Naomi vs. Milton

Ugh, Naomi Klien. Do not feed the trolls!

That made my day! Man do I despise that woman...

Here's the short story. Mrs. Klein's point is simply that neoliberalism can not win a position in society based on its ideas alone. Often it has had to use force against the peoples wish to democratize. When left to the people they will always choose democracy. The video above sadly implies the pitiful age old argument that if you're not for complete free markets you must be a communist. The video seems to imply that Mrs Klein is advocating for socialism. Fortunately Mr. Friedman explicitly explains the definition of socialism and of free markets.

Naomi Klein is quite right when she claims the neoliberals did not win the debate and the current trends we are seeing in our own electoral politics are proving her right. Friedman is being soundly rejected by the people. I only hope those elitist in power don't attempt some sort of Shock and Awe on our own people to force their neoliberal "free market" ideologies any further down our throats.

That was disappointing. It's not difficult to beat up a straw man. I would have enjoyed a debate on the welfare system, but Klein utterly botches all of Friedman's points.

The issue of contention is: It's possible to do good with other people's money.

It is not: By trying to do good you do bad.

As soon as I saw the comment defending Naomi Klein, I knew I was reading another Muirgeo post.

muirgeo, you'll enjoy this video posted from the same source.

Milton Friedman, " The only cases were people have escaped from the grinding poverty you are talking about is were they have had capitalism and free trade." paraphrased.

WRONG! It's were they have had regulated capitalism and democracy. Pluralistic democratic societies have been the most successful. Fairy tail societies with minimalist government do not exist. They never have. Free trade does not exist. Capitalism is dependent on government for it's existence and has never existed independent of a governed society.

"The fallacy that is feasible and possible to do good with other peoples money has 2 flaws. Its a philosophy of violence and coercion, it's against freedom because I have to use force to get other peoples money."

This is so oft repeated here and so basically ridiculous it astounds me.

Can some one here tell me how we get the money to run the courts, to run the treasury or the army with out the "violence and coercion" Friedman talks about?

No one is stealing anyones money. The rules are made democratically and if you don't like it get the hell out and join some other club.

Now when some one with money and power bends the rules in their favor against the wishes of the people and their democracy THAT should be considered stealing and such people should go to jail for stealing peoples money using government coercion. And the people DON'T like that and that's why you all are gonna see an Obama or a Clinton or an Edwards for president.

It's called democratic pluralism. It's been the most successful political/economical system ever and it rejects regularly Mr. Friedmans broken philosophy.

Friedman was saying two things that always get conflated by libertarians:

- Coercion is immoral.

- Freer markets create more wealth.

Morally, someone can claim that coercion is fine if it justifies the ends, or if it uses a democratic process (it's OK for the majority to take from, or constrain, minorities), etc. But that is simply a different morality than that espoused by Friedman (or me, for what it's worth).

Economically, people can make any wild-assed assertions about government helping the poor or the stupid or "markets," or whatever, sometimes reflecting sound research and often reflecting blind idiocy. But these debates only get heated when they have policy implications, i.e., when they advocate some laws either supported by the mob or in contradiction to the mob, which is generally economically illiterate.

The cost of conflating the moral and economic arguments is putting up with creatures like Ms. Klein (or muirgeo), who challenge moral arguments with economic reasoning, or economic arguments with her particular morality. They say things like, "but free markets need government" as if that were responsive to anything that Friedman argued. Or, "but you're just letting people act selfishly versus altruistically," as if that's a meaningful distinction. Around and around it goes.

"Fairy tail societies with minimalist government do not exist. They never have. Free trade does not exist." Friedman isn't saying that people prosper only in ideal circumstances. Marginal changes make differences. Do you think East German society became more or less authoritarian following the fall of the Berlin Wall? How about standard of living?

"government coercion" is always going to exist. However, the Constitution was designed to limit the role of government and the power of any majority. Our rights aren't allocated on a 51% vote.

Finally, you missed Friedman's second point. "Very few people spend other people's money as carefully as they spend their own." This seems merely about cost savings, but at its core is the notion that individuals are best suited to run their lives. The welfare state implies otherwise.

