Justice Is A Prerequisite For Liberty

Although “liberty and justice for all” is our nation’s goal, we are far from realizing that ideal.  The problem is, liberty and justice cost money and in the U.S., a lot of people simply don’t have enough money. We have liberty to freely travel, for example, but without money to pay for traveling expenses such liberty is useless.

The best definition for “justice,” I believe, is fairness. When we speak of a nation where there is liberty and justice for all, we are speaking of a nation where everyone is treated fairly. The good question is, “What is a fair society?” Harry Truman years ago wanted legislation, that included guaranteed health benefits for all Americans, to improve fairness in American society.  He called it the “Fair Deal.”  Truman thought that in a fair democratic society, health care would be guaranteed.

There is a great discussion that the U.S., as a democratic society, needs to have: How do we best organize ourselves as a nation so that we can best meet the goal of attaining “liberty and justice for all”?  In a fair society, what should be guaranteed to every citizen?

What is amazing is the great unused potential for wealth creation in the U.S.  Our system is severely underperforming.  Robotics, increased productivity, new scientific advances — it is reasonable to think that we should enjoy a future where every U.S. citizen is rich.  Can we create a system to fulfill our potential is the question: How Can The System Known As The United States Be Made To Work To Provide “Liberty and Justice For All”?

Reagan convinced a lot of people that the reason the system is underperforming was government.  Reagan convinced people that government is bad and that the less government the better.  But, the era of low taxes and less governmental regulations, from the Reagan influence, has left us with trillions of dollars in debt and with great disparity in wealth.  It has swelled the numbers of the working poor.

Sweden is a strong democracy that has chosen a path opposite of Reagan’s — high taxes on its citizens, greatly expanded government — in order to provide a generous life style for everyone in their society. Based upon how the average person in Sweden fares, I have to think, it seems a citizen in Sweden enjoys more justice than a citizen in the U.S. enjoys.

I once addressed a Kiwanis meeting and asked the listeners to respond to this question:  “Lincoln spoke of assuring that a government of the people, by the people and for the people should not perish from the earth. On a scale of zero to 100, to what degree do we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people?”

The average of the answers was 40%.  It seems pretty clear to anyone paying attention that antidemocratic forces in this country have the upper hand, and these forces look for ways to advantage their own special interest. An America with a vitalized democracy, I think, would put less stress on the individual’s responsibility in realizing the “American Dream” and, instead, put more stress on society’s responsibility.

America has had a long run now organizing itself politically by emphasizing that liberty for the individual should have first priority. Individual liberty, individual responsibility is part of the wilderness frontier mentality that still is very influential.

But no-one makes their own way. A good question:  Why Are We Rich? We are none of us rich simply by our own efforts or own merit. We are rich because of our connection to power within the system.

Individual liberty requires the support of an entire society. It depends on societal fairness. Only in a just society, a fair society, can there be liberty for all individuals — not just liberty for exceptional people. Only in a just society will the individual, generally speaking, have the financial resources to make the concept of liberty a meaningful reality.  Our big task as a nation is to become a more fair, a more just society.  Our hope, it seems to me, to get a system that works for everyone, is via a vitalized democracy. As I wrote, If We AreTo Have A Great Future, The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Must Be Democracy Itself

Share
This entry was posted in M Bock, Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Justice Is A Prerequisite For Liberty

  1. Robert Vigh says:

    Mike, you are a socialist.
    “But no-one makes their own way. A good question: Why Are We Rich? We are none of us rich simply by our own efforts or own merit. We are rich because of our connection to power within the system.”

    Justice to you will only be met when all people have identical wealth. Please go look up Entropy. Your version of Democracy is theft. It is hard to even post on your sight you are so anti-liberty.

  2. Stan Hirtle says:

    Robert Vigh, do you disagree with the statement you quote? Explain why. There are a lot of fantasies of individualism out there, but who succeeds in America today living in a cabin in the wilderness and hacking survival from the elements? Everyone builds on what is given them and in turn leaves it to others. The term “theft” can be simple but is often complex (when is there theft on the internet? Was the mortgage debacle and economic downturn theft and if so by whom?) and power based. Doesn’t liberty require a society in which some measure of order and security exist? Or is it some dog eat dog situation where everyone gets theirs at someone else’s expense? Calling Bock a socialist is like calling Obama a socialist. It just means there aren’t any real socialists around to give meaning to the term.

