Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

(editado)

I dont want to spam NATW topic and fun topic is not the best one, so I will post it here :-)

Old docu, but interesting cases (English sub).

What if the dollar collapses:



(editado)

And another interesting docu (triology) from VPRO Tegenlicht (Backlight):

Quants are the math wizards and computer programmers in the engine room of our global financial system who designed the financial products that almost crashed Wall st. The credit crunch has shown how the global financial system has become increasingly dependent on mathematical models trying to quantify human (economic) behaviour. Now the quants are at the heart of yet another technological revolution in finance: trading at the speed of light.



Money & Speed: Inside the Black Box is a thriller based on actual events that takes you to the heart of our automated world. Based on interviews with those directly involved and data visualizations up to the millisecond, it reconstructs the flash crash of May 6th 2010: the fastest and deepest U.S. stock market plunge ever.



From the makers of the much-praised Quants: the Alchemists of Wall Street and Money & Speed: Inside the Black Box. Now the long-awaited final episode of a trilogy in search of the winners and losers of the tech revolution on Wall Street.


(editado)

Was, or is this kind of help from EU to Greece really solution :-) ?
Why are these people so unsatisfied after they got help??

http://www.eugreeka.com/7000-policemen-on-guard-for-the-anniversary-of-the-polytechnic-uprising

Reminder!!

rumpil to jasiom22
I dont want to spam NATW topic



so don't do it!

(editado)

rioting greeks and EU helping economics policy is not spam in topic about political and economical ideologies... this one obviously doesnt work well, does it ?

A continuation from the 'News of the world' topic ;)

I think people who supported the classical liberal approach of society just started to use the term 'libertarian' because leftists have hijacked the term 'liberalism'.

I wouldn't say as much. In my opinion, people who started to call themselves libertarian don't have a good understanding of classic liberals. There is a kind of intellectual gap between the classic liberals grounded on Rousseau, Montesquieu, Stuart Mill, Locke, and the libertarians grounded on, well, Von Mises and Ayn Rand :P I met a few libertarians and I'd say they have quite clear minds when it comes to what they want (and they have pretty liberal views), but they are clueless when it comes to how to get it (and that's where they depart from classic liberalism into a sort of simplistic naiveté).

In a nutshell: classic liberals had a strong view on individual freedom, which libertarians defend as well. They had, however, a deep conception of individual freedom as the lack of subjection to power, wherever it resided. They also saw that individuals, in the exercise of their freedom, could acquire power, and this power could turn against the freedom of other individuals. In a sense, they were rejecting Hobbes' Leviathan idea, but they were substituting it by a "social contract" concept that acts in the same sense: the existence of a collective power is justified, but its sole purpose is to prevent the uprising of an individual power with the ability to restrict the freedom of others. Some individual freedom is resign to prevent one individual will to deprive all freedom from others.
Then, given their historical context, they devoted most of their efforts to restrict and control the influence of two particular institutions on individual lives: the state and the church. They were not against states: they were against power, but back in the XVIII century, power was the state (and religion), and in most cases, the state was just an individual whose power had grown immensely over the rest.
Libertarians have intended to continue the line of classic liberals, but without too much depth in the discussion of power, and instead taking rather literally the concern of the classics about the state. That is: the classics were worried about the state as a source of power that can limit individual freedom beyond what's necessary to preserve the most individual freedom possible; libertarians are worried about the state per se, even though the sources of power have changed a lot since then. They echo the concerns of the classics in a new context with much weaker states (or churches) and many other powers limiting the freedom of individuals. Where the classics would defend free enterprise and competition, the libertarians will defend free corporations and monopoly, in a linear extension that preserves the surface but misses the core.
Bottom line: a true classic liberal will worry not about states per se but about power, and will seek to minimize all sources of power using democratic states (that is, states as collective institutions as opposed to private properties) as another tool to preserve individual freedom - and that involves some degree of power to the state itself, as much as it needs to be an effective defense against alternative ("non-social") sources of power. The ultimate obstacle to individual freedom is power.
Libertarians, in that sense, are a bit anachronistic, in that they focus to much in the incarnations of power that the classics faced (state and church), as opposed to power more generally and whatever incarnation it may take today. In doing that, they end up advocating for extremely weak states that are ineffective tools against the accumulation of power - accumulation that was the actual problem with XVIII century's states.

I am not a big believer in the whole 'social contract' idea. Because the word 'contract' suggests that different parties agreed on the content of the contract. I have no contract with the rest of society. I only have a contract with my employer, because my employer and me both agreed on the terms of our binding agreement. However, I never voluntarily gave away my right on self-ownership to the state.