No better way to explain freedom and sound economics...

O.K. This is preaching to choir stuff. I'm in the choir, but I'm not fond of preaching. The video cuts back and forth between Friedman saying things and Klein saying things, often with no obvious relationship between the two. I don't know what Klein is saying in fact, except that They didn't really win some intellectual debate about something, and she's for doing good. I'm sure she loves her mom's apple pie too, along with Friedman. She presumably means "the right" and identifies herself with "the left", but these categories are vague to the point of being meaningless. I prefer specific debates of specific policies.

"Socialism" ultimately came to mean statutory organization of the means of production, as opposed to the private ownership of capital and its organization by a market. It wasn't alway so in fact. Proudhon was a nominal "socialist" in the nineteenth century, and he advocated no such thing. The CCP still claims to build "socialism", and it increasingly says no such thing.

Proudhon's labor credit bank was a lot like our credit-backed monetary system in fact. Sure, we want to get rid of central monetary authorities regulating rates, but that's not to say that we don't want to create money to satisfy the demand for credit, to monetize the expected future value of productive means, including (and especially) labor. I'm no authority on the Chinese monetary system, but China doesn't fix interest rates to regulate its money supply. It fixes the price of its currency in other currencies.

I'm a big fan of Friedman, but the business about "using force" is just a little nauseating. A state is a monopoly of forcible propriety. Private property rights are forcible proprieties, every bit as much as taxes and other entitlements. States enforce them. They wouldn't exist in the same way otherwise. This indictment of taxation and other entitlements is laughably non-unique. Titles to property are the original entitlements.

Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat, but he was working for the patent office at the time.

So what on "the left" didn't fail? Lots of things, title expiration for example. Title expiration is not taxation. It's the expiration of an entitlement, including a title to property. An estate tax is a form of title expiration if it collects no revenue for central authorities for example. An estate tax collects no revenue if the monetary proceeds of an estate sale in an open market are removed from circulation. We have estate taxes of this sort, because too few people understand money, but we've had taxes that do transfer purchase entitlements (money) to states after estate sales, and that's half the battle. An estate sale !is! a market reorganization of capital. With the deceased's entitlement expires, no one becomes entitled to consume without producing thereby, neither statesmen nor the deceased's heirs.

We've also had progressive consumption taxes, i.e. income taxes with exemptions for investment (including charity). Purer models have been proposed, wherein every citizen pays a progressive income tax and citizens may defer the tax on an unlimited portion of income by accountably investing it rather than expending it on personal consumption. Adam Smith advocated a tax of this sort, calling it a "tax on luxury", but depriving the wealthy of luxury is not the point. Establishing a duty of the wealthy to invest the yields of capital they hold is the point, and depriving central authorities of these yields is the point.

A progressive consumption tax with high marginal rates (even approaching 100%) yields the state practically nothing at the higher rates, because the wealthy choose not to pay the tax by investing instead, and that's the whole point. In reality, the U.S. had impressive growth and much higher rates of saving when income tax rates were higher, because people avoided paying the higher rates.

"Equal distribution of wealth" is not what anyone wants in fact, least of all the state socialists. The state socialists want the least equal distribution of wealth, because they want a few central authorities controlling it all "for the people", but this extremely unequal distribution of wealth is not what "the left" wants. What "the left" really wants and has always wanted is a more equal distribution of the entitlement to consume. A progressive consumption tax works in this direction, without central authority over capital organization, and such a tax is precedented, and the precedents are economically successful. The question is: where are the "leftists" advocating it today? They exist, but they're a whisper in the chorus.

"Free trade does not exist. Capitalism is dependent on government for it's existence and has never existed independent of a governed society."

Bullshit, not to mention bass akwards. And you, Muirgeo, are nothing but a propagandist for the political class.

"The rules are made democratically and if you don't like it get the hell out."

Muirgeo's bottom line. Note the implied threat of violence.

I used to have a semblance of patience for muirgeo, but she's essentially clueless, does not comprehend the moral nature of political power, like a lot of people.

Democracy: oppression of the minority by the majority.