  3. Robert Vigh says:

    Stan,
    I will answer your questions: I strongly disagree with the quote. We live in a complex society, where base goods are made and people add value to those items. The structure of society is built and we have building blocks of goods that people re-invent, create, change, apply etc to add value. We also have new generation of goods and new creation of goods by people. That statement implies that no individual adds value, that it is simply their place in society that procures them wealth. When an individual can choose to spend 20 hours a week playing video games or 20 hours a week studying the mechanisms for improved windshield wipers, it is then his effort and merit that will contribute to society, not simply his place. When the individual chooses to spend time on labor as opposed to leisure, that is individual merit. Whereas Mike’s statement implies that individual choice meant nothing. That choice to work, to add value, to produce more etc. etc. is not individual merit. This is simply justification to steal from people who make individual choices to work more, harder or smarter.

  4. Stan Hirtle says:

    There is something to your first few sentences but they are not the whole picture. Success in America is a result of some combination of talent, hard work, good luck, and corruption. Furthermore production of goods is becoming less important than services, and also we have things like we saw in the mortgage and finance markets which were essentially Ponzi schemes, which add nothing like value but essentially fool people while being structurally fraudlent. Moreover whether people work is clearly a function of the structure of the economy. Here the finance industry is still overwhelmed with toxic assets and is withdrawing and not providing employers with what they need to hire people. We also have these supply and demand games with labor, which transfers wealth from workers to owners, more as a result of manipulating a political system that favors the wealthy than anything like value added. Similarly whether someone works as an investment banker or a minimum wage job is fast food is based on many factors of where you are plugged into the class structure, where your education happens and how much is passed on to you. Money can be made on productive activities, destructive activities or some mix. The vodeo games that you see as mostly wasteful are designed by some people and manufactured by others. Their contributions may be minimal. Other people who contribute a lot don’t get paid much. Where stealing happens in all that is a matter of debate.

  5. Eric says:

    Calling Bock a socialist is like calling Obama a socialist. It just means there aren’t any real socialists around to give meaning to the term.

    Now that makes me think…

    Q: What’s the difference between a real socialist and a progressive Democrat?

    A: The progressive Democrat agrees with everything the socialist says–unaware that the socialist is lying about that human rights stuff.

    BTW, Shouldn’t our high schoolers study the Stalin-orchestrated Ukrainian famine in addition to the Armenian genocide?

  6. Mike Bock says:

    Thanks for the discussion. I’ve been distracted. Today, I have a stress test.

    It’s a nice fantasy that the wealth we acquire is merited, that we are rugged individuals making our own way. It is this fantasy that fuels a lot of the anti-tax thinking.

    But we owe our wealth to many factors, and if we make a list of all of the reasons we have wealth, in order of most important to least, at the top of the list would be: 1) We live in America. Warren Buffet has made comments to that effect.

    I will stick to the comment above: “We are none of us rich simply by our own efforts or own merit. We are rich because of our connection to power within the system,” and emphasize the word, “simply.” I’m saying that effort / merit is somewhere down the list, even for the rare individuals like Gates or Buffet. I’m not saying that individual effort and merit have zero impact, just that individual effort and merit are far from the most important.

    Many people have wormed themselves into comfortable positions without much individual effort or merit. I am a retired teacher. My comments on “Why are we rich” is an abbreviation of thoughts from — an article I wrote over two years ago that analyzes why teachers in America make a good income. Yes, it takes some effort and merit to become certified as a teacher, and get and keep a teaching job. But check out what a teacher earns, say, in Ethiopia. Yes, it took some effort and merit to get and maintain a job at the old union based GM, or the old NCR — but the great wages and benefits of that passed time were not because of the effort and merit of individual workers. The whole article — you can read here — gives a more complete explanation of my point of view.

    We all live in a society and if society goes to hell, even the wealthy will not escape the wrath to come. It’s to everyone’s benefit that we have a stable, prosperous society in the same way that it is to everyone’s benefit that we have clean air and water and beautiful parks, a reliable national defense, etc. We need a system that somehow distributes wealth more evenly and that gives all citizens a prosperous and secure life. Reaganism doesn’t seem to be moving us in that direction, so what is the system that might succeed? How do we have a system where there is liberty and justice for all? If such a system is labeled “socialism,” what does it matter? My point is we need to be problem solvers, not ideologues.

