Stigliz’s book “Whither Socialism?” has been subject to various critiques. The conclusion is that “Stiglitz’s main insight is generally correct – that the state cannot be ruled out or that it should be ruled in –, but leaves open the grand constitutional questions: How will the coercive institutions of the state be constrained? What is the relation between the state and civil society? His book fails on these political aspects because it has not addressed the broader constitutional concerns that James McGill Buchanan Jr.and other economists have raised.”

Hmmm. Seems pretty close to what I said about recognizing the proper role of the government in regulation and taxation, but only within the limitations established by a constitutional representative republic. To wit —

Ownership of the means of means and control of production does not belong to the state. Nor does the state have the right to impose a value judgment (“predatory”) on this process. What you (or your experts) consider predatory, I (and my experts) may not. Why should your bright and educated people be allowed to impose their judgment on me?

The proper role of a government in a system where its power is derived from the consent of the people is to establish acceptable parameters of behavior within the confines of the constitution. The US constitution does not outlaw capitalism, nor does it assign different values to “ownership” of capital.

The state has the authority to regulate aspects of the capitalist process (anti-monopoly legislation, FDA regulations, etc.). But this is a far cry from doing something to diminish “ownership itself” because that ownership is presumed by some bureaucrats or group of so-called experts to “punish the less fortunate.” That is a socialist dictatorship, not a capitalist democracy.

Since there’s no point in discussing a wish, and since you’re offended by having your opinions challenged, there’s no point in continuing to educate you on the actual way capitalism operates within a constitutional, representative republic.

I’m always amused by people who find it “impossible” to actually react to anything I say specifically after I’ve taken the time to go through their position point by point. It’s also somewhat sad when someone has to continually point to an article written by a “bright and educated” person because they have no ability to discuss the matter themselves.

Spend a little more time understand the system of government and its economic framework you purport to critique, and you’ll avoid the embarrassment of looking silly and vapid in your future comments.

Popular opinion will have it that has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion with a conservative/republican. As soon as you are identified as someone who do not share their opinions fully, you will be labeled as communist/socialist/terrorist or something else that is easily identified as the crazy and evil enemy who is wrong, by definition. This to avoid getting into discussing the real issue at hand. I decided to try it anyway and you can see the result above.

You embarrass yourself by trying to guess my political preferences. If I in fact were a socialist, I would have no problem in admitting this. You do not know what my preferences are because I have not told you and you are quite far off the mark. Nevertheless, you keep guessing based on nothing. Consider this; I was trying to make the distinction between the form of capitalism that is implemented by the current administration and what it could be. Only suggesting that there could be an alternative immediately makes me a socialist, of course. The problem is that my definition of the alternative applies to the form that was implemented by both Clinton and Roosevelt. By your logic, the US was a socialist state during their respective terms in office.

One thing with shooting from the hip is that you frequently tend to hit your own foot.

I am pro dictatorship because I do not like the result of the application of the democratic processes (= I do not like that Bush was elected). What I really wanted to discuss was that what I perceived as being a strong and efficient democracy, lately seems to fail (sedonman: You showed that at least one person was able to understand my point. I thank you for that.) In fact, my problem with the 2004 elections is that that there were two bad candidates to choose from – and that is really an indication that something wrong with the process: there was no good alternative. But wait a minute – why would I care about the well-being of the democratic processes. According to you, I think that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country.

… and that is the other foot!

And all this to avoid me getting into discussing things like the article by Stiglitz (this is the third time I refer to it and I am sure that you did not read it). The prospect of that happening must really scare you. What is not right with this picture? The self-proclaimed genius will stop at nothing trying to avoid discussing an article written by a Nobel laureate with someone that he clearly thinks is vastly inferior. One would have thought that you would jump at the opportunity. Maybe this is because you would feel awkward to label this the most cited economist in the world today a socialist for the same reasons you labeled me. Or maybe it is just that you know that once we get down to the actual issue you would be lost. Really, it is just safer to ramble on…

I will not waste more of my time talking to you – your tool is indeed not sharp enough.

By the way, just a small comment on your rhetoric style: Contrary to what you believe, using quotation does not magically provide you with “a point”.

*** I spent most of my academic carrier immersed in reading and responding to Marxist ideology. The only acceptable limitations on an economic system (capitalist or otherwise) are those that the people in a constitutional, representative republic impose on themselves; not what some abstract theory decides is fair, justifiable, non-predatory, etc.