Martin Brock,

I have not rewatched this recently, and I don't know how representative it is of the book, but the following interview with Charlie Rose provides insight in to Naomi's thinking:

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/12/28/2/a-conversation-with-author-naomi-klein

My recollection is her argument is that people like Friedman wait until a crisis has occurred, then sweep in as saviors only to exploit the opportunity to implement a radical agenda.

I thought it was an ironic assertion given the history of the 20th century.

I suppose if I lived in South America like Naomi has been it would be difficult to not pick up a little anti-Friedmanism. However, no one doubts that the reforms of the Chicago boys were painful, the question is how much more painful would things have become if nothing had been done. When you get in to a vicious cycle of printing money for spending you can't cover with the tax base, it becomes an accelerating path to economic hell. While I think it would be appropriate for economists to keep trying to understand if there is a more graceful way to pull economies out of these tail spins, it seems like the doctor is getting blamed for the neglect of the patient in this case.

I heard that Naomi Klein is a priest? I listened to one of her talks recently where she spoke about the power of democracy to deliver prosperity and justice for all. Well, anyways thats why I thought she was a priest because her ideas sure sounded like religion. I take it that Muriego and Naomi go to the same church? His response sure sounded like an angry parishioner.

Substantive, thoughtful, comprehensive discussion bears no fruit with the left any more than substantive exposition of evolution and its many proofs bear fruit with creationists.

I just thought of a new word: cretinists

In a recent debate, Romney was talking about medical health plans and he said "I like mandates".

Fred Thompson said "Yeah, when they are your mandates."

I was in academia for 15 years, and that is how nearly all of the professors think - they like mandates when they like the mandate. But when Bush became President his mandates (war, no child left behind, Patriot act etc.) didn't fit their ideals, and they called him a dictator, abuser of power. The chair of our department had a King George bumper sticker. Many people on campus had "Give him an inch and he thinks he's a ruler"

The double standard goes completely unnoticed.

How hard is it to understand that if a group of people (large or small) can mandate anything it will take away someone else's rights and freedoms? The more mandates, the more rights and freedoms will be taken away.

No one favors democracy once they get into power. Especially the left.

Democracy: oppression of the minority by the majority.

Posted by: Sam Grove |

Sam,

You're the one in need of another country. Because if you want to sell people on some way other then democracy you are fighting a losing battle here and it's not me that being obtuse.

One of the main points of Shock Doctrine was that given a choice the people in Chile were rejecting the policies of Friedman. They literally had to be forced onto the majority by a minority. Libertarianism can only be forced upon a population by a powerful minority. Is that what you want Sam? There's not a whole lot of other options and your past attempts to explain yourself with regards to some gobbledygook about human nature where wanting.

Sam when the majority of people want to form a social compact they should be allowed to. It's not about coercion because everyone lives by the same rules and everyone has a chance to vote for the rules. The very fact and purpose of a proper democracy is to prevent the consolidation of power.

But when you come to the debate thinking that the majority is just looking for handouts rather then an agreed shared responsibility then you end up believing the things you do.

Libertarianism is the convoluted idea that humans were meant to live independently of one another absent the recognition that it is our social nature that allowed us to rise above all the other beast.

Again as soon as you can show me a successful libertarian society that's doing better then the 40 thriving social democracies of the world then maybe you and Milt will have something to argue with.

Bottom line: the fact that you guys are ultimatly anti-democratic is all I need to know to be sure that your policies will only prevail via force or (as happens today) through coercion using the government apparatus.

I heard that Naomi Klein is a priest?

Posted by: John Pertz

John,

Can you point me to an example of ONE ....ONE successful libertarian society? Pluralistic democracies are thriving despite attempts by the neo-liberals to undermine them with sheer power.

I've been watching this series over the last few days, they really are brilliant. ;-)

NK is a dangerous combination if ignorant and arrogant.

All wealthy societies are libertarian societies because wealth is only created in value for value transactions which are freely entered into. The political class then collects as much rent as it possibly can.

You said it yourself, Muirgeo, a government cannot exist without taxes. So where do you think taxes come from? From the libertarian society, Muirgeo, that's where taxes come from.

