Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
Interesting quote by Ludwig von Mises:
"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."
"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."
Now that's a classic strawman argument fallacy.
Measure is the key as always. Ludwig tries to equalise rejection of "laissez faire" which basically advocates extreme lack of government interference with rejection of "every kind of government action" regardless of its extent and this could be also very mild. So, laissez faire is on one end of possible "free market and government regulation" mix and Ludwig basically tries to futilely claim that if that 100:0 combination is to be rejected, then every other combination is also invalid. Very lame.
Measure is the key as always. Ludwig tries to equalise rejection of "laissez faire" which basically advocates extreme lack of government interference with rejection of "every kind of government action" regardless of its extent and this could be also very mild. So, laissez faire is on one end of possible "free market and government regulation" mix and Ludwig basically tries to futilely claim that if that 100:0 combination is to be rejected, then every other combination is also invalid. Very lame.
Ludwig tries to equalise rejection of "laissez faire" which basically advocates extreme lack of government interference with rejection of "every kind of government action" regardless of its extent and this could be also very mild.
If you think that is what von Mises' argument is, you didn't get it.
His argumentation is that if you say people can and will fail (in doing good) and are weak (in holding on to the 'right' moral thing to do), you cannot allow the government (which consists only of people) to interfere as the government will be just as fallible and will have the same moral weakness as individuals. If the government action is extent or not or mild or not is really irrelevant. The point is that the government is just a group of people, who have the same moral weakness and fallibility as individuals in laissez faire.
(editado)
If you think that is what von Mises' argument is, you didn't get it.
His argumentation is that if you say people can and will fail (in doing good) and are weak (in holding on to the 'right' moral thing to do), you cannot allow the government (which consists only of people) to interfere as the government will be just as fallible and will have the same moral weakness as individuals. If the government action is extent or not or mild or not is really irrelevant. The point is that the government is just a group of people, who have the same moral weakness and fallibility as individuals in laissez faire.
(editado)
Oh, I got it alright. Both you and Ludwig are disregarding the subject matter which is "which mix of free market vs. government regulation is ideal?". If you would engage in the discussion about the subject matter, your arguments would disassemble by themselves. And so, you demagogically choose to discuss these questions out of context.
Participants in the free market protect their own interests and this is perfectly fine and expected. It's the nature of their role. That's what market competition is all about. But in that role they often conflict with common interests and that's why we need a group of people whose agenda is the common interest, i.e. the government to control them. Of course that people can and will abuse their roles in both cases. But in either case that is no argument that any of these roles is obsolete for the markets to function well in the long run. And obviously, there is much more responsibility attached to the role of government because market participants' natural priority is their individual interest. It's simply the nature of their role. On the other hand, the natural role of the government is to protect the common interests. People in the government represent all the people in their community. And so, abusing the government role where you have a position attained solely to protect the common interest is basically abuse of the actual nature of your role and is a much graver failure.
But I agree with one thing from that saying. "Man's fallibility and moral weakness" is an unsufficient argument in almost any thesis. You have to take that as a constant fact within any theory. There is no social system that is able to remove it. It may only mitigate or stimulate it more or less intensively.
Participants in the free market protect their own interests and this is perfectly fine and expected. It's the nature of their role. That's what market competition is all about. But in that role they often conflict with common interests and that's why we need a group of people whose agenda is the common interest, i.e. the government to control them. Of course that people can and will abuse their roles in both cases. But in either case that is no argument that any of these roles is obsolete for the markets to function well in the long run. And obviously, there is much more responsibility attached to the role of government because market participants' natural priority is their individual interest. It's simply the nature of their role. On the other hand, the natural role of the government is to protect the common interests. People in the government represent all the people in their community. And so, abusing the government role where you have a position attained solely to protect the common interest is basically abuse of the actual nature of your role and is a much graver failure.
But I agree with one thing from that saying. "Man's fallibility and moral weakness" is an unsufficient argument in almost any thesis. You have to take that as a constant fact within any theory. There is no social system that is able to remove it. It may only mitigate or stimulate it more or less intensively.