You also said that the idea of 'social contract' is - in a nutshell - ceding some individual freedom to prevent that one individual could gather the power to take other freedoms away. What I'm saying is that we should not give up on any freedom. I want the state to punish those who kill other people. By doing so, I'm not giving up on any freedom: there is no freedom to kill. There is power to do so, but that can never be called freedom.

And you call our states 'weaker' than those in which the classical liberal philosophers lived, but quite frankly, I doubt that. It is true that they are far less authoritarian, but are they weaker? I mean, the size of the state (in terms of GDP) and the depth of its decisions have increased dramatically since the early nineteenth century. You said that libertarians - I tend to call myself a libertarian rather than a classical liberal - are worried about the state per se, but I am not questioning the legitimacy of a state. I am only worried about its size and its grip on society.

According to you, classical liberals have a better knowledge on how to get to their utopia than libertarians have to get to theirs. But in my opinion, they just have a different way. Classical liberals defend democracy. I don't, because I have seen that democracy always leads to bigger states getting more involved in people's lives. The only way to be truly free is taking the freedom and getting a heavy chain to put the government in: this is the line and no further. You don't need a majority to do that. A non-disregardable minority is enough.

So I would not say the classical liberals have a better understanding of the state. They have a different one.

What I'm saying is that we should not give up on any freedom. I want the state to punish those who kill other people. By doing so, I'm not giving up on any freedom: there is no freedom to kill. There is power to do so, but that can never be called freedom.

why not?

I don't, because I have seen that democracy always leads to bigger states getting more involved in people's lives

The problem here is the if any alternative exist and if there are real examples of systems to prefer.

I only have a contract with my employer, because my employer and me both agreed on the terms of our binding agreement.

You are wrong about that: you cannot have a binding contract with another part. I mean, you can have a contract, but nothing makes it binding. A contract without enforcement is the same as no contract at all. You don't have a contract with your employer: you have a contract with your employer and a state enforcing that contract. Without that, you only have a useless piece of paper.

What I'm saying is that we should not give up on any freedom. I want the state to punish those who kill other people. By doing so, I'm not giving up on any freedom: there is no freedom to kill. There is power to do so, but that can never be called freedom.

Of course you are giving away freedom: you are giving the state the power to kill. Where is this coming from? What makes the state more likely to punish killers than killers punishing the state? And if the state is powerful enough to punish people, it is powerful enough to punish you. Where's your unlimited freedom when the state is powerful enough to punish you, whether you like it or not? Power is nothing but the ability to impose, and who can be imposed on is less free.

there is no freedom to kill

First: of course there is. Your free actions can result on someone else's death, both when you mean it and when you don't. When someone tells you you'll be punished in the even of certain outcomes, then you are restricted in your freedom to act.
Second: if a state has the power to punish a killer, then it has the power to punish you. Whether you kill or not, the power is there. it can consider you have killed even when you haven't. It may decide to punish for reasons other than killing even when you didn't want that, because once it has the power to punish against the individual's will (most killers don't agree to be punished), you can, de facto, no longer decide when it punishes and when it doesn't. The power needed to punish killers is the same needed to punish, say, homosexuality. By creating such power you are giving up freedom, always.

And you call our states 'weaker' than those in which the classical liberal philosophers lived, but quite frankly, I doubt that. It is true that they are far less authoritarian, but are they weaker? I mean, the size of the state (in terms of GDP) and the depth of its decisions have increased dramatically since the early nineteenth century.

Of course I called them weaker. You say that the share of public spending on GDP is big, but public spending is not the state itself. Who controls this spending? To a large extent, the same people that controls the other half of GDP (and it's only half in western Europe). Which size of the French GDP did Louis XIV control? I'm not speaking about the fraction of spending, but also about the direct or indirect control. I could find a more recent example, but in the '80s Mitusbishi's revenues were bigger than the GDP of Chile. Individual economic freedom increased dramatically since the classic liberals days, and as a consequence wealth has emancipated from state control - not fully, but much further than it ever was. Which was a good thing - but with this freedom also came successful individuals/organizations, successful in terms of power accumulation.

According to you, classical liberals have a better knowledge on how to get to their utopia than libertarians have to get to theirs. But in my opinion, they just have a different way.

No, I'd rather say that according to me the libertarians have an utopia, while the classical liberals had a realistic goal ;)

Classical liberals defend democracy. I don't, because I have seen that democracy always leads to bigger states getting more involved in people's lives.

