can only forestall its' progress as long as possible before a foced reversal is necessary.

Next month there will be a new mammoth conference at the UN, demanding this madness to continue and making it even more mandatory for western nations to drive it. I'm sure that China again will get plenty of "developement aide", for it is economically so weak and depending on our help. . On the one hand it is said that we should have a competing economy. On the other hand we cripple ourselves. The last thing one could say is that this is a contradictory thing. But okay, it's the UN, so no surprise.

Hell, years ago I wouldn'T have imagined that I ever would turn so extremely hostile to the UN. Maybe we can agree on that!?

I share your hatred of the U.N. to some degree. More than anything, I hate that my nation is a part of it. I'd prefer an isolationist policy for the U.S., and I suspect most of the world would as well.
However, the U.N. is a good example of my point.
It is a state body, comprised of people who profess only their intentions to benefit humanity, that ultimately harms us all and absorbs power at the expense of the productive taxpayer. Of course, they do not intend to harm anyone. They just need a little more power to fix this or that. And when that fails, they just need a little more, and they will make it right.
It's a state power monopoly for the whole world, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes more appealing to greedy liars than business or national government.

Help-Help!! Please do not leave national and communal security interests to private economy. It will compromise them, and making the understanding of "security" an item of profit interests of private parties. Unacceptable. As unacceptable as the outsourcing of military capacities to private enterprise, in the form of mercenary corporations. We have had that in europe, over centuries. It did a lot to make wars lasting longer, happening more often, since a status of peace was ruinous for such companies. A conditions of relative security would be ruinous for security companies today, too. therefore, they would push, invent, redefine "threats", to secure their profits and make sure they always will be considered to be needed.

Now now, I said they could be useful in certain roles. Security roles are perfect for them because there will always be a need, and as long as state power is limited, they can't create markets where there are none. Who's gonna pay for it?
I also disagree with your assesment that mercenary corporations created or prolonged conflicts in Europe over the past centuries. I will give you ten examples of blatant state aggression for every one you can show me of unwarranted mercenary aggression, starting with Prussian feudal states.

The American defence industry already works that way very much, and tries to maike itself indispensable by spreading it's proleductions to a smany states as possible, so that in case of cuts jobs would be lost in many states - which would bring a lot of governors wanting to be reelected on the side of such companies.

Well now, if the state's power were limited, and they had less money, they wouldn't have the luxury of endorsing such contracts, would they?
What do you propose? A state arms industry? That's a monopoly without peer and it would produce inferior goods at inflated prices, not subject to market regulation. Even with a supposedly "competitive" bidding process, the state manages to contract for weapons that are not worth their ridiculous expense.
A private ancillary to the military would perform much better since it would have to remain profitable, and would raise the standards for the state military, lest it incur public outcry.

You are talking about a pure element of plutocracy when giving up the state monopole for the executive, in parts or in full. If the idea of a "tyrannis" in ancient understanding is okay for you, fine, just remember that that form of government is neither free and liberal, nor democratic. If the tyrant you have (in ancient understandingk, which id different to that context in whhich we use the term tyranny today) is a good and reasonable one, you'Re fine, eventually. If he is not, you have a problem. The same problem you have with feudal systems and monarchies - and democracy, too (being elected does not say anything about your competence and character. Maybe you got elected becasue your rotten character helped you to make them vote for you).

Oh-ho! It is not me who is supporting tyranny. The market is about choice. The limitation of the state is about choice. Was it not you who postulated that elections were part of the regulation of a democratic government? And now you say that being elected says nothing about one's competence or character? How then, can you trust the state with power? How can it be regulated? More on this in a moment....

So, as long as you want to defend the basic ideas behind why people came to the idea of a democracy, at least in theory, then you are on a wrong track. I said myself that I cannot imagine democracy working well in too huge communities, and that kind of a feudal order maybe works the better the bigger the community is. Problem is, for a feudal system you depend on good personnel forming the leading feudal class, and we do not have that, and it often worked erratic in past centuries. Like democracy depends on reasonable people and good personnel being electable, too - we suffer the same lack today. Both systems are answers to one and the same problem: how to secure that only "good" people lead the rest, and their irresponsibility or selfishness can do only limited damage? turning to a profit-driven plutocracy cannot be the answer. we already have that, especially in the US it is a few very rich family clans projecting an incredible ammount of power and influence over all the remaining political scene. It really is some kond of a hidden new feudal class, isn't it. In europe, that part is taken over by the parties, in Germany at least.

