I was going to make this a comment, but it got to long, so for ease of reading, I making it a whole new post. I have problem with almost every point made in the previous post. This surprises me because when I saw that Richard was going to discredit Marxism I expected to agree. I expected to read what I consider the most persuasive argument for why Marxism doesn’t work which is that it asks a person to identify with someone they don’t know. The only way I see communism working is on the very small scale. Think of family (and heck, even there is doesn’t always work out). There are so many reasons why Marxism doesn’t work, but have a lot of problems with Richard’s argument.
First, Richard discredits revolution because you “can’t really think of a revolution that actually improved government” besides the American Revolution. While I am sure he didn’t mean to be ethnocentric, this statement left a sour taste in my mouth. I agree that revolution is often pointless, my favorite example is the French Revolution, where after decades of fighting the monarch was brought back. However to say that revolution hasn’t improved government except for the United States is to discredit every other former colonial holding that rebelled against imperialism. What about Nelson Mandela? What about Emiliano Zapata?
Second, I don’t know how Richard can say that “ALL human rights stem from property rights”? Are you honestly saying that unless you own property you deserve human rights? So what about us lowly students who own no land? Not to mention refugees forced from their land? I think almost everything we’ve read for this class would refute what Richard claims. Most importantly, Hobbes and Locke say that our rights derive from the fact that we are sovereign entities in a state of nature. What if Kant’s categorical imperative were based on what you suggest? He doesn’t say that the categorical imperative only applies to those who own property. Doesn’t Sartre calls humans “freedoms”?
Third, Richard uses the example of heath care in the United States as an example where pure capitalism is not being allowed to work its magic. Richard has a point that getting a drug is expensive and takes a long time. I don’t disagree that reform is needed. I will, however, recount a story from my Political Science 151 class as a sort of counter example. So, I am on a vacation with my family. I go to the supermarket to buy a pack of hotdogs and my kid ends up get violently sick because those hot dogs were not regulated by the FDA. So, I take my kids to the nearest a doctor and my kid ends up dying, because it turns out that the doctor is not really a doctor. The sign in front of the building says he is a doctor, but without any regulation no one can stop him calling himself a doctor. This story rules out the idea that if everyone just did enough research we could make perfectly informed decisions. I don’t know about you, but this to me is scary. Now, I know you would said that capitalism would fix this because this quack doctor would go out of business, but what about the poor people who suffer until then?
Moral of this story: pure capitalism is scary. Maybe I am not brave enough to embrace my “freedom” according to Sartre, but I recognize that I can’t be an expert on everything so I put a little trust in the government and I live my life in less fear because of it. I would also say pure capitalism is just as unlikely to come to pass Marxism. And there is a reason, both expect WAY too much out of people. Pure Marxism expects people to give up what they work hard for. Pure capitalism expects everyone to be smart enough to know what to do in every situation. In pure capitalism if you make a mistake you pay for it . . . which sounds like what is fair, but I offer another example. Let us look at the housing market. It was very unregulated and loans were made to people who could never pay them back. The consequences are so wide spread that if the government were just to say “not my problem” would be disastrous not only for the people but more importantly the entire economy. What happens with deregulation is that companies mess up . . . Franny and Freddy . . . and the government ends up having to bail them out because they are so important to the economy. We would’ve been better to just regulate from the beginning.
My final problem is with “wealth redistribution is morally wrong.” Not all wealth distribution is done Robin Hood style. Taxes are a form of wealth redistribution. I agree with Claire that the rich should pay more taxes to help out the people who need help.
In conclusion, I would ask everyone to meditate on the word moderation. Let us avoid these extremes of capitalism and Marxism. Let us moderate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Ok, I'll try to respond to as many objections as I can.
First, I'll admit I'm simply not that well versed in foreign history so there very well could have been other revolutions that improved government. And I certainly wasn't trying to be ethnocentric, I was just trying to cover what I believed to be an exception when I asserted that advocating revolution can have disastrous consequences.
Second, I didn't mean to say that people w/o property have no rights, property is much more than land. And all of the rights you have stem from some ability to exclude others from the use of that property. Even the refuge has the right to exclude someone from using their body for shooting practice. Everyone has rights insofar as everyone has a body and it is a form of property. And yes, people with more property have more rights simply by virtue of the fact that they can exclude others from more property. All of the inalienable rights stem from the body as property so I don't really think I'm denying people their humanity or basic rights by asserting that all rights stem from property rights. I think I did a poor job of stating my argument in the first post, totally my fault.
Third, the licensing board for doctors is actually a private organization so even without the FDA bad doctors still wouldn't be able to get licenses. And I'm not saying we should ditch the FDA, just that it needs to limit itself.
And lastly, a lot of what happened in the housing market can be traced back to government intervention. They were loaning too much because the government kept guaranteeing all these mortgages, if the government hadn't incentivised too much activity in mortgages the housing market would look a lot different.