    Robert you write, concerning my point of view, “Justice to you will only be met when all people have identical wealth,” but I’ve written nothing that supports that conclusion. Quite the opposite. I’ve repeated myself that I believe in the free market and entrepreneurial system and I think it’s great if someone can get rich in a responsible way. I do believe we need a society organized so that every citizen has more security and more economic freedom and liberty than tens of millions of citizens in our society presently have.

  7. Robert Vigh says:

    Mike, you are a socialist. You talk in circles and I have to admit at some point, I am way too busy working to address the nonsense that gets posted most days.

    The underlying idea that you never have the nerve to say is to forcibly take away from anyone with wealth and distribute that wealth until everyone is equal. Then what? Expect it to stay that way or force it to stay that way? You have no clue and no courage to just come out and say what you are. …..We need to find a better way to distribute wealth…..you mean steal.

    Rich is relative and those individuals with merit are always better off than their counterparts. Do you realize that up until about 1800, mans primary state was destitute and impoverished? That capitalism and hence freedom have increased the standard of living for a large portion of the world. That if continued it will continue to raise every single persons standard of living. You are an obstacle and would encourage the theft and seizure of every invention that would improve the lives of people.

    Eric, your answer is accurate, except maybe it should read “to ignorant to understand that human rights are mutually exclusive with what the socialist is spouting”.

    Stan, what topic are you trying to discuss? I dont think you understand economic value nor do I think you have a solid grasp on the mortgage crises. Stealing only happens when someone takes from another person. If each person is free to contract with another person, there is no stealing. However, we are not free to contract with your version of Democracy, they simply take. Supported and propagated by your own voice and vote, I could make a case that you are indeed a thief.

  8. Eric says:

    I dont think you understand economic value nor do I think you have a solid grasp on the mortgage crises.

    What do school owe students regarding financial literacy? Should Ohio say students need to understand contracts and buyer beware?

    I suspect we’ll all be better off if Stan’s advice is heeded, particularly if Robert’s answer is “schools should deliver what parents expect (and pay for).”

    Free market education poses a chicken and egg dilemma if one purpose of education is to prepare students to participate knowledgeably in free markets.

  9. Robert Vigh says:

    Eric,
    You are stuck on bringing everything back to public education. What advice does Stan give? I dont see any.

    What do schools owe students? I say nothing. If parents paid for school, then they should get exactly what they are paying for. But since everybody pays for it, I guess they are owed a hodge podge of crap.

    Chicken and egg, um … no, you are just wrong. What topic are you trying to discuss Eric?

  10. Eric says:

    bringing everything back to public education

    Now that you mention it, once or twice a decade we get the chance to examine what Ohio public school students should know and be able to do so they become financially literate model citizens.

    Now’s that time.

    But if you prefer squabbling and name calling, carry on:
    Libertarian: You, you socialist!
    Socialist: You, you libertarian!

    Just be assured that the left is better represented among the curriculum reviewers than the right–assuring the absence of your viewpoint. But then again, few if any parents are paying to hear your viewpoint, so I guess you don’t see a problem.

    Finally, if you don’t think parents who buy education for their kids (say, with vouchers or scholarships) need help with that major purchase, consider looking here.

  11. truddick says:

    Robert Vigh wrote:
    “Do you realize that up until about 1800, mans primary state was destitute and impoverished?”

    1) The primary state of most people alive today is destitute and impoverished.
    2) Using “man” to mean all of humankind is the mark of imprecise thinking.
    3) Even in western cultures, the state of most people was destitute and impoverished throughout most of the 19th century.

    Robert, you continue to show that you are self-abused with ethnocentrism and a badly flawed picture of human history. It’s also clear that you suffer from the sort of concrete operations style of thinking where everything is split into dichotomies (black-white, right-left, socialist-patriot) and your side is always correct regardless of evidence to the contrary.

    Our society would be better if you and those like you would educate yourselves far more thoroughly; how can you make good decisions about abstract economic theories or public welfare if you don’t even understand the prevalence of poverty in the world, both in the past and today?

