[ExI] Usages of the term libertarianism

[Kelly Anderson]

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Richard Loosemore <rpwl at lightlink.com> wrote:
> Kelly Anderson wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I haven't noticed much Socialism in the US.
>>
>> Really? That's pretty funny.
>
> I'm puzzled as to why you find it funny.  I have lived on both continents,
> and I can assure you that BillK is just saying something that is considered
> common knowlege in the rest of the world (i.e. the fact that there is almost
> no socialism in the U.S.).  The only group of people who find this difficult
> to understand are U.S. right wingers.

Gee, I spend a good portion of my life with the government examining
my every move. It feels like socialism to me. If not economically,
then in the social engineering aspect, it is way too social for me.

Yes, I understand that Europe is even worse. Singapore is economically
more free, but not socially.

I haven't lived in Europe, and from the sounds of it, I would not
enjoy it one bit.

> I would guess that roughly 70% of all Democrat politicians in the U.S. would
> could as significantly right of center in most European countries.

That's Europe's problem. Roughly 98% of all the politicians in the
U.S. today would be regarded as completely insane by the founding
fathers. Thomas Jefferson would be a leader in the tea party. Oh yeah,
he was! The tyranny imposed upon us now is ten times worse now than
what England did to us in the 1770s.

> Also, the word "socialism" has completely different meanings on the two
> sides of the Atlantic.  In the U.S. it is roughly equivalent to the meaning
> of "soviet communism" in Europe.  The term "socialism", in Europe, means
> something like "believing that government has the responsibility to look
> after the interests of the weaker members of society".

I mean the second. The government currently seems to think I am a
"weaker" member of our society because of some really poor decisions
on the part of my ex-wife. I get a lot of their love and attention,
and I'm sick and tired of it.

>>> >From a European POV the so-called US lefties are considered to be
>>> rabid right wingers.   ;)
>>
>> I can't help that most European countries are more rapidly suicidal
>> than America.
>
> Content-free comment, I assume.

Greece.

>>> My view is that unregulated corporatism has bought up the government
>>> and looted the US economy.
>>
>> One of the bigger problems with the US right now is that the corporate
>> tax rate is so high that they don't collect many of the taxes to which
>> they are properly due. This is because they drive the corporations
>> overseas. It is a big problem.
>
> Factually incorrect.  The corporate tax rate is a meaningless number because
> there are so many tax breaks specially designed to get around it, that most
> corporations actually pay an amount of tax that is far less than the rate
> that middle class American individuals pay.

They also provide the middle class Americans with the money they use
to pay their taxes. So it is a double taxation system.

> The tax rate does not drive companies overseas, corporate greed drives
> companies overseas.

Looking after the bottom line is not greed, it is fiduciary
responsibility. If America wants to play in the Global Sandbox, they
have to play nice. As long as there are governments that are less
oppressive, you'll end up chasing business out of America. Why do you
suppose so much manufacturing has gone to China? It's not all about
wages, as many think. It's also about liability, EPA rules, tax policy
and regulation in general.

>>> The problem with creating a wealth pyramid where the top .1% own
>>> almost everything is that when wealth is so concentrated, the consumer
>>> economy game stops.
>>
>> Bill, what country in the history of the world most closely
>> approximates your view of economic utopia?
>>
>> For me, it's pretty easy.. American or England in 1800... Of course my
>> utopia would not have slavery.
>
> At that time, children of poor families were sent down mines at the age of 8
> or 9 years, to work for 12-18 hours a day.  Or sent into factories for the
> same hours.  Your parentetical remark "...Of course my utopia would not have
> slavery" is just funny in spades, since without the child labor, the
> servants and the slaves, that period would not have been a utopia for the
> rich.

I have no problem with child labor for developing countries. When you
make child labor illegal, you get starving children. How many years
have you spent living in third world countries? Which countries were
those? If you haven't been there, done that, lived with them, you
haven't a clue how things work when you're REALLY poor.

I don't look at early American history as a utopia for the rich,
though it may have been in some cases. I look at it as a utopia for
anyone wishing to get ahead. Legions of (legal) immigrants came in
wave after wave and built lives of worth and value through hard work.
It generally took three generations to get to the American Dream, but
they got there in DROVES.

My ancestors largely came from England, and went immediately to the
American West where they eked out an existence that enabled their
grand children to go to college. People in Haiti are poor from
generation to generation and are never able to climb out because Haiti
is not the land of opportunity.

> The fact that you would quote that period as an economic utopia speaks
> volumes about your knowledge of history and ability to apply that knowledge
> to real world systems.

I would put my knowledge of history against yours any day. From 1780
to 1820 in England our modern world was forged. Was there child labor?
YOU BET there was! It was a necessary evil of the time. Now that we
have benefited from that, we begrudge countries that are behind us in
the economic timeline the opportunity to do the things that got us
here. We don't want to allow Africa to develop fossil fuel based
economies, but that's just not fair, because that is how we got there.
Most places that employ children now will not need to do so in the
future, but give them the ability to do the things we did in the past
to get here. I know it is a great evil, but starving children is
worse. Keeping those countries down is criminal. It is a crime of the
international community, aided and abetted by dictators who rape the
poor countries of everything they manage to scrape together or beg
from the first world. It's a shame!

-Kelly