Economic System vs. Humanity

[Objectitron]

I think the two influence each other. For example, if a society generally believes in liberty, honesty, diligence, equality (meaning the intrinsic value of each person is equal), personal responsibility, and pursuit of happiness for all then this should show in their economic system. However, if an economic system exists that suppresses these values and characteristics, what effects would we see in humanity?

[Zeluvia]

Your question is not clear. Expand on your thinking please

[Objectitron]

Your question is not clear. Expand on your thinking please


According to our Constitution, Americans in general believe in life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all. The majority has decided that free-enterprise capitalism is the best vehicle to achieve these belief and goals. Do these beliefs and goals necessitate capitalism and democracy?

[Ryokan]

According to our Constitution, Americans in general believe in life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all. The majority has decided that free-enterprise capitalism is the best vehicle to achieve these belief and goals. Do these beliefs and goals necessitate capitalism and democracy?

In real life, no one has a right to life, liberty is somethign experienced on a sliding scale, and even a North Korean in a prison camp is free to pursue happiness. These goals are aspirational, not concrete. The US generally has supported in the past a corporatist economic system or market capitalist one. None of which really has alot to do with life liberty and the pursuit of happiness persay. Obviously, as a guy with libertarian leanings I am ultimately sympathetic to your cause, but this is not the way to argue it.:wink:

[Objectitron]

In real life, no one has a right to life, liberty is somethign experienced on a sliding scale, and even a North Korean in a prison camp is free to pursue happiness. These goals are aspirational, not concrete. The US generally has supported in the past a corporatist economic system or market capitalist one. None of which really has alot to do with life liberty and the pursuit of happiness persay. Obviously, as a guy with libertarian leanings I am ultimately sympathetic to your cause, but this is not the way to argue it.:wink:

I don't think I have a cause...I'm just asking questions...I think these type of questions contribute to understanding why certain countries are communist, democratic, theocratic, or something else. what would be a better way to argue it. I'll try and simplify my question.

Do the values a country holds as true or binding, as MOST Americans consider for them to be Judeo-Christian values, contribute to the type of economic/political system you see in that country?

Or

Will the economic/political system contribute to the development of certain values a country holds as true or binding?

Which one influences the other more?

[Zeluvia]

I don't think I have a cause...I'm just asking questions...I think these type of questions contribute to understanding why certain countries are communist, democratic, theocratic, or something else. what would be a better way to argue it. I'll try and simplify my question.

Do the values a country holds as true or binding, as MOST Americans consider for them to be Judeo-Christian values, contribute to the type of economic/political system you see in that country?

Or

Will the economic/political system contribute to the development of certain values a country holds as true or binding?

Which one influences the other more?

Actually I think the economic system has to depend on alot of factors.

Resources, which ones are usable, quantity, existing ownership issues, population, culture, and level of education of the populace.

Quite frankly, given the situation in China at the time of the revolution, communism made sense. Even Russian communism made sense.

But once your populace education level starts increasing, and the ownership of the means of production is split up and spread out, resources are developed and exploited, it also makes sense that
socialism and capitalism would be the next level of development.

See, I see them as stages of change and situational....

Think about it. What was the economic system that the Russian workers rioted about, and why? I spent some time reading about the Russian revolution and the years leading up too it, and I gained alot of respect for the Russian people. Not because of the revolution so much, but because what they lived through and with....

I read about the Chinese revolution too... some of the stories are just incredible....the Long March for example, there are some NEW books about it since the veil of propaganda is being lifted...

In both cases though, I would have to say AFTER the dust settled, the average person was BETTER off....for a time...

The problem is if the government fails to flex with the changes in the society...it will fall. And both China and Russia ARE flexing now economically.

[Ryokan]

[QUOTE=Zeluvia;2227219]
I don't buy that. Yes, because you can put alot more money towards investment and capitalization than consumption as a communist government than you'd get in a market system you have these huge transition costs that may or may not work out when you want to go to a new system, and after you have the intial industrialization event you have efficiency costs that are tremendous. I think Russia would certainly have been better off without communism. Most of the Eastern bloc would have. They needed a revolution, but not the one they got.
With CHina, 30 million chinese died because of the inability of communism to operate a agrarian society rather than a fledgling industrialized one like Russia. Russians died because of the political system more than anything about communism, but it was without a doubt communism that killed all those people in the great leap forward. China did not need communism.

[Zeluvia]

Well, both Russia AND China suffered severe famines PRIOR, DURING and AFTER the revolutions. People just don't revolt for no reason. And China has continued to have problems with food supply and famine.

It's amazing to me after reading these historys that there were enough people left around to revolt.

But Ryokan, how would you have "fixed" the Russian economy, and social situation....post revolution?

Pre-revolution they already had an extremely inefficient "communal farm" system.

I do agree post WWII that most of the countries that got covered under the blanket could have continued just fine with capitalism.