  12. Jesse says:

    1) The primary state of most people alive today is destitute and impoverished. Sounds subjective, but lets compare history with today. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

    2) Using “man” to mean all of humankind is the mark of imprecise thinking?
    Hmmm….I thought that English was my first language and that it meant what Robert thought it did. Thanks for educating me….better change Wikipedia too though…”The term man (from Proto-Germanic *mannaz or *manwaz “man, person”) and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age. This is indeed the oldest usage of “man”. The word developed into Old English man, mann “human being, person,” (cf. also German Mann, Old Norse maðr, Gothic manna “man”). The native English term for an adult male was wer. The native English form of the “earthling” designation cognate to Latin homo was guma.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)

    3) Again, pretty subjective, but lets see if I can compare life for the average person in various times throughout history. Oh wait, again, Wikipedia to the rescue. Since the world has been more industrialized, the world is healthier. Bronze age…18. Classical Greece…20-30. Medieval Britian…20-30. Early 20th Century…30-45. Current world average…66.57.

    (Talk about a hockey stick…hahaha, sorry, Global Warming joke…just like the “research” that produced that result…too bad for Mann.) Looks like Robert might have been right in his statement, especially if he was being ethnocentric and indicating that in industrialized countries, in the 1800’s life was greatly improved by the advances made. “During the Industrial Revolution, the life expectancy of children increased dramatically. The percentage of children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730-1749 to 31.8% in 1810-1829.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

    Truddick…this is fun…keep it up.

  13. Eric says:

    Our society would be better if you and those like you would educate yourselves far more thoroughly…

    Dear Dr. Ruddick,
    Can you suggest any concrete actions public school teachers might take to remedy the lack of education you’ve noted?
    Will your colleagues be reviewing Governor Strickland’s “improved” social studies curriculum? No doubt others would be interested in the improvements in store for Ohio’s school children.

  14. Jesse says:

    To the moderator: Is there a reason that you are no longer letting my posts through?

  15. Jesse says:

    Okay…now that it appears that my posts are getting through again.

    1) “Man’s primary state today is destitute and impoverished.” While this is a subjective thought, lets see what we can find to prove or disprove its sentiment. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html …. hmmm…looks like the world is flattening out. People the world over are becoming more productive and more wealthy.

    2) “Using man to mean all of humankind is the mark of imprecise thinking.” Hmmm…I thought that my first language was English and I thought that “man was used correctly there. Lets see: “The term man (from Proto-Germanic *mannaz or *manwaz “man, person”) and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age. This is indeed the oldest usage of “man”. The word developed into Old English man, mann “human being, person,” (cf. also German Mann, Old Norse maðr, Gothic manna “man”). The native English term for an adult male was wer. The native English form of the “earthling” designation cognate to Latin homo was guma.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)

    3) “Even in western cultures, the state of most people was destitute and impoverished throughout most of the 19th century.” Lets again review this subjective language.

    Life Expectancy:
    Bronze Age 18
    Classical Greece 20-30
    Classical Rome 20-30
    Medieval Britain 20-30
    Early 20th Century 30-45
    Current world average 66.57

    Looks like up until the industrial revolution people were destitute and unhealthy. Post industrial revolution people got less destitute and unhealthy.

    Lets assume that Robert is a raging ethnocentrist: Does that mean that he was indicating that in industrialized countries (Western) we see massive improvement. Lets verify: “During the Industrial Revolution, the life expectancy of children increased dramatically. The percentage of children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730-1749 to 31.8% in 1810-1829.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

    This is fun…keep it up.

  16. Mike Bock says:

    Jesse — Thank’s for alerting me. I hadn’t noticed that, for some reason I don’t understand, WordPress put your comment into “moderation.”

  17. Jesse says:

    Mike,

    Thanks for the follow-up.

    FYI: It has happened on three other posts but it isn’t even telling me that they are being reviewed; it has apparently just deleted them.

    Kindest Regards,

    Jesse

  18. Eric says:

    Jesse,
    Be advised to save your work before submitting comments to this blog. It’s impressively unfriendly. Although your frustrations aren’t identical to mine, I’ve experienced posting failures here as well.

  19. Mike Bock says:

    Jesse — Thanks for alerting me to keep looking. I found two of your previous posts that had been put in the “Spam” folder. Sorry. You are providing a lot of links, which I think is great, but maybe that is what the system is keying on. I will be more alert to administer the “Comments” more carefully.

    Eric, you must be referring to the fact that, some time ago, I did inadvertently erase an extended comment made by you — the only time I’ve had such a disaster — and I did apologize at the time.

  20. Jesse says:

    Mike,

    Thanks so much for the effort. No hard feelings at all. I just wanted to know if I was being blocked because I had been overly theatrical in my responses. I have a tendency toward the melodramatic. I would surely have apologized and taken my rants elsewhere.