Actually, that's an empirical claim, and it turns out to be false. Democracy leads to states being more involved with people lives? Certainly not in the European transition from absolute monarchy to republican democracies. Certainly not in the Eastern European transition from Dictatorships of the proletariat to their current states. Certainly not in the Latin American transition from anti-communist dictatorships into democracies.
Actually, nowhere I can think of, not even a tiny minority of cases, democracy meant the change you claim. I can see a lot of problems with modern democracies, but I cannot see the basis for your comparative statement.

The only way to be truly free is taking the freedom and getting a heavy chain to put the government in

Why the government? Why not Bill Gates or Monsanto or whoever has power? Why defend from the power of the state and not anyone else's? States back when the classical liberals were just the evolution of one individual becoming powerful and enslaving other back in the neolithic, details aside.
But I'm curious about this "taking the freedom", what does it mean? How do you do that?
That's the realistic part of the classicals: you cannot have full freedom for everyone because you cannot have zero power for everyone. But you can maximize freedom for everyone by enabling a stalemate of powers. That's the idea of a (broadly speaking) "democratic" state, one that is not just the instrument of an individual's will, but a public good to be collectively guided to produced said stalemate. Of course, the state itself can break the stalemate by becoming too powerful, but that just one possibility, other players pose the same threat.

You are wrong about that: you cannot have a binding contract with another part. I mean, you can have a contract, but nothing makes it binding. A contract without enforcement is the same as no contract at all. You don't have a contract with your employer: you have a contract with your employer and a state enforcing that contract. Without that, you only have a useless piece of paper.

That is incorrect. One could perfectly agree in the contract that if one of the contracting parties thinks another party involved violates the contract, company X or Y has the authority to solve the dispute. There is no need for a government to make contracts binding. Only the will of the parties involved (to include such provisions) is relevant. For some conflicts, the government indeed is necessary: in the case of involuntary creditors for instance, as there is no contract between the parties that are in conflict. If I crash my car into someone's house, we don't have a contract that I am going to do that in return for a certain amount of money. The house owner became a creditor of me against his will. In that case, obviously, a government court is needed to solve the issue.

However, that is not the most important aspect of my critique on the social contract thinking. You might argue that a state is needed to make contracts binding (although I disagree with that, see above), but what is sure is that there is no contract at all between me and the government or me and the rest of society. There is no such thing as a social contract.

Of course you are giving away freedom: you are giving the state the power to kill. Where is this coming from? What makes the state more likely to punish killers than killers punishing the state? And if the state is powerful enough to punish people, it is powerful enough to punish you. Where's your unlimited freedom when the state is powerful enough to punish you, whether you like it or not? Power is nothing but the ability to impose, and who can be imposed on is less free.

First: of course there is. Your free actions can result on someone else's death, both when you mean it and when you don't. When someone tells you you'll be punished in the even of certain outcomes, then you are restricted in your freedom to act.
Second: if a state has the power to punish a killer, then it has the power to punish you. Whether you kill or not, the power is there. it can consider you have killed even when you haven't. It may decide to punish for reasons other than killing even when you didn't want that, because once it has the power to punish against the individual's will (most killers don't agree to be punished), you can, de facto, no longer decide when it punishes and when it doesn't. The power needed to punish killers is the same needed to punish, say, homosexuality. By creating such power you are giving up freedom, always.

I think the problem here is the definition of 'freedom'. Let me explain. Freedom in my opinion is the lack of suppression and the lack of aggression. I can do whatever I want, as long as I accept that other people have that right too. You cannot kill and call it a freedom, because it is an act of aggression. It does not respect the basic principle of freedom, and ergo can never be considered as an act that falls under the definition of freedom: there is no freedom to kill (but obviously, there is power or opportunity to kill).

Defining freedom as 'being able to whatever you want' is a libertine interpretation of freedom and in my opinion a flawed one, as it will be continuously in conflict. A concept that is correctly defined can never be in conflict with itself. There cannot be a conflict of freedoms. If there seems to be such a conflict, one (or more) of the freedoms involved is not a real freedom or freedom itself is not well defined.

And yes, I do accept that the state must guarantee everyone's freedom and in the case of a violation of that freedom, must intervene. Like I said, I am not an anarchist. And yes, the government can punish me too if I violate other people's freedom. You're suggesting that the state can also punish when there was no such violation, but that is why I am a strong believer in the concept of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The people must be allowed to defend themselves against the state in the case the state is going beyond her tasks. It is of vital importance that the state has not a monopoly on weapons.

Of course I called them weaker. You say that the share of public spending on GDP is big, but public spending is not the state itself. Who controls this spending? To a large extent, the same people that controls the other half of GDP (and it's only half in western Europe). Which size of the French GDP did Louis XIV control? I'm not speaking about the fraction of spending, but also about the direct or indirect control. I could find a more recent example, but in the '80s Mitusbishi's revenues were bigger than the GDP of Chile. Individual economic freedom increased dramatically since the classic liberals days, and as a consequence wealth has emancipated from state control - not fully, but much further than it ever was. Which was a good thing - but with this freedom also came successful individuals/organizations, successful in terms of power accumulation.