I do not recall ever defending democracy. Democracy is tyranny of the masses and is to be avoided. I only advocate the defense of personal freedoms to the maximum extent possible. I am in favor of a constitutional republic that severely limits the powers of state, as the U.S. once was.

Your assesment that a few powerful families project most of the power is also incorrect where the state does not apply. Whether it is the Rockefellers or the Kennedys or whoever, I have the freedom to choose whether or not I work for them or buy their products or believe their beliefs or listen to them at all. It is not some kind of neo-feudalism until the state gets involved, which it has. The state restricts choice, it forces politically correct behavior, it teaches its' own ideology through the state education system.

the interests and powerplays of political parties today dominate all and everything, and if that goes at the damage of the nation and the German people - so be it.

And I say; "To hell with that!" A million people looking out for their own interests but restrained from infringing upon the rights of others is better than one person overseeing the interests of a million. Why should Germany, or any nation, be subject the whims of the state? The modern state is supposed to serve and protect freedoms, not dictate them.
It isn't a hidden feudal class, it's the same damn class we've been seeing for millenia; *******s who take power for our own good!

due to the socially and economically damaging effect of drugs, it would be suicidal to allow them. You would remove state prohibition. I would make a list with drugs, and brutally execute everybody consuming these, owning these, trading with them, no matter the quantities. the small street vrtrader, the big fish in the background: it does not matter, delete them both from the screen of communal influence. Exceptions i only would make with very young people, that follow the youth's drive to experiment. Nevertheless: only if they get caught for the first time, and even then I would give very, extremely harsh penalties, but not execution. All second-time offenders, as well as all older ones: if you have contact with drugs on this official ban-list, your existence will end. In SE Asia some nations practice "draconic" prison sentences, much more exessive than we do in the West. They have made quite some good experiences with it. If you reduce the number of people on the street having access to drugs, and being in contact with them, you increase the difficulty to get access to them. Execution I understand as a means of fighting drugs, not as a "death penalty" here. It neither is about penalty, nor about revenge, but about national and communal self-defence. After long time of thinking about it, I also have found my position on whether or not soft drugs should be legalised, and I came to a determined "No". While psychologically in single cases it may make sense, it opens a lane to acceptance for a drug culture, that in the end is self-damaging to the national community.

Didn't I say that this was another discussion? We can argue the point if you choose, but make another post or thread about it. I assume my walls of text are insufferable enough.

I am aware that my draconic suggestion generalises a bit and ignores the single individual cases where people sometime chnage their minds and get away from drugs again. This possibility has to be weighted against the enormous damage done to the community by the immense drug trafficking taking place, and the vital threat it puts to our nations. Since I do not take it easy to demand such a draconic action, I also cannot compromise communal interests to the suicidal levels we currently have. It is a hard call in both cases.

I think you mean to say "draconian", and yes, it generalizes and creates significant harms, to boot. But that's another discussion.

It is called "war" on drugs. Then start to behave accordingly: start to kill. Else the term does not make any sense at all.

You've never been to war, have you?

We do not come together in our different assessments here. It appears to me that here and in later parts I used the term "security" both in your understanding - and a wider context as well, surpassing yours.

I disagree. My context surpasses yours
What harms has the state wrought? Hundreds of millions dead, tortured, imprisoned, oppressed, in this century alone, if not billions. Compare what those few examples of "malicious" private industry have accomplished in comparison.

[UnderseaLcpl]

[quote=Skybird;1073704]@ Lance, 2 of 2

Tell that the big corporations, or any business that is not on very small family-level, or medium level (let's say less than 100 employees). I see them dancing around the laws, and eroding the laws by content. You can'T vote them out, and you can't tell them what to do. They tell you what you should buy and how you should live. Again I see you describing the idyll of small village communities - on that level, you would be right, like Newton is great for playing pool. On astrophysical and quantumphysical levels, you need other rules than that of Newtonian physics.