Ownership of the means of means and control of production does not belong to the state. Nor does the state have the right to impose a value judgment (“predatory”) on this process. What you (or your experts) consider predatory, I (and my experts) may not. Why should your bright and educated people be allowed to impose their judgment on me?
The proper role of a government in a system where its power is derived from the consent of the people is to establish acceptable parameters of behavior within the confines of the constitution. The US constitution does not outlaw capitalism, nor does it assign different values to “ownership” of capital.

The state has the authority to regulate aspects of the capitalist process (anti-monopoly legislation, FDA regulations, etc.). But this is a far cry from doing something to diminish “ownership itself” because that ownership is presumed by some bureaucrats or group of so-called experts to “punish the less fortunate.” That is a socialist dictatorship, not a capitalist democracy.

“So, if I say that it would be good if the application of the democratic processes would give executive power to a competent individual and that his/her actions should be scrutinized by competent people (officially appointed and not), I advocate dictatorship? Hm, there is not much room for nuances around here, it appears. “

** Exactly correct. There is no “democratic process” that “gives executive power to a competent individual”. Power in a democracy [i.e. a constitutional, representative republic] comes from the consent of the people as expressed through elections that conform to the limitations imposed by the constitution. There is no provision for giving “executive power to a competent individual and that his/her actions should be scrutinized by competent people (officially appointed and not)”.

Again, this is a socialist dictatorship, not a capitalist democracy. In America, the only “scrutiny” our government is permitted is the overlapping jurisdictions of the three national branches of government, the federal-state relationship (which permits some things and prohibits others), and the Supreme Court’s right of judicial review.

Even here there is a great debate about whether one group has usurped authority over another. I can’t even imagine a situation in this country where an executive would be given or assume power outside this constitutional process to determine whether our economic system is functioning “efficiently” and non-predatorily (two highly subjective conclusions), and then impose changes on that system.

If someone feels strongly about this issue, the present system allows an opportunity for those opinions to be aired through elections. Anything outside this process, as you described, is socialism un-democratically imposed.

Just because you still want to call it capitalism doesn’t make it capitalism. The Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, for example, is neither democratic, nor a republic.

“Some of the brightest people I know never went to college, and some of the stupidest have Ph.D.s I have the same experience. What is your point?”

*** You keep talking about bright, educated experts making decisions on the public’s behalf. Well, exactly whow decides who is qualified to be a bright, educated expert? My 10 people would probably have radically different educational backgrounds and life experiences from yours, and the same would be true of our choices compared to others.

Saying “intelligent and educated” is a meaningless term, because it is so subjective. The people who govern us in a constitutional, representative republic derive their power from elections, not appointments.

“As for credentials; for the purpose of this public discussion, assume that I am a lint collector with an IQ to match. I am sure that this is not difficult to do. (If you think it is important I will share my credentials in a private e-mail).”

*** Absolutely not. I don’t care what a person’s education or “IQ” is. I’m only concerned with their ideas. I only brought up the issue as a way of illustrating the internal-inconsistencies of your argument that educated and intelligent people should make decisions for us because they are intelligent and educated.

“I will try to clarify my position. The US is the most powerful democracy on the planet. Up until a few years ago, I was under the impression that the democratic processes were robust and working quite well. Now I find that there are a few things that do not add up.”

*** That’s your opinion. Mine is different.

“I think that it is very difficult to understand how the current incumbent was elected for a second term.”

*** Easy. He won more electoral votes.

“After such a massive mistake …”

*** Again, your opinion. Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one. If you listened to the “educated and intelligent” who teach in schools and run the media, Bush is a war criminal moron. But truth is not the sole province of these individuals. Electing Kerry in 2004 would have been a “mistake” — in my opinion. Who’s right? Neither of us. There is no arbiter of value judgments (appointed or elected). There is only a constitutional process for electing people to office. I thought Bill Clinton’s two terms were mistakes. Because I understand and accept the basis for our social compact that created our government, I did not call for overturning the will of the people and imposing my choice on them.

“I would expect that the majority of the voters (who elected him) to either take a very long and hard look at their way of selecting who to vote for or to simply decide not to vote at all.”

*** And you would be 100% wrong, because all you are doing is mouthing your opinions about a system of government you seem to know little about and appreciate even less.

