Democrats have left moderate voters behind
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
I think you can fit positive liberties within def. 2.
I consider the debate here one of semantics (in the petty definition). You can rewrite these concepts as "the ability to do X" or "the ability to not be constrained from doing X by an authority." Each is battling for ownership of the word "liberty" or "freedom" because it has cultural cache and is really easy to use in some cool, pithy sayings, like the one you quoted. But it's the ideas that matter and the justifications and reasons behind them, I think that are more interesting to think about.
You mention Taylor. Have you read him? Are you interested in philosophy? It looks like Isaiah Berlin did an in-depth analysis of this in Two Concepts of Liberty:
I've never read him, although I've always been meaning to. Looks interesting.
I think we also need to get over our obsession with economic aggregates and means.
If GDP increases, but the majority of people are worse off, is that a good thing? I don't think so.
I’ve only read excerpts.
Taylor is the one who really fleshed out this stupid notion that liberty is dependent upon having a welfare state….which ends up in the absurd logical dead-end that one man having liberty requires another man to be deprived of his property.
But, yes, I agree with you that everybody wants to lay claim to the term. Because…who in their right mind would oppose liberty?
The truth is that liberty and equality hang on opposite sides of the scale. You can’t have one without reducing the other.
That’s just it…the majority of people won’t be worse off.
Inequality is a relative measure. Our Gini is roughly equivalent to Ghana’s. Our Gini is significantly higher than Tajikistan’s.
Where would you rather be middle class: high inequality US or low inequality Tajikistan?
You’re making the common mistake: that a handful of people getting fabulously wealthy and thus driving up the relative measure of inequality of income or wealth necessarily means that most people are worse off in absolute terms.
Nnnnnope.
I always loved these two quotes about the inherent tension between liberty and equality:
"There is in fact a manly and legitimate passion for equality that spurs all men to wish to be strong and esteemed. This passion tends to elevate the lesser to the rank of the greater. But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom." ~ Alexis de Tocqueville
"Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies." ~ Will Durant
Araby was tremendously well written leaving me with only an urge (probably misguided) to read more.
Anyone that hasn’t seen The Godfather shouldn’t be allowed to post about movies.
TE4756, putting aside the current popularity of the Socialist Party, what do polls show today about how Americans feel about the terms "socialism" and "capitalism"?
This Pew poll found ....
Consistent with the wide partisan differences in opinions of socialism and capitalism, Republicans and Democrats characterize the terms in very different ways. For example, Republicans widely think socialism “restricts people’s individual freedoms” – 62% say this describes socialism extremely or very well, compared with 19% of Democrats. Democrats, by contrast, are far more likely than Republicans to say socialism meets people’s basic needs (56% extremely or very well vs. 19% of Republicans).
Contrary to what the Pew poll discovered about how the American people describe socialism and capitalism, my definition of the labels is entirely different. I think in terms of ownership with socialism calling for government ownership of the means of production and services along with a government planned economy. In contrast capitalism is about private ownership and free enterprise.
In my view the debate between Democrats and Republicans isn't about ownership. It is more about the extent of government social welfare programs in the economy and our private lives such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Also how far the government should go in protecting the interests of consumers and workers. Finally, there is our federalism and whether governments at the state or federal level should prevail in setting laws which would include such hot topics as abortion, education, and crime.
Last edited:
With all due respect, @larsIU, you have a lot of misguided urges.
Been debating that question for 30 years now. I've landed on GF 1 and 2 are tied. Makes no sense trying to rank them.
Liberty and Equity are the opposite ends. Isn’t equality before a judge a key tenet of liberty.
As with the word liberty, equality can mean a lot of things. You have to drill down on how a person is using it.
For example, the phrase "all men are created equal" is either aspirational, religious doctrine, or certainly false, depending on how literally and in what context you want to interpret the phrase.
Well, I don't agree with you that liberty can mean a lot of things. But I do agree with you that lots of people want to lay claim to it -- and as such have tried to create new meanings for it. I'll dance that far with you on that.
And I fully agree that equality can mean different things in different contexts. I'm talking about substantive equality -- that is, equality of outcome (as opposed to formal equality, or equality of opportunity) -- most especially in the context of equality of economic outcomes (but also social).
The more equality (and, thus, less inequality) of outcome a society wants, the more its citizens must surrender their individual liberty. Another good quote, this one recognizing the distinction between the desirable formal equality and the undesirable substantive equality that comes at the cost of liberty:
“Equality of the general rules of law and conduct is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty and the only equality which we can secure without destroying liberty.” -- Friedrich Hayek
As much as I'd like to take the credit, the concept of liberty and equality hanging in a balance isn't something I came up with.You're talking about formal equality: equal rights, equal treatment under the law, etc. Not only is this not deleterious to liberty, it's predicated on it.