Addressed in the previous post. These corporations do circumvent regulations and bend the state to their will. Best not to give the state power for them to manipulate.
Yes, you can vote them out. Perhaps not in one fell swoop, but in your own choice of products and those of others. It has been done, it is still being done, but the state has taken it upon itslef to interfere.

I would argue that it is you who is using Newton's laws upon a pool table. The complexities of the market are too vast and too incomprehensible for anyone or any state to govern entirely. Billions of people making many more billions of transactions every day for their own benefit. How do you regulate that beyond punishing fraud and breaking harmful monopolies? It is impossible, and even where you succeed, a black market will emerge, requiring additional resources. Argue the logical points all you like, history has already shown us what will happen.

And I replied that capitalism has no interest in competition, but in establishing monopoles that make the business actor invulnerable, and denying others the option to compete. You have far too much trust in the self-regulation of the market, although it just has failed on monumental scale, and has worked for many years towards that logical outcome. This outcome - is no surprise at all. It was the only outcome possible.

You have too much trust in the benevolence of the state, and history has shown such conclusions to be fallacious time and time again. If you insist upon using the current crisis as an example, and also reject my claims that the state was mostly responsible, just wait until you see the results of the state's actions. Private industry did not authorize the stimulus package, the state did. I'll bet you that the bailed-out companies continue to exsist, at taxpayer expense, whilst remaining unprofitable, for at least twenty years.

Even if we assume that the current crisis is not the fault of the state, despite the millions of pages of state financial regulations and the billions of dollars wasted upon using and interpreting them and the fact that the Federal institutions were the first to fail, there can be no more certain proof than what happens now that the state has taken "benevolent" measures which include the nationalization of banks.

You claim that private banks have failed on a monumental scale. Even if you don't believe that the excessive influences upon private banking were caused by regulation by the government and the central bank, just wait a few months and you'll see what true failure is.
Even in America's "ultra-liberal" economy, the harms of socialism will make themselves apparent almost immediately. Even in our supposedly freedom-driven state with all its' prmosies of self-determination and individual liberties, the state's benevolent (and not limited enough) power will make everything worse. Wait and see.

I have answered that repeatedly now, as far as it could be answered. I said that although I am aware of the deformation of the democratic ideal, I see no alternative to the state forming the legislative and being in control of the executive, ........ I assume that a massive cleaning up and deletion of already existing laws would be a necessary part of it.

I wholeheartedly agree. But I posit that the only way this can happen is if we limit the power of the state. There are too many vested interests in the preservation of this system, both form private and state interests, for a simple reformation of the system to be effective. Private and political interests will simply find a way to exploit the new system by using their time-honored traditions of creating panic or lying to exploit the system.
We must remove the incentive (power) for them to do so. Such an objective can only be achieved by limiting the power of the state.

for example, the german tax system is so complicated that experts say more than half of the world's literature about national tax laws is just about the German system. that you can hide perfectly in such a monster, that you can form your foxholes and hideouts, your evasion exits and cheating ways to fromally legally evade taxation, is clear, I think. And we know for sure that this is what is happening, on great scale.

Who's fault is that but the state? An entire wing of the Library of Congress is devoted to tax law. No small coincidence that most politicians are lawyers. They're just looking out for their own interests, and they have usually justified their actions to themselves. The answer is to curtail their legislative power.

So: we not only need new laws. We also need fewer laws, and a massive cleanup regarding already existing laws. Our states may be too compromised already to be seen as the most perfect authority to do so, but leaving it to private business is an even worse choice, since communal interests and private interests of the economy are natural antagonists. So the state is the lesser evil, still.

I wouldn't advocate having private business make laws. I only advocate a people's movement to preserve individual freedoms and limit the power of the state. In short, I'd like to see a re-imagination of the U.S. constitution, only with more restrictions on the state.

Neither do I. I believe that eventually a sustainable, enduring, balanced system of economy is possible - but not at that totally excessive level of living standards that we got used to take as granted, and only by leadership of a kind that we currently cannot even imagine to have, that acts not on the basis of craving for power and profit and ever-growing economy, but on the basis of reason and logic.