    Everyone,

    Please know that I recreated the original post thinking that it had been deleted.

  21. Robert Angus says:

    Mike,

    I’ll begin by quoting you:

    “We have liberty to freely travel, for example, but without money to pay for traveling expenses such liberty is useless.”

    From where would you like this money to come? Do we allow citizens to become wealthy and pay for their traveling expenses, or do we subsidize travel and have the efforts of many pay for traveling expenses for everybody? A government employing restrictions and safety nets does not make its citizens wealthy.

    In replies, you also wrote:

    “I’ve repeated myself that I believe in the free market and entrepreneurial system and I think it’s great if someone can get rich in a responsible way. I do believe we need a society organized so that every citizen has more security and more economic freedom and liberty than tens of millions of citizens in our society presently have.”

    It would seem that you believe in the free market and entrepreneurial system only so long as there are safety nets to stop us from falling too far, and ceilings to stop us from rising too high. As you’ve said, you don’t want all people to have identical wealth. If that’s the case, where do we draw the line? Where do we place the nets, and where do we place the ceilings?

    Answers to those two questions will vary between people who feel the same way as you do about “economic freedom”. Whether you want to coerce citizens only mildly or attempt to adopt a Sweden-esque social democracy system entirely, there’s little difference. I believe that to begin drawing the line at all only demonstrates an absence of belief in free market principles.

  22. Mike Bock says:

    Robert, you write, “As you’ve said, you don’t want all people to have identical wealth. If that’s the case, where do we draw the line? Where do we place the nets, and where do we place the ceilings? … I believe that to begin drawing the line at all only demonstrates an absence of belief in free market principles.”

    I disagree that putting limits on the free market, “demonstrates an absence of belief in free market principles.” Quite the opposite. It demonstrates a belief that the free market is a great force of nature — like electricity, or nuclear power — and that this force must be channeled to its most productive use. It’s a recognition that the great potential power of the free market must be conserved and directed toward producing good results.

    A democratic society is free to organize itself and, in fact, has an obligation to organize itself so that it can best accomplish its mission and purpose. We confirm on a regular basis that the mission of our country is all about providing “liberty and justice for all.” The question is, what is the societal organizational structure, what is the system, that could best accomplish this mission? Of course it makes sense to use the natural power of the free market to help accomplish this mission. The question is, how can this power be best directed?

    I don’t think you can make a convincing argument that the best way for a society to accomplish its mission of “liberty and justice for all” is via a version of capitalism and free market that is unrestrained, unregulated — anymore than you could make a convincing argument that the best way to benefit from the power of electricity to leave the power of electricity undirected or uncontrolled.

    Unrestrained capitalism has a track record that shows its tendency to create “robber barons,” child labor, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions, environmental degradation, slave wages. Unrestrained capitalism might give liberty to the few who have sufficient capital, but, historically, it has failed to be a good strategy to bring “liberty and justice for all.”

    Our challenge is to make our system work more effectively. The great challenge of our time is the challenge of unused potential. Our system is severely underperforming. We have huge undeveloped resources. We have talented and ambitious people ready to work, we have big advances in technology. We should have a future where all citizens can enjoy a good life and feel secure about their future and their children’s future.

    The question of how to make our system work to accomplish its mission — “liberty and justice for all” — is a matter of problem solving. I think your question — “Where do we place the nets, and where do we place the ceilings?” — is too narrow. We need a bigger view, a systems’ view. I don’t have a specific solution in mind.

    Our democracy right now is so weak it seems incapable of problem solving. That’s why I believe, If We AreTo Have A Great Future, The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Must Be Democracy Itself The question is, how do we get our system to work to unlock its great potential? How do we get our system to put more wealth into the hands of ordinary citizens? This is a matter for problem solving, not for idealogy.

  23. Jesse says:

    Mike,

    Why don’t you ever engage me like that? I wanna play too.

    “free market”
    –noun
    A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sells are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

    In financial markets, free market stocks are securities that are widely traded and whose prices are not affected by availability.

