|
Post by maximus on Dec 2, 2010 2:48:21 GMT 10
By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, or hatred and revolt.
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
The circulation of confidence is better than the circulation of money.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.
James Madison
|
|
|
Post by Azaziel on Dec 2, 2010 5:01:29 GMT 10
Philip, Denmark is suffering from their generous welfare system,and are considering cutting back harshly, and I think one needs to take in the physical size of the country, its like saying Australia needs NBN, and we are always compared to say Japan or South Korea who have it, but its just not possible here in Oz due to our size and population base
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 2, 2010 6:11:49 GMT 10
This is the flexibility of their policies in action, not a change in policy. Apart from adequate and well-timed stimulus measures, careful cutting back on many expenditures in times of financial strain is prudent.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 2, 2010 17:04:13 GMT 10
I find the following interesting:
On the unequal “distribution” of wealth and “class division” in society:
The Marxist doctrine of class divisions confuses “classes” drawn by arbitrary categorizations versus caste membership. There is no class conflict in a society in which every man is equal before the law, and each man has recognized his right to life. It is nonsensical to classify the members of a capitalistic society according to their position in the framework of the social division of labor and then to identify these classes with the castes of a status society.
In a status society, a man inherits his class by heredity, and remains in it to the end of his life, with few exceptions of extreme luck. Otherwise, he is prevented from changing his status by the State, who has codified the caste system in law.
But the arbitrary classes of Marx are very different from those of caste membership. The Marxian classes are based on positive productive contribution, which benefits all, and the different castes of a status society are based on the initiation of physical force, which results in others' corresponding loss. Entry to different arbitrarily formed income groups under capitalism is open to all. Their membership is fluctuating, and changes by a vote of the public every day in their spending and buying, thus promote and demote who should own the means of production, and there are no legal barriers preventing anyone striving for any amount of wealth he can produce and earn. The virtuous are rewarded by the use of their reason in best producing those values which increase the survival and well-being of mankind. (Cf. Ludwig von Mises, Theory and History, Chapter 7.)
On Marxist exploitation theory:
The worker does not trade his labor services for the goods he has expended his labor to produce, but for money payment. The difference between the wages the worker receives and the profits the capitalist receives are a result of time-preference.
Present satisfaction always comes at a premium over future satisfaction. The worker hadn't saved by reducing his previous consumption sufficiently below his income to accumulate the capital necessary, he wanted money payment while he worked, he was not willing to wait, and he was unwilling to be saddled with the risk that the goods may not sell or may sell for less. The capitalist saves the laborers from the necessity of restricting their consumption and thus saving up the capital for themselves, for waiting for the pay until the product is finished, and from the risk that it might not sell or may sell at a loss. The capitalist thus makes possible payment in advance of the sale of the final product on his capital equipment. He has performed a vital service of advancing time to the workers. He has underconsumed, saved, and taken the risk himself. Under capitalism, no one is preventing the workers from themselves saving, purchasing or homesteading capital goods, and working on their own capital goods, finally selling the product and reaping the profits. The capitalists perform the function of saving money needed to obtain capital goods and pay laborers in advance of the sale for producing goods further.
It should be seen that we reject the “labor theory of value” and the “iron law of wages,” as wages are determined by the discounted marginal value product and the law of supply and demand. (Cf. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, “Karl Marx and the Close of His System.” and George Reisman, Capitalism.)
|
|
|
Post by Azaziel on Dec 2, 2010 17:55:53 GMT 10
Father and Daughter
A young woman was about to finish her first year of university. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very labor minded, and she was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs – in other words, the redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch blue-ribbon liberal, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had attended, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harboured an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth, and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing at university.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 90% average, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many university friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?” She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 50% average. She is so popular on campus; university for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 20% off your average and give it to your friend who only has 50%. That way you will both have a 70% average, and certainly that would be fair and equal.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, “That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Liberal side of the fence.”