[Ryokan]

Well, both Russia AND China suffered severe famines PRIOR, DURING and AFTER the revolutions. People just don't revolt for no reason. And China has continued to have problems with food supply and famine. To pretend what happened was in the great leap forward was commensurate with the normal growth famine cycle is absurd. Of course war and natural disaster caused famine, but never on that scale there was peace and no major nationwide disasters. The only cause of the famine was grotesque mismanagement by the maoist/communist regime in China.
But Ryokan, how would you have "fixed" the Russian economy, and social situation....post revolution? I don't know. given what I know now I would not have tried to do it the Lenin Stalin way. I'd probably try a authoritarian with democratic institutions, psuedo corporatist/socialist thing along the lines of post colonial Singapore, I guess. The social instability, ethnic mistrust, and low level of industrialization has parallels. But Russia is huge and Singapore is tiny. I might have failed anyway. What's clear is what they did didn't work all the great. Japan got much further sans communism, from alot crummier start mid-nineteenth century

Pre-revolution they already had an extremely inefficient "communal farm" system.
Feudalism to capitalism without a middle class is tricky for sure.

[Zeluvia]

To pretend what happened was in the great leap forward was commensurate with the normal growth famine cycle is absurd. Of course war and natural disaster caused famine, but never on that scale there was peace and no major nationwide disasters. The only cause of the famine was grotesque mismanagement by the maoist/communist regime in China.
I don't know. given what I know now I would not have tried to do it the Lenin Stalin way. I'd probably try a authoritarian with democratic institutions, psuedo corporatist/socialist thing along the lines of post colonial Singapore, I guess. The social instability, ethnic mistrust, and low level of industrialization has parallels. But Russia is huge and Singapore is tiny. I might have failed anyway. What's clear is what they did didn't work all the great. Japan got much further sans communism, from alot crummier start mid-nineteenth century
Feudalism to capitalism without a middle class is tricky for sure.

Yeah, that is why I think economics has to be situational. Lenin's ideas might not have been so bad, but well, he died = P.

Actually about the Chinese famine.....part of my conspiracy theory mindset thinks that famine was allowed to happen deliberately, and it's hard to wrap your head around those casuality figures. The population of Canada was only 33 million last time I checked.

Japan was also smaller, with a more homogenous culture, and even though it was feudal, it had a fairly educated populace, and a respected middle class (albeit very small) of tradesmen and artists, more along the lines of the smaller European countries.

Japan also did not seem to have the class hatred that was so easily fueled in China and Russia...

But both China and Russia were extremely agragarian, and being large, had some cultural and even perceptual racial and class bigotry, and HIGH levels of peasant ignorance.

I can't remember the name of the factory, but one of the most prominent and successful industries in Moscow was a ribbon factory, and the fact that sticks out in my mind is the husband and wife that opened it had to buy their freedom from their lord before they could go into business....and this was the early 1800's

But if you read the history of Russia pre and post revolution, it is absolutely no wonder they held out in Stalingrad during WWII. Those people were hard core.

[Mr Arkadin]

The idea that the economic system is necessarily against humanity is absurd since any market is made up of acting individuals. A market consisting of only voluntary exchange exhibits economic harmonies, as Bastiat said, and gives rise to the most humane society possible. The problem only arises when coercion appears, state and individual, which is not part of the market mechanism.

[Zeluvia]

The idea that the economic system is necessarily against humanity is absurd since any market is made up of acting individuals. A market consisting of only voluntary exchange exhibits economic harmonies, as Bastiat said, and gives rise to the most humane society possible. The problem only arises when coercion appears, state and individual, which is not part of the market mechanism.

But don't you think there is SOME coercion inherent in any system, since people MUST eat to live, and the days of being able to "live off the land" are long gone?

So you HAVE to participate....in some way or form.

[Mr Arkadin]

But don't you think there is SOME coercion inherent in any system, since people MUST eat to live, and the days of being able to "live off the land" are long gone?

So you HAVE to participate....in some way or form.

I am defining coercion as the the threat or the actually attack on the physical integrity of anyone's person or property. Now in all systems there will be coercion since criminals will always exist however there is no need for systematic coercion in the form of the state.

[Zeluvia]

I am defining coercion as the the threat or the actually attack on the physical integrity of anyone's person or property. Now in all systems there will be coercion since criminals will always exist however there is no need for systematic coercion in the form of the state.

I think you miss my point. Isn't starvation a threat on the physical integrity of a person?

If you don't work, you don't eat. That is not on some level a form of coercion?

[Mr Arkadin]

I think you miss my point. Isn't starvation a threat on the physical integrity of a person?

If you don't work, you don't eat. That is not on some level a form of coercion?

Since starvation is not a living entity, and hence cannot act, it cannot be considered coercion. Further depriving someone of food is not coercion: if you own a piece of land which has all the food in the world in it and you refuse to trade with an individual so they will starve. Have you coerced them? No by using your person and property you have not initiated force against them; you have merely used your right not to trade with them. To say that I must trade with him implies the very slippery slope of, legal, positive obligations.

[hamandcheese]

I agree with the original post, however I would change "humanity" with culture, because humanity means everyone and obviously we all don't agree on an economic policy.