The equality that requires the deprivation of liberty is substantive equality. I have some links in the above post describing these two terms.
I disagree with this formulation of liberty. Formal quality also requires some deprivation of liberty. Namely, if we agree that we all have equal rights, and equal access to legal recourse to protect those rights, then we also all implicitly agree that we will restrict our liberty to carry out actions which would deprive others of those same rights.
While I think that trade is a desirable one, and in fact is the very foundation of the social contract, I think it is wordplay - dishonest wordplay, at that - to claim that this somehow doesn't qualify as an infringement upon liberty.
I guess I don't see my right to swing my fists ending at the bridge of your nose as a deprivation of my liberty. I suppose one could characterize it that way. But it doesn't really have much bearing on what Durant, Tocqueville, and Hayek were saying in the quotes I've cited -- especially the Hayek quote that recognizes the distinction between substantive and formal equality.
Hayek only says that this sort of equality -- that of general rules of law and conduct -- is "conducive to liberty"....as opposed to the substantive equality that isn't. I suppose that's different than saying that the former kind of equality involves no deprivation of liberty at all. Merely that it's conducive.
Anyway, the point is that a social paradigm aimed at increasing substantive equality (equality of outcome) must necessarily come at the expense of individual liberty. If formal equality requires this too, it isn't of any real consequence. It doesn't cost me anything for you to have access to the same rights, privileges, and protections that I do.
I agree it's a difference in characterization, but I don't think it's meaningless. I think it's meaningful simply because it reminds that we all are balancing liberty and equality, and really disagreeing on where exactly to find that balance.
My twenty year old nieces and their husband/significant others are in a quantifiably worse position than I was at when I was their age. As an adult we can buy more trinkets and cheap baubles but making the major purchases of things that are true measuring sticks is more difficult now, particularly for young adults.
The problem with unfettered capitalism and with Libertarianism in general is that is assumes that people are of a certain level of morality (they aren't) and that the systems will work themselves out to keep things equal (they don't). The reason they don't is because people aren't by nature "good" or "benevolent". The wealth of a few billionaires becomes problematic when they game the system to their benefit, always. When they lose? Socialize those losses. We're too big to fail. If we go down look at all the people who stand to lose. If they win? That is on them. They are so smart and industrious that they deserve to keep the fruits of their labor and they shouldn't be forced to share that which they do not with most other people. And when they maximize productivity and don't trend pay with that productivity line it is because workers are "stupid" and so we need to bring in "smart" workers from countries who will coincidentally accept far less pay than domestic labor for the same jobs.
I don't have a problem with the concept of billionaires. I think my issue is that the most well known (and politically active) billionaires have gotten that way by being monopolistic, rent seeking, self centered twats who have weaponized their good fortune against people much less well off.
The problem isn’t unfettered capitalism. The issue is fiat money and a debt based system. We’ve never had capitalism, especially the past 50 years. Also, your thought process is just going to end up with a European model, which is much worse than the current system.
Last edited:
I agree. I would add: the premise in his argument is one of fairness/justice. Those become circular pretty quickly. As you just pointed out.
Given our system of government, and our propensity to vote for our own best interests, it is impossible for the top .01% to achieve unfettered capitalism, unless they lie, cheat, or steal.
Given that the ability of an individual to participate in any market is based solely on the amount of money they have relative to others, it is necessarily the case that tax cuts that lead to a higher amount of net dollars to one person over another person is in fact deleterious to the person receiving the smaller amount. Even if both individuals receive a positive amount.
Anyone who says otherwise is lying, or parroting a lie. This has been happening for decades. It’s quite possible that your nieces are competing in a market against people that own twenty houses. Anecdotally, as you mentioned, this is a relatively new and worsening phenomenon. But it's not a coincidence, and once again, Peter is not so innocent.
I don’t agree with much of this.
Let’s start with the notion of capitalism. Unfettered capitalism is the best way forward and should not be condemned. The problem is when people blame capitalism for economic dysfunction that capitalism has nothing to do with. The sudden rise of hedge-fund billionaires is not the product of capitalism. The increase of the national debt by more than 10,000 billion is not the fault of capitalism. That enormous amount of money went somewhere, and it didn’t go to the people like your nieces. We have a huge government problem that was made clear by the Inflation Reduction Act boondoggle— and we haven’t even spent all the money authorized in that horrible legislation.
I agree there are people who will try to manipulate capitalism through collusion and monopolistic efforts. Neither of those are capitalism. The government protects and furthers capitalism by legislating against those problems.