“I see three possible explanations:

1. Mr. Bush has qualities and accomplishments of which I am not aware.

*** Quite likely.

2. The democratic processes do not work any longer.

*** It works just fine. You just don’t like the results of that process.

3. The political climate and/or the general attitude of the voters make the processes fail.

*** Again, you insist on imposing your own value judgment (“fail”) on an outcome you don’t like. “Success or failure” is not the result of whether you like the outcome or not. It’s whether the process was respected and followed.

“I came to this forum to try to understand how the intelligent conservative reasons. In the discussion so far, I have suggested that there are alternative ways of looking at the current situation and I have been told in no uncertain terms that what I want is a socialist dictatorship. I think I got one more piece of the puzzle.”

*** Hopefully, this will make it clearer to you. You are substituting your own personal value-laden judgments for a true understanding of what the US system is, where the nature of its power derives (from the consent of the people), how it is expressed (through a constitutional, representative republic that imposes limitation on the expression of that power), and are confusing outcomes you agree or disagree with, with the system’s “success or failure”.

By the way, I appreciate the respectful way you’ve engaged in this debate, in contrast to the way some others “debate”. Please don’t take any direct statements I make as insults. I’m just being precise in my answers.

It’s no one thing, but mostly #3:

Pathological Politics

“…Because voters are rationally ignorant (the costs of gaining particular kinds of information are greater than the benefits since one vote is essentially meaningless), politicians must employ a language designed to evoke emotion – enough emotion to motivate the right people to turn out and vote. Thus, politicians rarely speak with precise meanings, marginal calculations, or logical reasoning; instead they manipulate affect, raw emotions, group identifications, and even hatred, envy, and threats. Because premature commitment to an issue can cause one to end up in a minority position, successful politicians equivocate, hint, exaggerate, procrastinate, ‘straddle fences,’ adopt code words, and speak in non-sequiturs. Understanding the politician is therefore extremely frustrating for those who value precise statements. But note that this problem is not the fault of the politician; it is rooted in the rational ignorance of voters, the distribution of conflicting sentiments among voters, and the nature of collective endeavor. What all this means is clear: Political communication is rarely conducive to rational or efficient allocation of scarce resources. This does not mean that the individual politicians are irrational in their choice of language and symbolic activities. Waving the flag and kissing babies are practiced because of their tactical value in an activity that is at once a rational game and a morality play; in that conjunction lies the endless fascination and frustration of politics.”

Beyond Politics, Mitchell & Simmons

*** Yeah, we all got it the first place. You don’t like capitalism.
No, you did not get it. I am saying that there are different forms of capitalism and that I do not particularly like the current US incarnation. I believe that it is important to reward risk-taking and effort. I do not think it is correct to reward ownership itself and to punish the less fortunate. Did you read the article? It also seems that it is not a very efficient form of capitalism.

*** There is no real-world way short of a dictatorship to carry out your vision for society.
So, if I say that it would be good if the application of the democratic processes would give executive power to a competent individual and that his/her actions should be scrutinized by competent people (officially appointed and not), I advocate dictatorship? Hm, there is not much room for nuances around here, it appears.

*** Some of the brightest people I know never went to college, and some of the stupidest have Ph.D.s
I have the same experience. What is your point?

As for credentials; for the purpose of this public discussion, assume that I am a lint collector with an IQ to match. I am sure that this is not difficult to do. (If you think it is important I will share my credentials in a private e-mail)

I will try to clarify my position. The US is the most powerful democracy on the planet. Up until a few years ago, I was under the impression that the democratic processes were robust and working quite well. Now I find that there are a few things that do not add up. I think that it is very difficult to understand how the current incumbent was elected for a second term. After such a massive mistake, I would expect that the majority of the voters (who elected him) to either take a very long and hard look at their way of selecting who to vote for or to simply decide not to vote at all. Of this I see nothing.

I see three possible explanations:

1. Mr. Bush has qualities and accomplishments of which I am not aware.

2. The democratic processes do not work any longer.

3. The political climate and/or the general attitude of the voters make the processes fail.

I came to this forum to try to understand how the intelligent conservative reasons. In the discussion so far, I have suggested that there are alternative ways of looking at the current situation and I have been told in no uncertain terms that what I want is a socialist dictatorship. I think I got one more piece of the puzzle.