Given that virtually all of humanity is motivated by personal gain, I fail to see how reason and logic enter into this. The rule of history has been that the 90% labor for the benefit of the 10%. Unless we discover some remarkable source of cheap energy and mass, I daresay that this will continue to be the case.
My preference would be for the West to benefit at the expense of everyone else. Is it selfish? Yes. Who cares? The West has done more for global civilization than anyone else, ever. That is logic. That is efficiency.

We live beyond our means, and very, very massively so. We must learn to live by less. Survival demands us to not take more from the pkanet than the plkanet can compensdate natureally, and ethics demand any part of mankind to not take more than any other part of mankind must live by. No matter whether you think we are toom many people on the globe, or material wealth is distributed too unfair - we in the West consume seveeral times too much. If all mankind would live by our living styles, then plnaet would die. and actually, it seem to head into a desaster big enough that it puts mankind'S survival into question. The planet will live on, in this form or any other. But man cannot say the same about himself. And this Science Fiction vision of getting ores and minerals from foriegn worlds - that is science fiction. One would be a fool to consider this vision a reasonable alternative to our current problems, evehn more so since even in this SF vision format, companies already try to monopolise theirt share in it - just in case "pessimists" like me are wrong and it all turns into reality nevertheless. But I personally give it a probablity of almost 0%. but I see a high probability that in a centuryor so, maybe even earlier - maybe we will not even be able to maintain a "space" program anymore. We fool ourselves if thinking we could ensure mankinds' survival in space in the forseeable future. But the forseeable future and it's vital threats are what we must deal with - and deal with NOW.
A good ammount of vulcan virtues, paired with some Roman and Prussian virtues, would come handy. Such a balanced economy I mentioned above can be reached then, but not by the forces of the market, nor by democratic populistic elections. Both procedures are flawed and prone to deformation. All ideas we have tried in our history, seem to be inadequate to adress the situation we are in today. We need something new.

Naive? Only if I would seriously believe that would come true. I just outline what in theory should happen. If I really think it will happen, is something different.
I think the chances for us falling, and disappearing, are much, much greater. the evolutionary concept of individualism seems to get it'S own problems if the technical intelligence of the individual grows beyond a certain quality level. seen that way we maybe are a blueprint that evolution already has thrown into the waste bin, like so many before. the sad thing is that in individual people you sometime see the qualities I called for. But they must become a racial characteristic of most of our species, not just a potential mark in some few individuals.

I find you to be too optimistic, and too pessimistic at the same time. Too optimistic because you believe that we could live better by learning to live with less. How, exactly, are you going to bring that system about? It cannot be done. People would rebel. The pervasive power of the state required to enforce such a system would ruin the economy and collapse itself, even if private interests did not subvert it first. We have already seen this in the Soviet Union, to name one.
I find you to be too pessimistic in your belief that the best of humanity cannot be harnessed in a system that promotes personal gain. Capitalism strives and innovates, it creates jobs and wealth. It cannot be argued otherwise. The harm comes when the state intervenes.

For my taste you ignore too willingly the many shadow sides of what you described, but that is a discussion in itself, and this one already has become long. I leave it to saying that it is not as simple as you describe it in that paragraph.

And I will say that your assertions are not as simple as they seem. History is on my side, in this case. The state has always absorbed power to the detriment of the populace, no matter how well-intentioned it might be.
The shadow sides of capitalism have always been but shadows, whereas the harms of state have readily manifested themselves in wars, political slavery, and oppression.

So has private economy. With it'S ever existing trend for monopolism, and it's profit interests often colliding head on with communal interests, you can't trust the market as well.

Does the state not have profit interests? The state is made of people, all of whom have private interests. Why give them power to trade with?

And to mention that at least once: Africa for example is full of examples - murderous, mass-killing examples - where it leads to when Western market elements are left to themselves to regulate the market. It's hell. We all live because we suck blood of people far away, and will war and mass dying on epic scales. Each of us in the West - is a killer, from the cradle on.

Yes, let's look at Africa. How many governments in Africa are centralist? Before the arrival of western culture the whole damn continent was in the stone age. When the west removed itself, there was a spate of genocides and wars perpetrated by centralist governments.
Am I responsible for Africa's suffering? No. Buying goods from a state that exploits its' own people does not make that consumer responsible. The real responsibility lies with that state, and its' choice to oppress its' people. Will I relieve their troubles by not buying goods from them? History says no. In fact, it often causes greater despair. Cuba is a good example.