But I agree with one thing from that saying. "Man's fallibility and moral weakness" is an unsufficient argument in almost any thesis.
That's my point ;-) (If you remove 'almost'.)
That's my point ;-) (If you remove 'almost'.)
Well, I have put 'almost' because I am aware that I am not able to think of absolutely every thesis that exists. ;)
I don't think Ludwig von Mises is right in that respect.
Actually, if his statement holds true, then you could not even have a system of justice, as this struggles with the same argument (definitely for the fallibility). This would even take away the basis for a libertarian society, and would thus be an argument for anarchy.
Next to that, and what is my main argument, the democratic systems, at least the ones here in Western Europe contain multiple checks and balances. That means that one decision is checked multiple times (By the parliament, the senate and by the public for example, as opposed to only public judgement in a system without government action), has to comply with other regulations and laws that are usually 'proven'. I would argue that a properly functioning government system provides checks and balances to improve a policy before it is being implemented and therefore takes out some of the faults and some of the moral problems of the policies that are meant to be implemented. In my view you are oversimplifying by thinking that Government is just a group of people. There are multiple groups of people in a well functioning system (different government layers, parties, jurisdictions etc.). Even if they pursue their self-interest, that is more balanced out by the other groups, representing other self-interests.
Next to that, government action can sometimes reach moral standards that are not to be reached by a laissez-faire system. But this will indeed always be a dictatorship of the majority. Maybe 99% of the people thinks that everybody should have a roof over its head. If the laissez-faire system fails to provide, it might thus be desirable to start collecting taxes from a moral point of view. A moral desire does not always lead to the actions that should be accompanied by this. Government action could then be an acceptable means to bridge this gap.
Actually, if his statement holds true, then you could not even have a system of justice, as this struggles with the same argument (definitely for the fallibility). This would even take away the basis for a libertarian society, and would thus be an argument for anarchy.
Next to that, and what is my main argument, the democratic systems, at least the ones here in Western Europe contain multiple checks and balances. That means that one decision is checked multiple times (By the parliament, the senate and by the public for example, as opposed to only public judgement in a system without government action), has to comply with other regulations and laws that are usually 'proven'. I would argue that a properly functioning government system provides checks and balances to improve a policy before it is being implemented and therefore takes out some of the faults and some of the moral problems of the policies that are meant to be implemented. In my view you are oversimplifying by thinking that Government is just a group of people. There are multiple groups of people in a well functioning system (different government layers, parties, jurisdictions etc.). Even if they pursue their self-interest, that is more balanced out by the other groups, representing other self-interests.
Next to that, government action can sometimes reach moral standards that are not to be reached by a laissez-faire system. But this will indeed always be a dictatorship of the majority. Maybe 99% of the people thinks that everybody should have a roof over its head. If the laissez-faire system fails to provide, it might thus be desirable to start collecting taxes from a moral point of view. A moral desire does not always lead to the actions that should be accompanied by this. Government action could then be an acceptable means to bridge this gap.
Actually, if his statement holds true, then you could not even have a system of justice, as this struggles with the same argument (definitely for the fallibility). This would even take away the basis for a libertarian society, and would thus be an argument for anarchy.
Von Mises doesn't say he shares the first statement (mankind is moral weak and fallible).
Next to that [...] representing other self-interests.
If that were true (checks and balances), that conflicts with the first statement (of people opposing laissez faire) about moral weakness, as most people in the government would be 'good' which indicates that most people in general are 'good' and that there is no need for government intervention.
Next to that [...] acceptable means to bridge this gap.
There is no need to bridge that gap. So 99% think everybody should have a roof above their head. There is no need to make the 1% others pay for those roofs. Don't force other people who dislike a certain idea to pay for that idea (with the exception of pure public goods).
Von Mises doesn't say he shares the first statement (mankind is moral weak and fallible).
Next to that [...] representing other self-interests.