Please excuse the length, but the link between trade, capitalism, freedom, prosperity, and democracy is a weighty topic—The Albatross

To argue that there has never been free trade nor minimalist government does not gel with any sense of economic history that I am familiar with. The triumph of the first civilizations was their ability to create free trade zones, which were often characterized by the custom of hospitality (see Hayek, von Mises, North, and Homer). Such was the experience of the Phoenicians, Minoans, Mycenaeans, and Greeks. The Ancient Egyptians created a free trade zone along the Nile. The Romans would do the same in the Mediterranean. In the Medieval period it was the coming of the great fairs of the Dukes of Champaign, the Hanseatic League, and the free trading privileges granted the free towns, which revived prosperity after the Dark Ages. We may even attribute some free trade advantages to the mercantilist period, as these policies often eliminated the feudal barriers to trade within countries. Modern examples of vast free trade zones which fostered wealthy societies include: the British Empire, German Zollverein, European Union, and a place we all know as the United States. The first modern nation to adopt an almost universal policy of free trade (corn law excepted) was Great Britain, which began the process in 1783 when William Pitt the Younger made free trade official policy after reading the Wealth of Nations. Great Britain would go onto to become the world’s richest country until WW I and the subsequent breakdown of international trade following (see Churchill, Winston, The History of the English Speaking Peoples). Observe also the gradual recovery of the world economy after WW II, as trade was restored and also the renewed (although still marginal) growth that has returned to Europe with the expansion of the common market.

Onto the charge of minimalist government: The most basic unit of government is the family or the tribe, which settles disputes, enforces property rights, and affords protection. Tribes form minimalists governments to do the same between each other (See Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State, and Utopia). Within this minimalist state that follows (which provides Smith’s tolerable taxation, reasonable justice, some public goods (defense), etc) grows increased division of labor (trade), protection for private property, and rising prosperity (capitalism or at least proto-capitalism). Unfortunately, the historical evidence indicates that as the minimalist states feed off this prosperity that they grow larger and more powerful, and the powerful state eventually crushes the spontaneous order that had nurtured it. In the end, they either displace capitalism (which we will define as the private ownership of the means of production) either with state ownership or such heavy regulatory controls as to render private property meaningless. Such was the case pointed out by Hayek with the Egyptians, where state socialism and the arbitrary rule of the later pharos would supplant what had been previous widespread private ownership. An even better example can be found in Rome, which I would consider a limited government under the Republic, the limited nature of which began to the decline under the emperors. It was the heavy hand of government economic involvement of the mid to late empire (state ownership, price controls, coinage debasement, monopoly grants, government corruption, arbitrary justice, the forced tying of citizens to occupations, etc., etc.), which destroyed trade, division of labor, disrupted food supplies, emasculated the army, which then started losing to the same barbarians they had been beating for centuries.

Feudalism is perhaps the most intrusive form of government with extensive economic management by government institutions (note that the church, guilds, lords, and princes are all participating in what we would qualify as “government”). Under feudalism, the guilds controlled trade, the church controlled prices, while the lords and princes provided nothing more than arbitrary justice and theft. The return of capitalism not seen since the Roman Empire, began as the guilds, church, and government gradually lessened their control over economic affairs (see Rosenberg and Birdzell How the West Grew Rich). At the same time rulers began to realize that if they provided adequate justice and property rights (as in not stealing arbitrarily or excessively), then the economic growth would afford them the revenues necessary for renaissance living (see Douglas North). The gradual result was a return in many places to a form of government more akin to that advocated by Smith, Freidman and others. Furthermore, it was the rise of prosperity among many thanks to free (or at least freer) trade and capitalism, which allowed the people to exchange part of their wealth for greater governing privileges, which started in the free towns and ended up as representative democracy. The prospect of a continued rise in prosperity thanks to free trade and capitalism would only be temporarily interrupted in the 20th century when a bunch of state loving, trade and capitalist hating, facist (national socialist)/communist statists showed up in the 20th century and murdered more than 100 million people.

Great post, Albatross! Long posts are usually a problem for me, but this was not.