Your turn, Sky

Not to get involved in this discussion too much, as I am neither pro government nor pro business..both must form a balance for the best benefit of all, not sticking to just capitalism or just communism/socialism for principles sake.

Anyways, Undersea, one sentence of yours I consider problematic:

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

My preference would be for the West to benefit at the expense of everyone else. Is it selfish? Yes. Who cares? The West has done more for global civilization than anyone else, ever. That is logic. That is efficiency.

First of all it is debateable that global civilisation is such a positive achievement. The final judgement of this I leave to others, but I'd not exactly take it as an example of positive development, given how much cultural backgrounds and languages it already destroyed, making the human civilisation as a whole in all it's facettes a lot more dull.

The other problem is your preference to benefit at the expense to others. Such a concept worked in the 19th century, when travelling from one part of the world to the other took weeks, if not months. Global civilisation is networked and connected to such a degree today that it's not longer individual nations far away from each other, but actually form a global community, with planes and weapons reaching far distances in the matter of hours and minutes. And I am sure you are aware what happens to those folks in a community that benefit on the expense of others in the long run. Look at the financial managers. They did benefit on the expense of others as well. Certainly not a means to gain international respect and morale authority, much more potent weapons in international affairs nowadays compared to a military that can't be used due to the threat of nuclear retaliation.

Also, once China/India or whatever countries gain the upper hand in global affairs, and that appears only a matter of time, they will take the west as an example and will start to live on "our" expense.
This global community needs to stick together. Too many ppl, too few ressources, too many potent weapons, that is a reciepe for tragedy. The world is changing fast and we can't keep up political and ideologic concepts born 300 years ago unless we invite self destruction.

[Skybird]

Obviously it needs time for me to write an asnwer to such lengthy posts, likme Lance needs time to answer to mine.

But for the time being I just want to say that it makes a nice change - at least in my pool of experiences at this board - to have such a basic discussion with so much disagreement and participants camping in so very different positions - and nevertheless the tone not turning personal and no name-calling and no personal attacks taking place and no verbal cheating being used.

My thanks and respect, Lance.

[UnderseaLcpl]

My thanks and respect to you as well, Sky, but haven't our discussions always been pretty civil? I mean, when I'm not making chess blunders



@Bewolf- that's kind of the discussion Sky and I are having right now. He defends responsible social market economics as a means of achieving the best balance for all,
and both of you are right in saying that a responsible market would be best. My position is that no agency, especially not the state, can effect such a policy.

Yeah, but you make it sound like it is some utopian dreaming, when in reality it is a simple, logical and urgent product of pure self preservation.

Else, in the foreseeable future, conditions will be very much worse then todays compromises might effect us, even if this does mean giving up valuable stuff. Going by human history such measures always came too late, if at all, be it the roman or british empire, ancient China or communist Russia.

I rather want the West to play a dominant and important role on the international stage even in the future, instead of an arrogant one for only at most 50 years from now.

You have to switch from Greed to cold blooded Intelligence here.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

You have to switch from Greed to cold blooded Intelligence here.

I like the sound of it, it sounds so cool, so - Vulcan!

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Yeah, but you make it sound like it is some utopian dreaming, when in reality it is a simple, logical and urgent product of pure self preservation.

Else, in the foreseeable future, conditions will be very much worse then todays compromises might effect us, even if this does mean giving up valuable stuff. Going by human history such measures always came too late, if at all, be it the roman or british empire, ancient China or communist Russia.

I rather want the West to play a dominant and important role on the international stage even in the future, instead of an arrogant one for only at most 50 years from now.

You have to switch from Greed to cold blooded Intelligence here.