If that were true (checks and balances), that conflicts with the first statement (of people opposing laissez faire) about moral weakness, as most people in the government would be 'good' which indicates that most people in general are 'good' and that there is no need for government intervention.
Next to that [...] acceptable means to bridge this gap.
There is no need to bridge that gap. So 99% think everybody should have a roof above their head. There is no need to make the 1% others pay for those roofs. Don't force other people who dislike a certain idea to pay for that idea (with the exception of pure public goods).
Von Mises doesn't say he shares the first statement (mankind is moral weak and fallible).
Well, that is true. But Von Mises, if he would still be alive, would nowadays (I don't know when he made the quote) represent a minority in claiming that mankind isn't moral weak and fallible. People like Herbert Simon (bounded rationality) and Kahneman and Tversky (also providing good evidence disproving the idea of the homo economicus) came along late during his lifetime or after he died. Moreover, if man would be morally strong and not fallible, government would have delivered the ideal world as well (or the government would abolish itself if it would see that the world would be better off without).
If that were true (checks and balances), that conflicts with the first statement (of people opposing laissez faire) about moral weakness, as most people in the government would be 'good' which indicates that most people in general are 'good' and that there is no need for government intervention.
I am not saying that people are intrinsically 'good'. I am saying that the infallabilities and the moral weaknesses are balanced out by checks in balances in such a system. That is a totally different thing. Crucial is if you stick to your own idea of government as one monolithic group of people, than you could use that indeed to prove that man is good. My claim is that government is not one entity but consists of a multitude of entities.
There is no need to bridge that gap. So 99% think everybody should have a roof above their head. There is no need to make the 1% others pay for those roofs. Don't force other people who dislike a certain idea to pay for that idea (with the exception of pure public goods).
That is a moral decision you have to make as a society. Letting them pay is perhaps immoral, but a society could argue that that is a necessary evil. Government intervention could be the means to a thing that is considered morally right. In this way a government system could make up for the weak morality (or the lack of capability to see, thus the fallibality of people). However, this is a tricky issue, because there is a slippery slope in it. If there is a consensus that taxation is necessary evil, a government is morally 'better' than laissez-faire.
(editado)
Well, that is true. But Von Mises, if he would still be alive, would nowadays (I don't know when he made the quote) represent a minority in claiming that mankind isn't moral weak and fallible. People like Herbert Simon (bounded rationality) and Kahneman and Tversky (also providing good evidence disproving the idea of the homo economicus) came along late during his lifetime or after he died. Moreover, if man would be morally strong and not fallible, government would have delivered the ideal world as well (or the government would abolish itself if it would see that the world would be better off without).
If that were true (checks and balances), that conflicts with the first statement (of people opposing laissez faire) about moral weakness, as most people in the government would be 'good' which indicates that most people in general are 'good' and that there is no need for government intervention.
I am not saying that people are intrinsically 'good'. I am saying that the infallabilities and the moral weaknesses are balanced out by checks in balances in such a system. That is a totally different thing. Crucial is if you stick to your own idea of government as one monolithic group of people, than you could use that indeed to prove that man is good. My claim is that government is not one entity but consists of a multitude of entities.
There is no need to bridge that gap. So 99% think everybody should have a roof above their head. There is no need to make the 1% others pay for those roofs. Don't force other people who dislike a certain idea to pay for that idea (with the exception of pure public goods).
That is a moral decision you have to make as a society. Letting them pay is perhaps immoral, but a society could argue that that is a necessary evil. Government intervention could be the means to a thing that is considered morally right. In this way a government system could make up for the weak morality (or the lack of capability to see, thus the fallibality of people). However, this is a tricky issue, because there is a slippery slope in it. If there is a consensus that taxation is necessary evil, a government is morally 'better' than laissez-faire.
(editado)
"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."
and if someone find "laissez faire" a system with worst results than other?
Maybe talking of morality and fallibility in economical and political question is something we can leave to the past..
and if someone find "laissez faire" a system with worst results than other?
Maybe talking of morality and fallibility in economical and political question is something we can leave to the past..