It does not matter that the people elect those who vote on the public spending. It's not because we are - more or less - a democracy, that such spending is not a problem. And I was not talking about spending alone. I also criticized the dept (and width) of government definitions, apart from the immorally high percentage of GDP that is in the hands of the government.

I seriously doubt that Louis XIV had more control on society than the current French state has.

And I miss the relevance of the fact that Mitsubishi's revenues were higher than Chile's GDP. There are a lot of companies that have a higher GDP than some countries. Et alors? The revenues of private companies are not stolen (well, apart from the subsidies maybe), in contrast to the majority of government 'income'.

No, I'd rather say that according to me the libertarians have an utopia, while the classical liberals had a realistic goal ;)

Fine, you can say that (you have the freedom to do so), but I think it is wrong to say that classical liberals have a better understanding of the state because you think they have a realistic coal in contrary to libertarians.

Actually, that's an empirical claim, and it turns out to be false. Democracy leads to states being more involved with people lives? Certainly not in the European transition from absolute monarchy to republican democracies. Certainly not in the Eastern European transition from Dictatorships of the proletariat to their current states. Certainly not in the Latin American transition from anti-communist dictatorships into democracies.

It depends on what you compare democracies with. If you compare them with totalitarian states, then you're right (although I always say that our Western European democracies are somewhat totalitarian).

But I doubt that the republican democracies are less involved now than the absolute monarchies of a few centuries back. Their decisions are less authoritarian or dictatorial, yes. But are they less involved in people's lives? I doubt that.

Why the government? Why not Bill Gates or Monsanto or whoever has power? Why defend from the power of the state and not anyone else's? States back when the classical liberals were just the evolution of one individual becoming powerful and enslaving other back in the neolithic, details aside.

Because Bill Gates did not steal his fortune. He earned it. Because Bill Gates did not impose his ideas on other people. He offered them a certain service, and people liked it and bought his products. That is fundamentally different from how a state works.

But I'm curious about this "taking the freedom", what does it mean? How do you do that?

Get enough people on our side, show how immoral our society is because of big government and at a certain point of time (when support is high enough), stop cooperating with the government. Refuse to pay taxes. Openly violate the laws the government imposes on society. If enough people do that, the state is powerless. The fiscal authorities don't have the capacity to deal with a certain amount of people who refuse to pay taxes. The police doesn't have the capacity to punish everyone who breaks the law if sufficient people do that. That is in my opinion the only way to beat the government and break the welfare state.

That's the realistic part of the classicals: you cannot have full freedom for everyone because you cannot have zero power for everyone. But you can maximize freedom for everyone by enabling a stalemate of powers. That's the idea of a (broadly speaking) "democratic" state, one that is not just the instrument of an individual's will, but a public good to be collectively guided to produced said stalemate. Of course, the state itself can break the stalemate by becoming too powerful, but that just one possibility, other players pose the same threat.

Of course the government is the instrument of individuals. Parliamentary politics is not about a view on society; it is about the defense of special interests. Most people vote with their wallets. That is immoral, and apart from that, they are very poor in making the right choice.

I think your questions are covered by my reply to Don Enzo ;-)

yes!
:)

and I disagree in every word of it..

But I will make two different question:
1) why do you think it's immoral the amount of gdp that state control by taxation? What moral/ethic/otherkindof criteria do you use to decide "how much"?

2) how can you imagine a modern country without that public intervention? (I mean: it get impossible to be an industrial country with a "light state" for technological, legal and economical reasons, no?)
Are you saying that is better be a little more poor but free?

1) why do you think it's immoral the amount of gdp that state control by taxation? What moral/ethic/otherkindof criteria do you use to decide "how much"?

Because taxation is theft. And in contrary to most people, I believe theft is immoral behavior.

2) how can you imagine a modern country without that public intervention? (I mean: it get impossible to be an industrial country with a "light state" for technological, legal and economical reasons, no?)

It's not that hard. Just a world without thought police, economic suppression, border patrol or fiscal slavery. Or as Lennon would say: imagine.

Are you saying that is better be a little more poor but free?

No, I'm not saying that, but even though, that is true. Liberty will get us more wealth, not make us poorer. But even if it would, yes, being a little less rich and free is better than being more rich and unfree. Liberty is the only real and true meaning of life.

And in contrary to most people, I believe theft is immoral behavior.

ppfff ... lowering the bar??