Can some one here tell me how we get the money to run the courts, to run the treasury or the army with out the "violence and coercion" Friedman talks about?

You pay taxes or go to jail. If you do not go to jail after prosecution, then they will force you to go there.

muirgeo, I think you totally miss the point when many talk about free markets, and many do not advocate no government, but limited government.

Cuba is too much government. The United States is much less, but could stand to trim a lot of fat (especially at the local level). After all it is government bombing the hell out of Iraq, not Starbucks.

A free market allows Starbucks to sell coffee the way it seems fit. Too much government means government starts dictating HOW Starbucks should conduct their business. Thankfully, in this country that does not happen too much, but seems to be happening more.

Walmart is a perfect example. The government (through the will of certain people) is trying hard to tell WM where it can do business, how, how much to pay employees, etc, etc. I do not like Wal Mart, and won't shop there, but who am I to tell them how to do their business?

Muirgeo,

This is my last try...

"It's not about coercion because everyone lives by the same rules and everyone has a chance to vote for the rules."

Do you have any clue what you just wrote? In a country of 10 people, if 6 voted that having sex with post-pubescent minors was okay, well, hey, that's not coercion because everyone's minor is ruled by the same law.

You might be thinking that no democratically elected people would ever pass such a law. (I bet there are countries in the world where a majority could be found.) But there was a time not too long ago, when the majority felt that people under 21 shouldn't vote, that women shouldn't vote, that blacks shouldn't vote, that people could be enslaved, etc. Were those majorities correct? Should those sentiments have been law?

Those former concepts seem antiquated now, but they were the majority opinions. Do you think that there are certain things now that the majority is wrong on? A vast majority of people believe in God. In our current system, this majority has little power to coerce the minority. In your system, I don't see how you could limit it. In our current system, a majority of people want capital punishment to be legal, in your system would you force all states to make it legal?

In short, where are your limitations of federal government power versus liberty at the personal/municipality/state level?

Because I don't see you talking about the limits of power that the majority has. You always imply that a majority rule should be the law. Please elaborate where your limitations are, and make them clear at what level of government each limitation lies. The Constitution has already done this, but you don't seem to like the Constitution very much.

No one here is opposed to democratically electing a government when there are limits in place to prevent the government from abusing personal freedoms. How you can't understand that (and continue to repeat the fallacy) is beyond comprehension.

And to be clear Friedman was not in favor of no government, but limited government, there is a difference.

I thinks this frames this thought well:

http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/3411401.htm...>

"Free trade does not exist." - Muirgeo.

It's a matter of definitions. Free trade refers to the myriad of voluntary exchanges that happen in the world. So you are saying that voluntary exchanges don't exist. It's all just stealing and plundering? Nope. Free trade always existed and will always exist. It is human nature. Free trade existed even in the Soviet Union. They kept it a secret, but it existed.

"Libertarianism is the convoluted idea that humans were meant to live independently of one another" - Muirgeo.

Libertarianism is based on "free exchanges". It takes at least two people to exchange something, so that contradicts your weird interpretation of libertarianism.

In summary: you can't force "free exchanges" down anybody's throat, that's called coercion.

They literally had to be forced onto the majority by a minority. Libertarianism can only be forced upon a population by a powerful minority.

I'm tired of explaining this to you. Anything the government does is by a minority upon the majority...speaking collectively. Conversely the imposition is effected upon the true minority, the individual, in the name of the majority upon which all governments base their authority.

when the majority of people want to form a social compact they should be allowed to. It's not about coercion because everyone lives by the same rules and everyone has a chance to vote for the rules.

Bullshit. You've just left out the wishes of the minority. Perhaps you will just make them into slaves to the majority.

You only believe in democracy when it's your wishes that are in effect. You sing a different tune now that it's someone else's wishes that are in effect. You're blinded by your dreams of perfect democracy, but look at the world around you and remind yourself: 'This is democracy'. You say it's not because it's not YOUR idea of democracy, but it seems that is democratic enough to maintain itself with continued support. You think you can make it better.

Here's your label: democratic socialist.

Left or right, they all use the power of government to maintain their power as best they can. Were you in power, I've little doubt that your tendency would be to the undemocratic.