What cold-blooded intelligence? It is one thing to claim that the state can solve problems through "simple" or "logical" measures, it is quite antoehr to actually make them do it. Who makes those rules? What should they be? How does one keep private interests or the state itself from taking advantage of them?
I'm not sure if I understand your second paragraph, it is worded oddly. I assume you mean those nations to be examples of illogical policy? If so, let's look at them. What was it that brought about the downfall of all those nations? It was greed. Not private greed. Not individual liberties, it was the greed of the state.
Ancient Rome fell because the excesses of state bankrupted it. And do not forget that it started as a Republic, and it remained prosperous until the state claimed more power, as it always does.
Soviet Russia is possibly the most extreme example, all freedoms and most personal properties given up and even then the state could not succeed.
How about England, once the ruler of the world, fueled by private trade interests, utterly destroyed by the state. You and Sky should know that better than anyone. It was England's fear of German economic dominance on the European continent that caused them to participate in the world wars. I'm sure both of you know that Germany never had any aspirations of invading England. The English knew that as well, but their state saw a threat to its' power, and in its' selfish attempt to preserve that power, England destroyed herself. Bankrupted like the Roman Empire.

Even today, you can see the same pattern. Europe was reinvented after the Second World War, and many nations chose social market economies.
Have those policies prevented European governments from amassing great debts? Have they bought them immunity from the market dominance of a nation made great by free-market policy? Does Europe not now suffer from the increasingly statist policy of the U.S.? Does not the whole world?

The real cold-blooded intelligence that must be employed is the science of greed. It cannot be overcome, it is human nature, right down to our very genes. Even if you or Sky or myself or anyone overcomes the sin of avarice, how could we create a truly (or even mostly) beneficial state? None of us are smart enough to create a failsafe net of regulation of anything, the state included, and to assume that we could would be sheer arrogance. No one is that smart. And where we fail, the powermongers slip in, and warp the policy of state to their own ends. It has always been so. The only answer is to limit the power of the state as much as possible and guard against it constantly. A weak state is attractive to business, which creates prosperity. Even when business is unscrupulous, it never subjects the populace to the harms that the state has, and will.

Avarice must be harnessed, as it cannot be fought. No matter how much wealth a CEO or board member pockets for himself, he still must pay his employees and attract consumers, or his enterprise dies. Even if he makes off with millions, another company must fill the gap. The state is not subject to such regulation. It steals wealth at gunpoint, uses it for its' own gain or uses it ineptly, and no one has any choice in the matter. Even when we do have choice, in the form of elections, the choice matters little. The state's agenda remains unchanged. It must maintain popular support, even though its' policies continually fail. To do that, it lies and decieves and obfuscates the truth. It legislates freedom of choice out of exsistence. It is a monopolist's dream.

Logic is not required to say that business should benefit the community or that the state should be responsible or any of that other stuff. But it takes real logic to see that greed is the driving force behind humanity and that it must be properly harnessed.

I believe that both you and Skybird would make excellent state administrators. The trouble is that you would not be electable, and if you were appointed, how does one select the appointer of the appointed?
Despite my limited intelligence, I could beat either of you in an election hands-down because I am an excellent liar. It isn't something I'm proud of, but it is people like me who should cause you to reconsider giving legislative power to the state.

I'm sure you have contentions which I have not addressed, and I'll be happy to consider them, should you choose to participate further.

National greed is the product of private greed. You can't differ between these two, one is the product of the other. Else you'd say that even in democracies the governments do not act in the interest of the population.

And you are right, nobody is intellgitent enough to create a failsafe. But humans also are no above failure in court, nevertheless you guys still use the death penalty. Not that this is a positive example at all, but when ppl think they have the right to sentence folks to death, then they surely have the right to control financial and economic corporations that have a proven record of pure self servitude on the expense of others.

If you say that greed is human nature and uncontrollable, then why did you have a problem with Germany invading Poland in WW2 and taking the lands to the east? All born out of excessive greed. Then again the US invaded Iraq for oil and strategic interests. Greed at work again.
Sure, this goes with human nature, but it produced even more violence. And the same applies to excessive greed in general. Don't harbor it and it will lead to destruction, as can also be seen in the excessive crisis we are in now. Wherever I look, greed causes huge problems, undermining the wests standing in the world and seriously threatening our position to influence world politics.

If you still insist on greed and human nature beeing acceptable basics to found a nation or even regulations upon, then I promise you this crisis will repeat itself, sometimess better, sometimes worse. And in a world that is more and more overpupulated and it's vast majority not sharing your views of acceptable greed, this will uninviteable lead to riots, revolutions, wars. And purely by numbers we simply can't compete with Asia in the long run. You are sacrificing long term national political influence for short term personal convinience that is bound to end anyways.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

National greed is the product of private greed. You can't differ between these two, one is the product of the other. Else you'd say that even in democracies the governments do not act in the interest of the population.