And I have one problem with your last statement. "I agree with Claire that the rich should pay more taxes to help out the people who need help." You offer your position but you don't give a reason why that is the case, let me hear a reason why making the rich pay more is both moral and helpful.
PS. Thanks for the blog post, I was surprised I didn't get A LOT more responses given how most people in class seemed to favor socialism, or at least that's the feeling I got.
True advocating revolution can have disastrous consequences, but I still contend that this is not a reason to discredit Marxism.
I understand now that you meant to include the body as a property right. If using this understanding then yes “giving up your property rights will inevitably mean giving up all of your rights.” However, as far as I know in a Marxist government you don’t give up the right to your body. You most certainly give up the product of your labor, but your body is still your body. So while it is true that “people without rights could form a functional human society” it is not true that people living in socialism are with out rights. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for socialists to form a functional society.
You say “people with more property have more rights simply by virtue of the fact that they can exclude others from more property.” I don’t really know how what that statement was in reference to. However, as it stands now without context I have to point something out. Yes people with more property have more property rights but DO NOT have more political rights. Everyone has equal political rights viz. Hobbes and Locke’s state of nature.
Regarding the housing market, I understand that the government played a role in the problem, but I still think that pure capitalism would be disastrous. Maybe a better example would be the stock market in the early 20th Century. I don’t know too much about the stock market crash and I know it was due to a lot of factors, but I think an important one was the lack of regulation.
If you were really pro-pure capitalism reform of the FDA would not be good enough . . . the FDA would have to go. Would you be okay with that? Also, how do you account for the maintenance of public goods in pure capitalism? Yeah, the market is great at somethings, but it is not perfect. My vacation story was meant to show that a “welfare” state is a state where the government is interested in the wellbeing of ALL citizens. I think that if people stopped and realize that we all benefit from some form of socialization every day they would realize how scary pure capitalism is.
Admittedly I got tired by the time I hit on taxes. It deserves way more time than what I am going to give to it. But I feel like you must be kidding when you say “let me hear a reason why making the rich pay more is both moral and helpful.” I think it is self-evident. The United States is a welfare state and by living here those who got rich benefited. Yes, I am sure they worked hard and all that, but I think it is morally right that they be expected to give back. Let’s take an example of the “Banana Republics.” United States citizens owned tons of land in these countries and they bullied their way into not paying fair land taxes or export taxes. These citizens were allowed to keep almost all the profits from the fields. Do you really think that is fair? As far as “helpful” the rich paying more taxes is obviously helpful because that money goes to those who need it.
Ok, for simplicity sake and since I have very little to say I'm just going to address each paragraph.
1. I'm not entirely sure you do have the right to your own body in a socialist society. After all, SOMEONE is going to have to be forced into an occupation they do not want. No one wants to empty porta-potties. And being told what to do for your job seems like an infringement on your bodily property right.
2. You're exactly right.
3. The stock market crash in the late 20's was at least partly caused by the government increasing the money supply too fast. That crash is actually fairly similar to the crash we just experienced, at least in terms of what the government did to enable it.
4. I'm actually not for pure capitalism. I'm ultimately arguing that more capitalism is better than more socialism. I don't want to do away with the FDA completely. I just think it needs to be smaller and less powerful.
5. To what are the rich "giving back" by paying higher taxes? The government did NOT help them get that wealth, in fact in many ways the government inhibits the acquisition of wealth. Sure there are a few cases where rent seeking made someone wealthy but that is the exception, not the rule. I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make with the "banana republics" but I in no way support tax evasion. And I pointed out in my original post that the rich paying higher taxes can in fact, not be helpful. Its certainly not obvious to me, especially given that our government is a gluttonous bureaucracy.
RE 1. I think socialist would argue with the term "forced." Socialists would contend that the form of government was the public's will and therefore the people consent to its action. I think they would say that people make a commitment to the socialist ideal and see this as their contribution. I am not sure I buy it entirely, but it is an argument. Just a side note, but aren't people forced into jobs they don't want under capitalism? Yes, I know you would say they have a choice . . . but people still end up in sucky jobs. I see your point that at least in capitalism people could always "quit."
RE 5. You ask "[t]o what are the rich 'giving back' by paying higher taxes? the government did NOT help them get that wealth." I contend that maybe the government directly didn't help them get that wealth but those who are wealthy benefited from living in the United States. I mean that is why there are taxes in the first place . . . to pay for the infrastructure. I see the relationship like that a person has with his or her parents. That person can never give thanks enough because so much of his or her success depended on that infrastructure.
I don't want to intervene... except to say that I find this an extremely interesting debate! Good work!
Ok, I think we're getting close to finishing this debate haha.
1. You're right, there is no political or economic system in which all jobs will be fulfilling or fun. I just prefer capitalism for that because, at least, they always have the option to quit.
2. You view the government like a parent. I view it like more like a necessary evil. I don't think we're ever going to agree on the tax thing simply because we see the government so differently. Although, given your view of government, your argument is sound.
Post a Comment