Your comment stumps me Python, one moment you trash Democracy as 'tyranny of the majority' then say it's good to 'vote for minimalist government'? Or alternatively in a free society if 6 people want to have sex with a minor why should the other 4 people coerce those 6 not to? What if the 6 believe they have that right and they believe they can find consenting minors?

It's the same with all power seekers. When out of power they appeal to democracy, for they are the voice of the people, and when they get into power, they move to protect their revolution by quashing democracy.

Some one please explain to me do we live in a society of violence and coercion or are we a society based on capitalism?

See the problem is Friedman points to the problems with our "welfare state" society on the one hand but on the other hand he points to our system as the only way to raise people up from abject poverty seen in other countries. All the while he and most libertarians seem to not assume that maybe the best system is close to what we have not in spite of our welfare programs but because of them.

The markets need good regulation to run best, good regulation requires proper politicians and proper politicians need to be kept in check by a responsive democratic system.

In short, where are your limitations of federal government power versus liberty at the personal/municipality/state level?

Posted by: Python

Limitations are provided for in the constitution which doesn't allow for rape of minors. Also the limits are set by the voting public. That's how this country has worked and how it became great. NOTY because it is a libertarian society. Those are the rules and you guys are the ones who want to change them. And you could only do it by force or by coercion (as in wealthy people buying off our government) because you can get your views established democratically. Again THAT is Kleins point. And quite honestly she blows Milton out of the water on a factual, on a historical and on a logical basis.

muirgeo,

You don't seem to understand this rather simple point: Friedman is comparing the US to the Communist block countries. This is to refute the line of thinking that pushed for massive government control.

It's reasonable and even logical to go on to say that we should promote less government and more individual freedom. We're not going to get to the "perfect system," but we can at least try to go in the right direction.

One of the main points of Shock Doctrine was that given a choice the people in Chile were rejecting the policies of Friedman. They literally had to be forced onto the majority by a minority. Libertarianism can only be forced upon a population by a powerful minority. Is that what you want Sam? - muirgeo

I realise that this question was directed at Sam, but I would like to respond nonetheless.

First, I should note that Naomi Klein shock doctrine theory is utter nonsense, a waste of paper and ink. Moreover, I find it utterly amazing that muirgeo is defending it, since he or she is forever reminding us, quite rightly, that businesses are rarely kind to the free market. The suggestion that business interests promote the free market by this "shock doctrine" is absurd, and politicians have little to gain from giving away power.

(The only instance where businesses have a financial incentive to promote the free market, is when they are facing competitors who have been granted special priviledges by the state. In such a case, who would object? The only instance I can think of where a politician would have a selfish interest in promoting liberty, is when a populace is so unproductive under oppressive laws that tax revenues become inadequate.)

Anyway, onto the question. The answer, muirgeo, is yes. I fully approve of a minority forcing a majority to accept liberty, because if you oppose liberty then you support oppression--there is no other option available. Therefore, if a majority is in opposition to liberty, then it follows that the majority is in favour of oppression, and the majority would oppress a minority.

Do you think that an oppressed minority has the right to fight oppression? If you do, and I suspect you do, then you agree that a minority should be able to force a majority to accept liberty. Think carefully about this, muirgeo, think of the implications of disagreeing, think of the persecuted minorities of history, think about a morality whereby such persecution was legitimate merely because the majority supported it, think for once.

The big problem facing politics today is the worship and reverence of democracy, as though democratisation is the answer to every problem, and can only be a good thing.

I think this reverence arises from the neo-totalitarians (the "left", postmodernists, socialists, statists, etc.) moral relativism. In short, by placing ethics outside the realm of rational investigation and criticism, by placing moral standards in a void where none can be objectively better than another, a problem arises. There are still decisions which have to be made: the reality which the neototalitarians try to hard to deny and relativise has a way of forcing you do make choices.

However, if no moral standards are objectively better or worse than others, then how are these decisions to be made? The compromise, so fequently made by the neototalitarians, is to appeal to the majority. Thus, we get cultural relativism, where whatever the arbitrary opinion of the majority is, that opinion is also legitimate within that culture.