    In foreign-exchange markets, it is a market where exchange rates are not pegged (by government) and thus rise and fall freely though supply and demand for currency.*

    Here come the arguments: :)

    1a) Human beings are not electricity and/or nuclear power. Nor are the decisions that human beings make “natural” and in the need of some intelligent superman (in the form of government) to harness. Human beings are able to decide for themselves. Human beings think. “Nature” and “natural things” do not poses the ability to discern. Therefore, those things that do not think, have no right to not be “dominated” by something else. Humans on the other hand, do have a negative right to not be dominated.

    1b) The only way that human beings and the capital that they create can be “directed” to the most productive (i.e. “good”) results is the ability to choose freely from any number of potential options. When you begin to limit the options, you necessarily harm people who, without your imposition, would be better off. The other huge problem, which I have posted on this site repeatedly, is the economic calculation problem. Without an unfettered market, the price and value of ALL goods and services is skewed. Because you unnecessarily incentivize some behaviors, the amount of attention, effort and capital spent in these areas is greatly enhanced. Because of the reality of the world and the way that it interacts with time (opportunity cost), this causes a scarcity in attention, effort and capital in areas that are more important and more productive.

    2) You and others continue to state that a good case cannot be made for pure capitalism. I think I have made continued, well thought-out and structured arguments and am marginalized because of that effort. While I am not bitter about this (maybe I am subconsciously as I am posting this), it does seem to indicate that people aren’t really reading my posts, aren’t understanding them, or just think that I am making stuff up. I try to be the most liberal with the use of citations to ensure that people see that I am not making stuff up….yet nobody seems to offer situations that are a demonstration that capitalism doesn’t work. People seem to name situations in which capitalism is short-circuited by government intervention or part of man’s natural struggle against death but not any that are the fault of capitalism.

    Most of the ones that are directed at pure capitalism are based on comparing life in a coal mine in 1870 vs todays standard or an idealized version of agrarian life from some mythical period from some mythical land. Your use of the examples of ‘“robber barons,” child labor, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions, environmental degradation, slave wages’ are wonderful examples of this.

    I will address each one of these below. But I want to give an example as to how capitalism works. Because you asked for it.

    Lets be clear…the cost of continually killing your workers is high. If I own a mine and you own a mine. Both of our mines are dirty and dark places and employ 1000 people and pay $0.50 an hour. The first year both of us kill 100 people in the mines.

    You think, “I should really provide a safer workplace because God loves people and I should too (or damn…there is a market for a safer workplace).” You spend 100 dollars on additional bracing, hoping to lessen the number of casualties. People, without the work, are going to starve >10% of the time, therefore the 10% chance is still reasonable and they show up to work. Please note…they are choosing 10% chance of death over >10% chance of death.

    I spend no money on improvements and the next year people expect higher pay or they aren’t coming back to work, because they know they have a one in ten chance of death. Or we will even use the favorable argument for you, though in free market capitalism it isn’t possible for this to be true. People, without the work, are going to starve >10% of the time, therefore the 10% chance is still reasonable and they show up to work. Please note…they are choosing 10% chance of death over >10% chance of death.

    Both of us still pay $0.50.

    That year I lost 100 people of my thousand and you only lost 70 of yours. This is amazing. You have spent (invested) an additional $100 and witnessed a wonderful thing. You have killed less people. My training costs continue to be high and my productivity worse because we are digging more people out and having to train new people all the time. You on the other hand are much more productive. Less time digging up bodies and training and more time mining.

    This does two things. One…your increased productivity allows you to pay more for your workers. You don’t have to if the market isn’t in equilibrium, you can pocket it as profit. Which is great…because you have made profit you can invest more to keep people alive. (Again your decision can be based on your wonderful Christian heritage or your dastardly desire for ever increasing profits). That year you decide to invest an additional $100 in masks so people get sick less and miss less work. Two…it pressures your competitor to do the same or his best people will want to come work for you.

    Beginning of the next year. I am paying an average of $0.52 now because all of my good workers want to be safe and you provide more safety, bastard. You are still paying $0.50 but people think it is a wash because they are safer at your place.

    Again, your increases in productivity are amazing. Not only are deaths at only 60 for the year…because you had less inexperienced people causing accidents…also, people aren’t missing work and are feeling better while they are working. Wow…God has blessed you for your good deeds.

    Needless to say…I can keep going but…as evidenced in the past…people stopped reading long ago.

    So the question is: Did capitalism create Robber Barons? See the link: http://mises.org/daily/2317 …Okay…one down.