*** “Democracies” do not assign roles. They allow people to use their talents and abilities to achieve something. So, the obvious answer is, if you’re intelligent (which means you have a facility to actually understand things instead of simply mouth slogans), and educated (“educated” doesn’t mean a Ph.D. — a good plumber must be educated through trade school or apprenticeship training), and your society rewards this behavior instead of punishing it in the name of fairness and redistribution, you should have a good life relative to those who don’t fit this model.

“You are giving yourself (and your country) an enormous disadvantage in saying that they [intelligent and educated] ‘should not tell us’ how to run things.”

*** I happen to believe in the right of the people to elect their leaders, not the inherent right of the “intelligent and educated” to rule. This isn’t a class-based society, and it isn’t a dictatorship. If the “intelligent and educated” want power, let them run for office and get elected.

“When you give away executive power, you better make sure that it is to someone who has the capacity to understand the system (s)he is responsible of. “

*** You have some very curious language choices that you toss around freely. Elections do not “give away” power like I give away my old clothes to charity. In the US, they are about people competing against other people in a representative republic. The government doesn’t “own” power to give away or retain. The people allow the government the power to govern under a constitutional framework that protects basic rights. If you want a dictatorship or socialist paradise, just come out and say it. But don’t play games with words and pretend they have no relationship to the actual world in which we live.

And while you’re at it, exactly who certifies someone as “intelligent and educated”? I have a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, and an IQ to match. By your own logic, I am brighter and more educated than 99.9% of the population (perhaps even you). Unless you have a Ph.D from an equally prestigious institution and a matching IQ, by your own logic you should accept what I say without dissent because, as one of the intelligent and educated people who you think should be running things, I’m now telling you what to do for your (and society’s) own good.

Fortunately, I am intelligent and educated enough to know that this is a crock. Some of the brightest people I know never went to college, and some of the stupidest have Ph.D.s You are mouthing platitudes by speaking abstractly about “intelligent and educated” people. There is no real-world way short of a dictatorship to carry out your vision for society.

And, even if you ended up with an “intelligent and educated” ruler or ruling class, you haven’t explained how they would voluntarily allow new ideas to be introduced that threaten their power and privileges (read Kuhn as I advised), or understood that there isn’t anything close to unanimous agreement on socio-political issues among the intelligent and educated — unless you limit your viewing to MSNBC.

“In capitalism we take individual risks [and get rewarded accordingly]“. I think that there are very few people who would not accept this. The problem is with “rewarding ownership itself”, “rewarding the guys I know” and “re-rewarding the rewarded”.

*** Yeah, we all got it the first place. You don’t like capitalism, and therefore think I’ve been unfair to you and others for working my ass off and succeeding. Fortunately, I don’t live in China or Cuba, so there are no intelligent and educated people able to take the fruits of my labor away from me because they consider it “predatory”.

“And who do you want to decide what is the appropriate level of taxation?”

*** The people we elect to government. That’s why I work hard for candidates who share my beliefs. When I lose, I pay through the nose because my guy lost — I don’t insist that we now scrap the system and impose a dictatorship of intelligent and educated people who see things my way.

That’s the fundamental difference between us. You think that you and others are smart enough to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. I’m willing to let the people decide through honest elections that express the public’s will. I’ll do my best to educate the public as to why I think position X is correct, but I won’t force my beliefs on them in the name of “intelligent and educated” policy (which just means, “intelligent and educated” policy you happen to agree with produced by people you are willing to certify as appropriately intelligent and educated).

But since you brought it up; what should be the role of the intelligent and educated in a democracy? You are giving yourself (and your country) an enormous disadvantage in saying that they “should not tell us” how to run things. When you give away executive power, you better make sure that it is to someone who has the capacity to understand the system (s)he is responsible of. You really want them to scrutinize those who have the power and even become dissidents if that is necessary. I think that I could go on for a while here.

“In capitalism we take individual risks [and get rewarded accordingly]“. I think that there are very few people who would not accept this. The problem is with “rewarding ownership itself”, “rewarding the guys I know” and “re-rewarding the rewarded”. If you cannot make the distinction between capitalism as defined above and “predator-capitalism/cronyism” your tool is simply not sharp enough.

And who do you want to decide what is the appropriate level of taxation? It is an enormously difficult problem and I assume that you will agree that zero is not the correct answer. Would you prefer someone who understands the issue or are you happy with the way things are (Joseph E. Stiglitz VF – Dec. 2007, but be careful – this guy would qualify as both “bright” and “educated”).

..instead I blogged. :0