This is, of course, an implicit moral standard. Moreover, it is a blind moral standard which, if followed consistently, has the potential to legitimise any act, however heinous and criminal.

Lee Kelly,

I agree that moral relativism is at the root of demotism, but then, it is also at the root of individualism. Moral relativism is a simple fact. We are self contained, semi-rational, organisms who choose how we will relate to others. I am no more willing to accept an imposed standard of "moral objectivity" than I am willing to accept an imposed standard of "social responsibility". I may be only semi-rational, but that's good enough for me. I'll make my own decisions, thank you.

Randy,

The root of individualism is fallibilism, not relativism. It is the view that nobody has infallible access to the truth, but by rational investigation and civilised argument, we might nonetheless make progress.

The problem with ethics, as it is traditionally taught, is that there is no problem-situation. Instead, there is an ongoing search for some magic rule, an authority, relative to which all acts are justified. There is no progress to be made like this, but instead a proliferation of contradictory and incommensurable magic rules, which the neototalitarians rightly charge with circularity.

These problems are all dissolved by addressing a problem-situation for ethical investigation, avoiding any charge of circularity. The problem: how can we live in peace and prosperity, despite our disagreements and conflicts of interest?. In other words, what rules of social interaction are best suited toward this end? That is the subject, the problem, of ethics, analogous to the problem of science, regarding the rules and methods we employ when investigating nature and pursuing the truth.

There is nothing presumed in that question, other than that ethical investigation addresses that problem. It does not, unlike any other ethical philosophy, presuppose that utlitarianism, deontological ethics, communism, libertarianism, or whatever else is false. It does, however, provide a context in which different positions can be evaluated, logically and empirically tested, sifted and preferred.

The logical content (i.e. set of implications) of ethical theories extends far beyond what we can subjectively think, nevermind believe, and the consequences of differing theories are conspicuously objective, since what you believe will be the consequences matters not one iota (something economists are keen to point out by highlighting unintended consequences).

The stance of relativism is a friend only to totalitarianism, as Bertrand Russell was fond of pointing out. It seeks to abolish rational investigation and harsh criticism, by promulgating the myth that morality is beyond it. It is disheartening that the neototalitarians have been so successful in convincing so many, (their dominance of the university likely to blame).

They have created, whether intentional or not, a situation where good people are incapable of criticising their oppressive legislation, by convincing the world that any attempt to fight immorality is itself immoral (see muirgeo's equivocation of pro-liberty policies with anti-liberty policies).

...i'm wondering if it's arrogance or ignorance that makes people respond to muirgeo's continued comments? For me, it was ignorance (I thought these were sincere questions, asked from someone newly introduced, like me, to the themes of this site), then it became arrogance (I thought that *I* was going to be the one to verbally outwit, shame, convince, etc. this person). It seems more and more clear that either response is futile.

Occasionally, there are great responses (albatross' above, Marc's point about conflating moral tenets/economic principles, usually anything methinks writes) that are filled with information and help to clarify the question, while leaving it open to people taking what they will and learning. How can we get more of those posts?

Lee Kelly may happy to know that the Libertarians over at Lew Rockell's have an approach to the moral relativism impassé. They believe in strict old fashioned Catholicism as the basis a Libertarian society.

Quote from muirgeo: "Some one please explain to me do we live in a society of violence and coercion or are we a society based on capitalism?"

It is a society of coercion funded by capitalism.

We all work all year long and pay large amounts of taxes throughout the whole year. Then we spend massive amounts of time and money at the end of the year trying to proof that we've paid enough taxes, all based on some elaborate formulas devised by politicians and bureaucrats. If we can adequately prove to the bureaucrats that we've paid the demanded taxes, we're allowed to do it all again for another year.

At any point the bureaucrats decide you haven't paid enough, they will come with other bureaucrats with guns to take everything you have, and maybe throw you in jail, too.

Quote from muirgeo: "... when the majority of people want to form a social compact they should be allowed to. It's not about coercion because everyone lives by the same rules and everyone has a chance to vote for the rules. The very fact and purpose of a proper democracy is to prevent the consolidation of power."