That is precisely what I am saying. Any government, even a democracy, is dangerous. Its' power must be strictly limited and it must be very difficult for it to accquire more.

And you are right, nobody is intellgitent enough to create a failsafe. But humans also are no above failure in court, nevertheless you guys still use the death penalty. Not that this is a positive example at all, but when ppl think they have the right to sentence folks to death, then they surely have the right to control financial and economic corporations that have a proven record of pure self servitude on the expense of others.

And of course, I do not approve of the death penalty, either. I find it wasteful and heavy-handed, just like the state. I do not point to the United States as a model of success in anything other than free trade and Constitutional limitation of government, and even those leave much to be desired these days as the federal state encroaches ever further upon them.

If you say that greed is human nature and uncontrollable, then why did you have a problem with Germany invading Poland in WW2 and taking the lands to the east?

Other than the fact that WW2 was the single most devestating event in human history in terms of sheer scale? Not much. I was just using that as an example of how greed and power in the hands of the state can be so much more harmful than power reserved to the people.
My main problem is that the U.S. got involved, which it shouldn't have. Neither should Britain and France, but I digress.

All born out of excessive greed. Then again the US invaded Iraq for oil and strategic interests. Greed at work again.

It was the U.S. government that authorized that invasion. If we were isolationists like we used to be, we wouldn't have incurred the hatred of Islam in the first place, and there would be no need for us to be there at all.

Sure, this goes with human nature, but it produced even more violence. And the same applies to excessive greed in general. Don't harbor it and it will lead to destruction, as can also be seen in the excessive crisis we are in now. Wherever I look, greed causes huge problems, undermining the wests standing in the world and seriously threatening our position to influence world politics.

Greed only causes huge problems when the state wields it and the power to try to satiate it. Every major war is started by a state. Virtually all of them have very questionable motivations in doing so. Whether one solely blames the state or private interests influencing the state, the fact remains that the state's capacity for war and tyranny must be checked.
No business has ever undermined any nation in the West as much as its' states have.

If you still insist on greed and human nature beeing acceptable basics to found a nation or even regulations upon, then I promise you this crisis will repeat itself, sometimess better, sometimes worse. And in a world that is more and more overpupulated and it's vast majority not sharing your views of acceptable greed, this will inviteably lead to riots, revolutions, wars. And purely by numbers we simply can't compete with Asia in the long run. You are sacrificing long term national political influence for short term personal convinience that is bound to end anyways.

The problem is that selfishness is a part of human nature and it will seek to take advantage of whatever system it is in. Selfishness and power is a disastrous combination. Of course, private interests can wield power, and can influence the power of the state as well. But people have a choice when it comes to business, as consumers and as employees. The solution, quite simply, is to limit the state's power, so when it is inevitably taken advantage of, there can't be much harm.
What alternative do you see? You can't force people to think a certain way. There is no solution to overpopulation other than to let nature take its' course. Asia, or any up and coming region can still be beaten on the economic battlefield, if only we would relax the state's vice-grip on the private sector.

I apologize if I reiterate somewhat, it's a bad habit. But please, tell me what system you think would work better.

Without me going into this debate again, and we already are turning in circles here, as I would have to put up the same arguments I stated before to answer your post, let's come to the point.

You trust business, I do not.

You mistrust the state, so do I.

I mistrust both government and business. But when I am asked whom to distrust more, then it is the business by a long shot. The government has to answer to the ppl. Busnenss does not. As such, business is by mere logic more dangerous to the well beeing of the ppl, as their actions influence a nations well beeing even more then government actions when it comes to daily basis routines.

Maybe we come to a closer understanding when I replace business with "big" business.

Greed is human nature, I wholeheartly agree to you in this.
But so is revenge, hatred, the urge to kill, stealing is a direct result of greed. Still, these parts of human nature are bound up by law, too. As such harboring greed to civilized levels can be a strengh, but limitless acceptace of greed leads to the same problems caused by limitless nationalism, limitless alcoholism, limitless wasting, the list is endless. You always have to act within healthy boundaries.
I do not see a problem in limiting the excesses caused by geed.