It are most of the time leftists who say laissez faire is immoral ;-)
and if someone find "laissez faire" a system with worst results than other?
I say I simply don't care about those results (without saying the results are actually worse). But I'm not starting that discussion with you again. In the end we'll end up the same like last time ;-)
and if someone find "laissez faire" a system with worst results than other?
I say I simply don't care about those results (without saying the results are actually worse). But I'm not starting that discussion with you again. In the end we'll end up the same like last time ;-)
Well, that is true. But Von Mises, if he would still be alive, would nowadays (I don't know when he made the quote) represent a minority in claiming that mankind isn't moral weak and fallible.
Who says von Mises thinks mankind isn't moral weak or fallible? Again, von Mises doesn't say anything about the morality of human beings. He just says something about the argumentation of certain people (those people make a claim about the morality of human kind, not von Mises).
I am not saying that people are intrinsically 'good'. I am saying that the infallabilities and the moral weaknesses are balanced out by checks in balances in such a system.
Not necessarily. There have been many scandals showing that 'the government' (as a group of people) makes decisions solely based on self-interest without taking in account the interests of its voters and citizens.
Crucial is if you stick to your own idea of government as one monolithic group of people, than you could use that indeed to prove that man is good.
I'm not trying to prove that mankind is good. Just like I'm not trying to prove that mankind is evil. I'm not claiming such statements.
That is a moral decision you have to make as a society. Letting them pay is perhaps immoral, but a society could argue that that is a necessary evil.
Why would it be a 'necessary' evil? It's not necessary to make them pay.
Government intervention could be the means to a thing that is considered morally right.
The government cannot decide what is morally right and what is not. For you, it is morally 'right' to give everyone the right on food and a roof above their head (I remember this from Dutch forum), for me, it is morally 'wrong' to give those rights to people. Morality is personal, and the government cannot decide by majority what is a good and what is bad morality.
If there is a consensus that taxation is necessary evil, a government is morally 'better' than laissez-faire.
No. If there is a consensus (so a majority, because there will always be people who consider taxation a non-necessary evil) that taxation is a necessary evil, a government is morally 'better' for that majority, but not for those who don't agree with taxation being necessary.
Who says von Mises thinks mankind isn't moral weak or fallible? Again, von Mises doesn't say anything about the morality of human beings. He just says something about the argumentation of certain people (those people make a claim about the morality of human kind, not von Mises).
I am not saying that people are intrinsically 'good'. I am saying that the infallabilities and the moral weaknesses are balanced out by checks in balances in such a system.
Not necessarily. There have been many scandals showing that 'the government' (as a group of people) makes decisions solely based on self-interest without taking in account the interests of its voters and citizens.
Crucial is if you stick to your own idea of government as one monolithic group of people, than you could use that indeed to prove that man is good.
I'm not trying to prove that mankind is good. Just like I'm not trying to prove that mankind is evil. I'm not claiming such statements.
That is a moral decision you have to make as a society. Letting them pay is perhaps immoral, but a society could argue that that is a necessary evil.
Why would it be a 'necessary' evil? It's not necessary to make them pay.
Government intervention could be the means to a thing that is considered morally right.
The government cannot decide what is morally right and what is not. For you, it is morally 'right' to give everyone the right on food and a roof above their head (I remember this from Dutch forum), for me, it is morally 'wrong' to give those rights to people. Morality is personal, and the government cannot decide by majority what is a good and what is bad morality.
If there is a consensus that taxation is necessary evil, a government is morally 'better' than laissez-faire.
No. If there is a consensus (so a majority, because there will always be people who consider taxation a non-necessary evil) that taxation is a necessary evil, a government is morally 'better' for that majority, but not for those who don't agree with taxation being necessary.
accidentaly come to this topic since i read only Funny things now .. saw some total nonsense written by belgian user. Thought about some belgian called Rubinho, I always laught about what he wrote here .. I click at your history and what i see ... :DD
People often laugh at things they don't understand ;-)
poor rubinho, no one understand you :D