But that's never good enough for you. When a minority of people want to be excluded from your compact of the majority, your majority won't let that happen. Your majority demands, through violence and coercion, the compliance of the minority with the compact of your majority.

Whether the demands are "high minded", like welfare or health care, or not so high minded, like slavery or taxes, the result is the same, and there is little to prevent the high minded from becomeing less so, because the majority has all moral authority under your system.

Your "proper democracy" will result in consolidation of absolute power in the majority.

Keith,

Re; "It is a society of coercion funded by capitalism."

Well said!

Lee Kelley,

Gotta read through that a little more carefully - I'll get back to you.

Actually why can't Libertarians disappear in to the wilderness and start their own society?

Gil,

Why should we leave? We pay the required rent and don't bother anybody. Is it so important to you that we buy your propaganda that you would banish us rather than be forced to suffer the indignity of having to live with those who don't see you as the supreme beings you imagine yourselves to be?

Randy,

In traditional moral philosophy, investigation is conducted in a vacuum, a void, the empty thought-space left over when all ideas, assumptions, premises etc. have been swept away. Then, the ethicists proceed to offer solutions... that's right, they offer solutions, when they have neglected to pose a problem in the first place!

But what good are solutions without a problem to solve? The ethicists then populate the vacuum, the thought-space with ideas, many, many, many competing ideas. However, with no problem to solve there is nothing to compete over, no way to evaluate or take preference for any theory. The predictable, mistaken, conclusion is that the choice among comepting theories is arbitrary, and everything is relative. But this is like trying to evaluate a scientific hypothesis without taking truth and falsity into consideration.

There needs to be a problem. Of course, some people will not be interested in solving our problem. It is, rather, a choice to be interested in our problem, in ethical investigation. The choice is precisely that which many philosophers seem to resilient, because if it comes to choice then philosophy has failed, and so they continue to search for that magic rule, undeniable principle, that holy grail of ethics which would unite everyone in agreement, where to disagree would mean no less than irrationality, madness even.

This is nonsense itself, a revelatory method of investigation masquerading as something more. It provides a fertile ground for the insidious spread of relativism, and by abolishing rational criticism, would bring a world where suffering passes by the good who do nothing but shrug and say, "but who are we to judge?"

Lee Kelly,

Re; "The root of individualism is fallibilism, not relativism."

Actually, the root of individualism is the plain fact that we are individuals. But moral relativism is just a counter argument to the imposition of moral absolutism, not the root of individualism as I proposed earlier.

Re; "The problem: how can we live in peace and prosperity, despite our disagreements and conflicts of interest?"

Disagree. The problem is; How can I make the best of the life I have, given the circumstances that I find myself in. The we, our, us, and them are choices made by the individual - part of the solution, not the problem.

Re; "The stance of relativism is a friend only to totalitarianism..."

Disagree. Moral relativism is the argument against moral absolutes in any form. The fact that many who disavow one set of moral absolutes often turn immediately to another set of moral absolutes does not make moral relativism the cause. Today's Progressive Idealists, collectivists, socialists, etc., are not moral relativists, they are moral absolutists - they just have a different set of absolutes. Individualism is a fact. Therefore moral relativism is a fact. Unfortunately, people often make bad choices - also a fact.

Randy,

Disagree. The problem is; How can I make the best of the life I have, given the circumstances that I find myself in. The we, our, us, and them are choices made by the individual - part of the solution, not the problem.

I did not mean to suggest that "we" make decisions, in the same way that socialists talk about "we as a society". There are still instances where the word "we" is appropriate, and does not have such strong implications. The "we" I was referring to was everyone in society. I was referring to the rules of play, the rules of the game, those by which society, the society which we constitute, is defined.

There are rules which define society in any society, whether communist, Islamic, libertarian or conservative. There are many possible rules, with many different consequences which result. My problem is not "how can I make the best of the life I have, given the circumstances that I find myself in." I do not expect, nor do I think it is right, to expect these rules to conform to my own desires. Neither, do i suspect, do you. This was likely a simple misunderstanding.