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

poor rubinho, no one understand you :D

Not true ;-) I blame those who don't understand me ;-)

.. I click at your history and what i see ... :DD

lol :P

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).
It is relevant, because the system that Von Mises is propogating is subject to this issue. Von Mises is not a random dude who makes this claim, it is a libertarian making this claim. It is said within a context. If Einstein would have made the quote, it wouldn't have any influence on the theory of relativity. If either of the extremes is true, or if the answer is mixed, it is still the question whether it leads to what Von Mises is advocating.

If you find it irrelevant for this discussion, then please tell me his opinion on this matter to satisfy my curiosity.

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.

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.

I might have overstated myself a bit by saying that everything was balanced out. That is not true, but the imperfections are in most cases made less. I would be the last one to say that a government systems works perfectly. The question is in the faith you have in the checks and balances that are built in in a system of good governance. Would there be a less self interest as a consequence of such a system? I say yes, but it is impossible, in any system, to rule out these kind of things entirely. Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of the decisions made in markets are not immoral either.


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.
With whatever system you decide to choose, there are moral choices embedded in it.

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.
There we come into a discussion on the meaning of morality. Individual morality versus group morality. It is clear on which sides of the line we both stand. Although, I think that morality is for some issues the responsibility of nations, or perhaps even the whole world, and in other cases for companies, smaller groups of people or individuals.

And funnily, if I would have my way, I would force you to develop a sense of group morality, and if you would have your way I would have no way to appeal on the morality of a wider group, hence, you're always imposing a form of morality on others.
(editado)

It is relevant, because the system that Von Mises is propogating is subject to this issue. Von Mises is not a random dude who makes this claim, it is a libertarian making this claim. It is said within a context. If Einstein would have made the quote, it wouldn't have any influence on the theory of relativity. If either of the extremes is true, or if the answer is mixed, it is still the question whether it leads to what Von Mises is advocating.

Before answering, I must know what you mean by the bold part. What claim?

The question is in the faith you have in the checks and balances that are built in in a system of good governance.

Well, we can't discuss this faith. I lack it, you don't.

Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of the decisions made in markets are not immoral either.

Exactly my point. Thanks ;-)

With whatever system you decide to choose, there are moral choices embedded in it.

But the libertarian system lets moral choices outside of public life, moral choices should not be subject to government decisions, that's my point.

There we come into a discussion on the meaning of morality. Individual morality versus group morality. It is clear on which sides of the line we both stand. Although, I think that morality is for some issues the responsibility of nations, or perhaps even the whole world, and in other cases for companies, smaller groups of people or individuals.

Well, we can't discuss that either. You're a collectivist, I'm an individualist. We'll just have to agree to disagree. There is no public responsibility imo, there is no responsibility of a nation. Just like there is no common interest.

And funnily, if I would have my way, I would force you to develop a sense of group morality, and if you would have your way I would have no way to appeal on the morality of a wider group, hence, you're always imposing a form of morality on others.

The difference between you and me is that you impose the morality of a majority to others (the question is if that even exists, a morality shared by a majority). I would allow you to appeal on the morality of a wider group, but I'd refuse you to impose measures on people who don't share that morality and therefore 'violate' that morality.

That claim would be the quote, but I realised indeed that it is not necessary for the discussion of the quote, but now I would like to know it out of curiosity (if you don't know it, no need to look it up).

For the market decision that are immoral (or subject to fallibility, because they cause externalities), I still think government intervention is the best option though, whereas you would presumably disagree.

But the libertarian system lets moral choices outside of public life, moral choices should not be subject to government decisions, that's my point.

And funnily, if I would have my way, I would force you to develop a sense of group morality, and if you would have your way I would have no way to appeal on the morality of a wider group, hence, you're always imposing a form of morality on others.
I am familiar with that point. I tend to think that collective responsibility doesn't work without it. And in my system you would be free to arguel that the morality of a collective issue is actually an individual one and vice versa. I think there is a morality of the majority. It might not be exact the same morality, but in the end I think there are is morality of a group. Morality also exists in the sense of crime, but maybe some people think that it should be okay to steal a bread if you're hungry or something like that, even though that is not allowed (maybe more for practical reasons than for moral reasons).


(editado)

There is a financial crisis, but it's also a trick of the world elite to gain more power and money, and to eliminate the collective power of unions, welfare state, social and labor right etc.

Good docu about this (English with Dutch subs):

There is a financial crisis, but it's also a trick of the world elite to gain more power and money, and to eliminate the collective power of unions, welfare state, social and labor right etc

How typical ;-)

How typical ;-)

Not really, as that is what an addiction for power (and money) does to people, they want to have more and more. And the best way is to take total controle as much as possible.

So true... Nothing has changed... Animal instinct are inside human beings... So hard to control for some people...

Tell me, what labor, social or union rights have disappeared in Europe? Please, I can't think of any.

I've just seen a french documentary about nursing homes (retirement home)... 4 major companies are about to take control of all beds available in France and are only here to give money to the shareholders (the 4 owners are in the top 50 of the most money in France)... The rare independant retirement homes are bought to get more beds available to get more money... Old people are not considered at all... Hopefully, one day, only the richer will be put in those houses and the poorer will get back the older family in their home to share life... Capitalist way of life has permitted to people to get all what they want (one single person can have his own home, his own car and so on) but sooner, it will not be possible anymore and the poorer of occidental humanity will are obliged to live again together (as it is already the case in Spain or Greece for instance now)... A new community, a new way of life, more turned towards others will be possible and the richer will loose power...

In the Netherlands a group is trying a lot and also succeeded partly, like lowering the minimum wages and unemployment benefits, retirement age, less labor rights so it's easier to fire employees etc etc.

So please think harder, don't just deny it because of your ideologies, face the facts.

EDIT: and watch the docu if you want to know more, a lot is mentioned in it what is going on in this world.

(editado)

If a lower minimum wage creates extra jobs, is that a bad thing or a good thing? I would say it is not necessarily a bad thing.

If it was that easy ;) that's one side of the story. The other side is an x number of employees are needed in a company, more isn't needed, also not with lower wages. In this case lower wages is just another way of cost efficiency, in other words, more profits for share holders and other parties that will benifit by these higher profits.

(editado)

In the Netherlands a group is trying a lot and also succeeded partly, like lowering the minimum wages and unemployment benefits, retirement age, less labor rights so it's easier to fire employees etc etc.

If you consider those social rights, I agree with the people who want to reduce those social rights. Lowering minimum wages can create employment. Lowering unemployment benefits will stimulate people to search a job. Increasing retirement age is necessary to make sure the social security doesn't go broke. Making it easier to fire employees (for instance because of reduced demand) will make that corporations will be less conservative when there is need for new employees (now, they don't search new employees when demand increases because they will not be able to fire them when demand decreases again).

It's easy to break down a certain ideology, it's a lot more difficult to come with an alternative. TINA