I agree there is an imbalance in the labor force compensation. Sean O’Brien explained this very well at the RNC. By the way, Trump gets huge props for personally allowing O’Brien to speak without GOP censors telling him what to say. That’s way better than the DNC. Part of the labor problem is baked into our economy by the social devaluation of male workers who have no college degree—the “bitter clingers.” Can anybody explain the Democrats obsession with forgiving college student loans while not giving a penny in relief to non-college workers? That policy doesn’t make a lick of sense, yet it is such a powerful leftist trope that they actually campaign on it. During the pandemic, the Democrats called those who showed up to work to keep the goods moving heroes, then the same Democrats kicked all of them to the curb. Do you wanna fix the labor problem throughout the economy? Start a PR campaign that will raise its value.
The influence peddling, rent seeking, and other privileged classes are a problem. As the Biden family demonstrates, that is legal, and corrupt. We have a system of legalized corruption. This is a tough nut to crack. I am encouraged by the recognition of this problem that is bubbling up here and there. Maybe we can finally begin to address it.
Last edited:
I don’t think we can or even should attempt to legislate fairness and justice. (Fair share tax policy is stupid on its face ). If we can encourage more economic freedom and competitiveness, which includes eliminating DEI, and other discrimination against minorities in education and employment, and get serious about rent seekers and influence peddling, fairness and justice will take care of itself. But it willl take at least a generation.
Craze, here is an interesting article about how billionaires become billionaires along with the industries in which they used to build their fortunes.
Here are the the top 10 biggest industries for billionaires in 2024:
DATA IS AS OF MARCH 8, 2024
1. Finance & Investments
427 billionaires | 15% of list
Richest: Warren Buffett ($133 billion), chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.2. Technology
342 billionaires | 12% of list
Richest: Jeff Bezos ($194 billion), founder of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post and rocket company Blue Origin.3. Manufacturing
328 billionaires | 12% of list
Richest: Reinhold Wuerth & family ($33.6 billion), chairman of screw and fastener maker Wuerth Group.4. Fashion & Retail
285 billionaires | 10% of list
Richest: Bernard Arnault & family ($233 billion), chairman and CEO of luxury goods company LVMH and the world’s richest person.5. Food & Beverage
210 billionaires | 8% of list
Richest: Zhong Shanshan ($62.3 billion), chairman of bottled water company Nongfu Spring. He also controls the publicly-listed Beijing Wantai Biological Pharmacy.6. Diversified
201 billionaires | 7% of list
Richest: Mukesh Ambani ($116 billion), chairman of Reliance Industries, which holds interests in petrochemicals, oil and gas, retail and telecommunications.7. Healthcare
197 billionaires | 7% of list
Richest: Dilip Shanghvi ($22.6 billion), founder and managing director of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, India's most valuable listed pharmaceuticals company.8. Real Estate
190 billionaires | 7% of list
Richest: Lee Shau Kee ($27.7 billion), Sun Hung Kai and Henderson Land Development, two of Hong Kong’s largest property developers.9. Media & Entertainment
104 billionaires | 4% of list
Richest: Rupert Murdoch & family ($19.5 billion), chairman emeritus of News Corp., one of the world’s largest media conglomerates.10. Energy
98 billionaires | 4% of list
Richest: Harold Hamm & family ($18.5 billion), founder and chairman of Continental Resources, one of the biggest independent oil companies in the U.S.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. The point I'm making is much shallower.
A great episode and worth watching. Fast forward to the 2 hour mark if you don’t have the time to watch it all. It gets into the dollar being the world reserve currency and the implications of it. Also, disregard the intro and title. The episode is very upbeat and positive.
Last edited:
Snarl, saw an informative take on C-Span by Congressman French Hill concerning blockchain technology. Interested in your take and explanation on how it works.
Unfortunately, I don't have a very informed answer for you, but essentially blockchains are ledgers. For example, the Bitcoin network produces a new block every 10 minutes and it's added to all the previous blocks produced. All of those blocks make up the "blockchain" and you can go back and look at all the previous blocks. Also, blocks are basically bits of information. So, potentially it could be important documents, contracts, financial transactions and etc. That's my very basic understanding of it.
Just had lunch with the Texan. If you have savings you’re a fool. Put it in bitcoin and do it today
Bitcoin may be a great investment, but it will be because enough money and power made it into something it currently isn't.
@Ohio Guy most of america recognized Harris is no better when it comes to morality. Fckd her way into politics. Lies every time her mouth moves. About things that impact everyone. Biden’s condition to abortion. Dems would do well to drop the morality charges with trump. Harris and Biden are no better and are probably worse. There’s an authenticity to trump both those phonies lack. America saw right through harris. Not to mention the celebs she rolled out