If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Liberal and Labor/Greens, I'm all ears.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 2, 2010 18:08:35 GMT 10
I find the following interesting: On the unequal “distribution” of wealth and “class division” in society:The Marxist doctrine of class divisions confuses “classes” drawn by arbitrary categorizations versus caste membership. There is no class conflict in a society in which every man is equal before the law, and each man has recognized his right to life. It is nonsensical to classify the members of a capitalistic society according to their position in the framework of the social division of labor and then to identify these classes with the castes of a status society. In a status society, a man inherits his class by heredity, and remains in it to the end of his life, with few exceptions of extreme luck. Otherwise, he is prevented from changing his status by the State, who has codified the caste system in law. But the arbitrary classes of Marx are very different from those of caste membership. The Marxian classes are based on positive productive contribution, which benefits all, and the different castes of a status society are based on the initiation of physical force, which results in others' corresponding loss. Entry to different arbitrarily formed income groups under capitalism is open to all. Their membership is fluctuating, and changes by a vote of the public every day in their spending and buying, thus promote and demote who should own the means of production, and there are no legal barriers preventing anyone striving for any amount of wealth he can produce and earn. The virtuous are rewarded by the use of their reason in best producing those values which increase the survival and well-being of mankind. ( Cf. Ludwig von Mises, Theory and History, Chapter 7.) On Marxist exploitation theory:The worker does not trade his labor services for the goods he has expended his labor to produce, but for money payment. The difference between the wages the worker receives and the profits the capitalist receives are a result of time-preference. Present satisfaction always comes at a premium over future satisfaction. The worker hadn't saved by reducing his previous consumption sufficiently below his income to accumulate the capital necessary, he wanted money payment while he worked, he was not willing to wait, and he was unwilling to be saddled with the risk that the goods may not sell or may sell for less. The capitalist saves the laborers from the necessity of restricting their consumption and thus saving up the capital for themselves, for waiting for the pay until the product is finished, and from the risk that it might not sell or may sell at a loss. The capitalist thus makes possible payment in advance of the sale of the final product on his capital equipment. He has performed a vital service of advancing time to the workers. He has underconsumed, saved, and taken the risk himself. Under capitalism, no one is preventing the workers from themselves saving, purchasing or homesteading capital goods, and working on their own capital goods, finally selling the product and reaping the profits. The capitalists perform the function of saving money needed to obtain capital goods and pay laborers in advance of the sale for producing goods further. It should be seen that we reject the “labor theory of value” and the “iron law of wages,” as wages are determined by the discounted marginal value product and the law of supply and demand. ( Cf. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, “Karl Marx and the Close of His System.” and George Reisman, Capitalism.) True — We ought not confuse caste with class. This does not however mean that class is an arbitrary categorization. In terms of fluidity, it is analogously somewhere between molasses and pitch, often persisting for generations. Other terms we ought not confuse are income and wealth — "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth." I'm wondering, how much extraordinary effort and merit was required for the top 10% to acquire that wealth (or is it mostly down to class, with them largely being over-privileged and the bottom 40% being largely under-privileged)? Turning to the subject of income, does anyone deservedly earn mult-million dollar salaries? And, while companies can afford to pay such excessive executive salaries, ought any willing worker be living in poverty?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 2, 2010 21:03:39 GMT 10
Part of the difficulty here lies in the terms "communism" and "socialism" having been used loosely in the US as almost generic insults, such that if one were applied in a discussion it becomes a conversation stopper, as there is presumed to be nowhere to go since, if an idea is said to be Socialist, it's ipso facto a bad idea, or saying that particular person talks to Communists means s/he is discredited. McCarthyism is still around. Any pitcher who throws at a batter and deliberately tries to hit him is a communist
Alvin Dark
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 3, 2010 5:26:29 GMT 10
If it's socialist, it is a bad idea. That's not what we were founded to promulgate, but rather, individual rights and equal opportunity. Not equal outcome. This all goes back to the proper role of government in a constitutional republic - which was well adressed by our founders.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 3, 2010 6:03:09 GMT 10
If it's socialist, it is a bad idea. That's not what we were founded to promulgate, but rather, individual rights and equal opportunity. Not equal outcome. This all goes back to the proper role of government in a constitutional republic - which was well adressed by our founders. Your foundation, the values of your founders and the articles of your Constitution, however selectively read, are essentially matters for the US, of little relevance for the wider world to whom you are now appealing. BTW, your foundation, essentially involved a redistribution of unearned wealth from the British Crown — Well done! As a further BTW, an "equal opportunity" which rarely achieves an equal outcome is not an equal opportunity: It will often involve a poorly addressed, entrenched and systematic handicap.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 3, 2010 16:35:51 GMT 10
Your foundation, the values of your founders and the articles of your Constitution, however selectively read, are essentially matters for the US, of little relevance for the wider world to whom you are now appealing. The values of the founders were the values of the Enlightenment, which is reflected in Masonry itself - the recognition of the primacy of the individual. Rather than a matter only concerning the US, I would say, rather, that it is a matter concerning the whole of mankind. Or, are you saying that the rest of the world does not recognize or deserve the freedom of the individual? In fact, it was the British crown that was profiting unfairly off of the labor of the colonists, by levying unfair taxation and restricting free trade. No, it is an equal opportunity in that an individual can go as far as he can by hard work and education. That another wishes to achieve less is on himself. It is not a proper function of government to redistribute one man's wealth to another to compensate for circumstance, often self-created.
|
|