[mikeh]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-12, 17:54, said:

Heh. What "dogmatic ideology" is that, Winston? And what, exactly, is it that "works in practice" better than a free market, and how do you know, considering there's never in modern history been a truly free market?

And why is that, do you think?

The history of commerce over the past 400 years has been one in which the unethical have consistently exploited the innocent. While many of those who have been fleeced were guilty of negligence, greed, foolishness and so on, the reality is that there have been frauds for as long as there has been commerce, at least as far as we can tell from history. And well-meaning, careful investors can be almost as vulnerable to the fraudsters as the gullible....especially in the modern environment in which it is impossible for the average person to access and understand all of the inside information available to potential fraudsters.

Libertarianism has this astounding flaw: those who espouse its principles somehow feel that the free market would result in the evolution of a level playing field, wherein a true meritocracy would arise.

This is a complete and wilful blindness to human nature and to human history.

I appreciate that there may be a real, if subtle, difference between a free market and an unregulated market....tho I have to confess that I don't understand that difference, in terms of human behaviours and how the market would end up operating. I mean, if it is regulated, that by definition means that the actors within the market are constrained in their behaviours, which in turn means that they are fettered in what they can do.

So who gets to choose where the line between aggressive but permissible conduct, on the one hand, and unlawful conduct, on the other, should lie?

And if we allow complete freedom of action, we will see situations that make the 2008 near collapse of the economy look like a minor hiccup. There are always those who are utterly selfish, and contrary to the Randians amongst us, selfishness is NOT a desirable personality attribute in a social animal, especially in a densely interconnected and fragile society.

I understand that those who have studied sociopathy suggest that many of the most successful business people are probably sociopaths. Are we really aspiring to a market philosophy that rewards sociopathy?

Well, if one is a sociopath, then I suppose the answer would be 'why not?'.

I am NOT implying that the libertarians amongst us are any more likely to be sociopathic than the rest of us, and certainly not suggesting that any poster here is of that kind. I am suggesting that those who think a free market is a 'good thing' are incredibly naive about human nature (unless they are sociopaths, of course...in which case they see the rest of us as free lunch).

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-04, 22:21, said:

Your biases are showing.

I gave you a somewhat cavalier answer - but perhaps you were serious. My perception is that there are certain words or phrases that set you off to a degree, and that collectivist must be such a word. Combined that with your perception of me as a radical liberal and I see what made you think I have that bias.

I agree that I see socialism is some areas of society as a superior answer, but I also see that in most areas capitalism is best, especially capitalism as promoted by Adam Smith, with local competition, not multi-national comglemerates dominating industries after deregulation.

I have no set ideological beliefs - I try to be pragmatic. I view neither socialism nor capitalism as an enemy or a friend. Whatever works best for a given problem is fine with me.

What I do have a problem with is fantasy, though, and I admit that. One of the fantasies I have problems with is a notion that any particular social model leads to Nirvana - especially a model that ignores historical abuses of power and aspirations for control.

The U.S. Constitution was not written to protect the majority, but the minority. It is not the strong but the weak who most need protection from abuses.

[blackshoe]

 mikeh, on 2012-March-13, 11:19, said:

And why is that, do you think?

Because people with power just love to find ways to increase it, or to exercise it.