I personally believe in individual liberty and freedom, however I don't think communist countries, or countries whose economic system takes away freedom in the market, genuinely make the people suffer. In other words, the evils of the world look worse as they approach than when you're in the middle of them. This is true of all things. It could be called policy apprehension. To give you an example of this where it is shown in experiment, is a study done during the Bush Gore election. People of both ideologies expressed a lot of negative emotion under the hypothetical that the opposition won. Then, after Bush won(?) Gore supporters expressed sadness but not nearly as much as they thought. Life goes on.

So, basically what I'm getting at is that people adjust to their policy systems and are thus more likely to be allowing of other policy systems.

[Zeluvia]

Since starvation is not a living entity, and hence cannot act, it cannot be considered coercion. Further depriving someone of food is not coercion: if you own a piece of land which has all the food in the world in it and you refuse to trade with an individual so they will starve. Have you coerced them? No by using your person and property you have not initiated force against them; you have merely used your right not to trade with them. To say that I must trade with him implies the very slippery slope of, legal, positive obligations.

See, I see another slippery slope here. You are saying that the right to property superceeds the right to life.

In other words, my right to OWN food trumps the rights of others to eat to live....right?

[Ryokan]

See, I see another slippery slope here. You are saying that the right to property superceeds the right to life.

In other words, my right to OWN food trumps the rights of others to eat to live....right?

I suspect what he would say is you only have a right to life to the extent he can't actively end your life. It is your responsibility to feed yourself.

[Mr Arkadin]

See, I see another slippery slope here. You are saying that the right to property superceeds the right to life.

In other words, my right to OWN food trumps the rights of others to eat to live....right?

Yes but what you miss is that our lives are our own property. So to allow violations of property rights allows all manifest evils such as murder, rape and pillage.

To see why we must own ourselves see my blog (http://the-eclectic-rambler.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00Z&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00Z&max-results=10) post here.

[Zeluvia]

Well, I will read your blog.

But if I am starving to death, and you have food, and I have force, guess what?

[Mr Arkadin]

Well, I will read your blog.

But if I am starving to death, and you have food, and I have force, guess what?

As I said before you can't abolish all coercion; however you don't need to make it systematic.

[Zeluvia]

So, if you have food, but wont give me any unless I do services for you,
that is not coercion....but if I am hungry and take food from you by force, that is coercion?

I will define it as the unilateral right to do what one wishes with his property unless it harms the physical integrity of someone else's property; if one does not have this then one cannot be said to own it.

This is from your blog. You define my life as my property. Your ownership of all the food is doing a direct harm to my property.

Therefore, according to your blog, as I understand it, I am justified in protecting my property by invading your property.

[norwegen]

Therefore, according to your blog, as I understand it, I am justified in protecting my property by invading your property.And then, as long as the two of you are observing property rights, Mr Arkadin has justification for recourse.

Why invade? Why not negotiate?

[Zeluvia]

And then, as long as the two of you are observing property rights, Mr Arkadin has justification for recourse.

Why invade? Why not negotiate?

don't go all sissified on me....

competition !! not cooperation !!

[norwegen]

don't go all sissified on me....

competition !! not cooperation !!Well, alrighty, then. Rob the have-not before he can rob you. And if all he has for the taking is his life . . . well . . . :shrug:

[Zeluvia]

Well, alrighty, then. Rob the have-not before he can rob you. And if all he has for the taking is his life . . . well . . . :shrug:

no, I think you miss the point...

did you read his blog?

[Mr Arkadin]

Therefore, according to your blog, as I understand it, I am justified in protecting my property by invading your property.

I am not directly harming you in any way shape or form. All that has happened is that you cannot feed yourself if I don't feed you. The only way you could claim coercion on my part is if I went on your land and burnt your crops. Inaction is never coercion unless you are breaking a contract. Your twisting of my definition leads to manifest absurdities: My car will only work if you will sell me a certain part but I am not willing to pay the price you will sell it at. Therefore I am justified in stealing the part because if I didn't you would be coercing against my car.

[Zeluvia]

I am not directly harming you in any way shape or form. All that has happened is that you cannot feed yourself if I don't feed you. The only way you could claim coercion on my part is if I went on your land and burnt your crops. Inaction is never coercion unless you are breaking a contract. Your twisting of my definition leads to manifest absurdities: My car will only work if you will sell me a certain part but I am not willing to pay the price you will sell it at. Therefore I am justified in stealing the part because if I didn't you would be coercing against my car.

no, FOOD is vital to LIFE. car parts are not. Are you saying everyone owns the means of producing food, independent of anyone else?

[Mr Arkadin]

no, FOOD is vital to LIFE. car parts are not. Are you saying everyone owns the means of producing food, independent of anyone else?

Life is merely a form of property so your distinction is specious. In answer to your question yes and all other forms of property.

[Zeluvia]

Life is "merely" a form of property?

I think you empower privelege, endorse entitlement, and ignore biology....