    Did capitalism lead to child labor and is it a bad thing? See the link: http://mises.org/media/3536

    How about unsafe and unhealthy work conditions? Lets just think this through. Why would people leave Utopian agrarian lives and choose to work in Hell?

    Environmental degradation? Come on…Which nations are the most environmentally degraded? All of them are more command economies than free. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacksmith_Institute

    This doesn’t even take into account that pollution per production is WAY higher in controlled economies than in free economies. Keep in mind that pollution is waste…capitalism, by its nature, tries to avoid waste as it is a cost without a benefit.

    Slave wages? Evidence of this is where? Lets compare deaths due to starvation in more free and less free countries. Lets compare ability to change jobs and social standing in more free and less free countries. I am not putting up the links because I don’t want it to get stuck again. Ask if you want them and will read them.

    If you are making a case against a thing you are supposed to offer the evidence against said thing.

    I have tried to make a case against control. If you misunderstand me as an ideologue and not a problem solver then let me be clear. There is evidence that supports the theories, problem solving while not reviewing evidence and theory is just not possible. Problem solved. :)

    *http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+market

  24. Mike Bock says:

    Jessee, I had to laugh when I read your lament, “Needless to say…I can keep going but…as evidenced in the past…people stopped reading long ago.” Anyone who ever writes eventually has that same feeling. Know that I am faithful to read all the posts and check all the links of everyone who comments at this site, and I’ve appreciated your commenting and sharing a lot of good links. I’d like to know more about the Ludwig von Mises Institute — who is paying their bills etc.

    I’ve been trying to understand your point of view, but can’t quite see it yet. You seem to be saying that you would like to see pure capitalism. But the idea that the U.S. would suddenly move to pure capitalism seems too far fetched as to make your vision impossible. I doubt that you seriously entertain the possibility. More reasonably, what you and the von Mises Institute probably really want is to prevent further movement in the U.S. toward progressive actions — “let’s not have health care legislation, for example, because it offends the ideal.” I see your POV as the engine of “No,” not as a basis for real life solution, because I see no sense of compromise in what you are saying.

    I, for one, believe that free market principles should be used as a means for developing and sustaining a much improved system of public education. But, yes, we will still need a system of coercive taxes in order to raise the funds needed for the system. We will still need an active and effective government to serve as referee and watch-dog of the system, protecting and advancing the “common good.”

    To take a purist view, as you seem to be suggesting, and suggest that quality public education will somehow simply arise, if pure market forces and unrestrained capitalism is allowed to work, I hope you will agree is unreasonable. In reforming public education and in most challenges, a problem solving approach is centered on practicality, on the application of theory, not on the celebration of ideology.

    How do we design a system that will actually work — to produce “liberty and justice for all” — is the central question. My conclusion is that justice is a prerequisite to liberty. And justice, unlike self-interest, is not a natural resource that needs to be positively channeled. Justice happens because and only because it finds context and value within a society. Justice happens within a community. Our democratic society has the capacity to solve problems, the capacity to bring justice to reality. We should be jealous that Sweden’s democracy is working so much better than our own. We should not see Sweden’s democracy somehow as an affront to our ideals. Our ideal is best summarized in the phrase, “liberty and justice for all,” not, “capitalism and the free market for all.” We need to find what works.

    In discussions, what is missing, generally, is a commitment to listen to each other. LBJ quoted the Bible, probably inappropriately, but he had a great phrase he liked to quote, “Come now, and let us reason together.”

    It’s a great challenge. Reasoning together requires a commitment to listen to each other and to continually check the assumptions of one’s own point of view based on more complete evidence and more enlightened insight. Reasoning together requires an attitude of humility that is all too lacking in most venues. And I check myself often, but probably not enough.

    Young people, especially, have very few examples of reasoned deliberation. Practice in reasoned deliberation should be a central goal of civic education, but our system of public education has generally abandoned higher order reasoning as a universal goal.

    I would like to create some learning groups who would have as their goal LBJ’s Bible verse.

  25. Robert Vigh says:

    Mike Says: Everyone should drink Cyanide
    Jesse Says: Everyone should choose to drink milk.
    Mike Says: Lets reason together and compromise, mix them together and drink deeply
    Jesse Says: NO
    Mike: You are the engine of no. You are not an enlightened reasoner working with practical application.

    To argue the purist idealogical view, especially with the precision, references and logic that Jesse implores is excellent and realistic as he has set forth. Because it can so effectively be argued that purist view is the best approach, then it can be reasoned that every step we choose should be closer to that view, not further away from it.

