Pol. Ideology 46: Misunderstanding Adam Smith

Last Monday, July 08, I posted Pol. Ideology 45: Left Intellectualism Means Abandonment of Socialism in my facebook wall. It attracted another round of long discourse. Thanks to fellow UP ETCer (younger batch) Mel, Mike, Shakaru, for that long exchange from July 08-10, 2013.

While the debate still focuses on whether we should have a BIG or small/limited government, one source of confusion is a misunderstanding of some quotes from  Adam Smith’s book, The Wealth of Nations.

This is 12 pages long, 6,100+ words, so grab a can of your favorite drinks and enjoy.

Mel Lorenzo Accad Interesting sir! I'm reading it

 cc: Sir Gerry, May I know your comment on this? 

Sir Nonoy, how sure are you that you have defined socialism accurately? as pointed out by sir Gerry in one of my previous posts. What are your sources po para naman maiwasan natin ang strawman arguments. 

Nonoy Oplas It's there. "Things should be socialized always -- education, healthcare, housing, pension, transpo, agri, etc. Including your own pockets, savings, they should be socialized. Diversity and inequality, spontaneity and innovation, should be restricted if not controlled whenever possible. Things should be harmonized, standardized, uniformized, monotonized, in order to prevent inequality, massive and scary inequality."

Mel Lorenzo Accad Sir Nonoy, here are my comments (I also posted them in the main blog):

"Let me be clear with my assumptions:
1. Every political rule is a "dictatorship" in one way or another.
-Example, democracy is dictatorship of the majority over the minority, capitalism is dictatorship of those who are economically-abled over those who are not economically-abled, socialism is the dictatorship of the "people" over all (I really hope that I defined them very well so as to avoid strawman arguments. I hate strawman arguments, BTW)

2. So if we say that socialism is machine that creates dictatorship, what then can we call capitalism?

3. I believe that capitalism and socialism have advantages and disadvantages (we should only be aware of their SIDE EFFECTS and how do we minimize them).

4. Capitalism has created so wide inequality to the extent that everyone has differing in their competitiveness, hence there's a long run possibility of rise of monopolies (even those that are not natural monopoly due to technological advantages).

5. Final question, what then are these side effects of every political rules that we should be aware of? How should we minimize them? WHAT IS OUR COMMON GOAL AT THE END OF THE DAY?

6. I don't have the monopoly of truth. There are grave consequences of assuming that we have monopoly of truth.

(COOL HEADS, WARM HEARTS)"

Nonoy Oplas Thanks Mel. First of all, I think you should start blogging. Just copy-paste those that you already posted in fb, they are long blog articles already.

To your points:
1. Yes, All forms of pol rule is dictatorship and coercion. The free market philosophy, the minarchy libertarin especially does not rule out lhaving coercion in our lives, hence the advocacy for "limited government" vs the "zero government" position of libertarian anarchy.

2. Free market capitalism is based on voluntary exchange. I sell you tomatoes at this price. If you like them, you pay and go home. If you don't like them, you just walk away and find another seller. Then I go to another buyer and offer my tomatoes. Zero coercion in a voluntary exchange set up.

3. Yes they do. It depends on what you wish to achieve. If you want to respect diversity and spontaneity, free market capitalism is the way because under capitalism, diversity is not allowed. YOu cannot be very efficient then be very rich, the state will confiscate your extra income, your extra cash, your extra car, extra land.

4. Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free. There is no limit to what the super-efficient, super-hard working, super-ambitious people can achieve. Meanwhile, some people have zero ambition, just have a party as often as possible, get subsidies from siblings or from the state. As time passes by, the inequality between these two extremes widen. Some in the middle class join the super rich later. Inequality is necessary if you want a free society.

5. Common goal at the end of the day is -- individual liberty. Individual responsibility. One's stupidity and irresponsibility should not be blamed to anyone else. One's efficiency and fruits of hard work should not be confiscated to be given to everyone else.

6. The only absolute truth in this life are change, death and government/taxes.

Pol Ideology 44: Another Debate With an Anarchist

Another debate with an anarchist in facebook. It started in one thread where I was discussing the stem cell therapy scandal in the Philippines, and I suggested that the DOH and FDA should focus more on promulgating the rule of law. Then the debate shifted to “abolish government” as suggested by Shakaru. I wanted that thread to focus on stem cell controversy, so I started a new fb status just on the debate on limited vs. zero government.

This is seven pages long. 3.600+ words. Enjoy with your fave drinks :-)

------------

(Copied from a previous thread….)

Shakaru Macht But wherever you look at it, government is always anti-business... The mere fact that they take away a portion of income from the producers (through taxes!) is a great testament to this...

Nonoy Oplas Shakaru, your point is one-sided. True that most taxes are unnecessary and extortionary. But if some armed men will go to your shop and demand that you give them big extortion money otherwise they will burn your shop or abduct your kids and rape the girls among them, one will run to the government -- police, the court, etc. to seek protection from such aggression by bullies. If you don't believe the police, then you must also bring your own army of armed men to protect your shop, and you will soon be shooting each other until you are dirt poor if not dead. We need rule of law, transparent justice system.
Zero government and zero taxes are impossible and diiotic.

Shakaru Macht Well, while I admit my solution is unrealistic - at least in the near future, the way towards a free-market anarchy - the one that gives you laboratories and the professionals you mentioned since people would demand for it - is just there... Just let the people do their own thing, provided they don't hurt others...

Nonoy Oplas  We can debate about anarchism and its impracticality in another thread. Stay on the role of government health regulators, DOH and FDA. You remove FDA from the picture, anyone can put up a drugstore and sell chicken innards or dog intestines, etc. as cheap and effective treatment against many types of diseases, with good and flashy marketing and packaging. Some sick people believe the ads, they buy, they get sick even more, if not die. Someone must be accountable and go to jails, if not be hanged. Who can their families sue? A non-existent government regulator, the drugstore, the seller of innards and intestines, or the government abolitionists? Most likely the abolitionists will wash hands in this case and put the blame on anyone else. Just one impracticality of an anarchist position.

Shakaru Macht Well, then tell me, isn't it your very own government that's guilty of this... "Pay your income tax or we'll put you in jail" sounds so much like extortion...

And as for defense, there are basically three ways to provide it:
1. Provide your own self-defense...
2. Form a voluntary association dedicated for defense (e.g. militias)...
3. Shop and pay for your defense...
Take note that none of these are mutually exclusive... In fact, in a free market, all these three will co-exist!!!

So instead of forcibly making me avail of the services of a certain army that acts like a gangster if you don't pay and honor them, why don't you let people provide, associate and pay for their own defense???

Shakaru Macht Okay, let's start!

Anarchy is only possible if and only if there is a free market... When we mean a free market, such a thing is merely regulated by natural and moral law (I sound redundant here!) and not by legislation and regulation from above courtesy of your expanding government... In fact, that free market will provide all of us with defense (the defense contractors, the anti-burglar alarms, martial arts, guns etc.)...

However, I agree with you that we must engage with government (better term is "engage against government")... We must hijack the seat of power ourselves - by whatever means necessary, even if it means bloodshed (as a desperate last resort) - to save the peoples in this land from the theft, extortion and slavery...

Minarchism is only a via media towards anarchy!!!