    Absolutely stop “Progressive” actions, because they are progressing us towards the dung heap. Progressives cannot lay out a destination or a goal of their progressive attitudes other than…………..via magic, everyone will have justice when we take as we see fit and distribute as we see fit.

    Mike, Jesse lays out clear examples and references as counter points to your arguments. Your response is “Look at Sweden”.

    Because comparing a primarily homogeneous population of 9m to a melting pot of 310m makes sense. Besides, you have not even mentioned what you find great about Sweden. Maybe you can find it here :
    http://cva.stanford.edu/people/davidbbs/swedish_facts.html

    Or here:
    http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sw-sweden/peo-people

    Our public education has abandoned higher order reasoning because it is government run. Keeping people stupid, or teaching them to civilly mix their milk and cyanide is the best way to destroy freedom and the justice that h

  26. Jesse says:

    Robert,

    Thanks… couldn’t have said it better myself.

    I hope that I can continue to be the engine of “NO!!!!” I would like also to become the engine of “STOP” and “My God, what are you doing?” as well.

    Mike,

    I appreciate your candor…I hate to tell you that you couldn’t be more wrong.

    While I agree that the chances of the US moving toward the ideal is negligible (because in a democracy I would have to convince at least 51% of you that I shouldn’t be your slave) it is exactly what I want.

    I would love for this country (any country) to decide to allow its individuals to associate freely and behave in their own best interests. I would love for you and people who think like you to associate and engage in that which is your hearts desire. EX…all of us will pool our money and create schools….all of us will pool our money and have libraries…all of us will pool our money and support the arts.

    I want that as long as you don’t force me to do the same. I don’t want to force you to believe as I believe. I really couldn’t care less, except that you have a weapon pointed at me. Point your weapon elsewhere and I will never again engage you about what I see as your folly. As long as your weapon is aimed at me, I will plead my case. I am a free man…I will absolutely not compromise with you and become anything less. Chugga, Chugga, Chugga….I am the little engine that could…say “NO!!!” I will continue to do so until I am no longer allowed….then I will say it louder.

  27. Gary Staiger says:

    Jesse,
    My take on Totally “free markets” is that they do not work, despite the claims of its advocates.I will give one outstanding example: Witness the devastation of the mountains of W Virginia by the coal companies with their mountain top mining practices. Pittson and it subsidiaries [and others] have devastated entire mountain ranges with this technique. It was only after a long struggle against the coal companies that the Reclamation act was passed to restore the damage done.Even today the coal companies lag far behind in making repairs to the mountains.
    As you said, I could go on and on with examples like this but I wont.

    There is no such thing as “pure Capitalism”, that is a fantasy.

    You go right ahead being the one who says “no” and you and your ilk will be left behind in the dustbin of history

  28. Robert Vigh says:

    Gary,

    What damage was caused? You do not even provide the first example, let alone additional ones. Learn to read, your worthless comment has already been addressed with thought.

    You and your ilk. Go drink some Cyanide brainiac.

  29. Jesse says:

    Gary,

    http://mises.org/media/3530?silverlight=0

    That one is easy. Again, you can’t use totally “free markets” like the USA because we don’t have totally “free markets” with regard to this or any other market in the USA.

    The fact of the matter is that the government has traditionally done a bad job of upholding the rights of individuals who are harmed by strip mining. This was done because strip miners, railroads, etc. donated to and support the government at a greater rate than the poor could. Again, I want capitalism with the respect of negative rights. This includes the right to property that isn’t harmed by the actions of another. Therefore, if a strip miner caused damage on your land because of deforestation at a higher elevation, you should receive complete remuneration. In the system you all seem to want and other more “enlightened” ones, governments weigh the benefit to society provided by access to coal, transport, commerce vs individual rights. In a free society individual rights are paramount. In your society we must compromise.

    :) That was a fun one though…keep trying.

  30. Rick says:

    Gary, W. Virginia is too mountainous. If the mining companies keep at it, it will look just like beautiful Ohio!

  31. Eric says:

    W. Virginia is too mountainous.

    Especially if you want a tourist industry. Tourists (the ones with money, anyways) play golf. How do you golf with a water hazard that drains into the Ohio River?

    But lop off that mountaintop and there you are! Great golfing! Great view! West Virginia!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *