Castro has passed on

[Mycroft]

I am proposing, in detail and with explanations, the establishment of representative constitutional parliaments, not summoning hordes of club wielding anarchists.

Right, but you're not the only one involved in the conversation. That was directed at Caveman1917. I don't think you support any head-cracking to achieve the political system you like. I would guess the political system you like would very closely resemble the one that I like too.

You are merely attending to your own sloganising prejudices and not to the words others have taken the trouble to set down before your eyes.

If you think that it's because you haven't paid much attention to Caveman1917. That's probably a good thing.

 

[Craig B]

Right, but you're not the only one involved in the conversation. That was directed at Caveman1917 ... If you think that it's because you haven't paid much attention to Caveman1917. That's probably a good thing.

So you haven't read my #239 either?

 

[Ziggurat]

I own a shirt, a house, a farm. Can I destroy the shirt if I want? Yes. The house? No. The farm? No. Such things are rightly considered part of the physical structure underlying society, and interests or wishes other than solely those of the owner are rightly taken into account if they are to be disposed of.

There's nothing right about that. Nor does it correspond to US law. In the US, you can indeed destroy a house if you own it. That generally requires that you don't have a mortgage, but if you don't, then why shouldn't you be able to destroy it? And in fact, people do that all the time. Usually to build a better home in its place, but that's not a requirement. Same with farms. Same with factories.

We aren't socialists, you know.

 

[Ziggurat]

If that is a criticism of the Castro regime, it is a valid one, albeit that Raul was himself prominent in the movement prior to Fidel's victory against Batista, so he was important from the start. But it says nothing much in favour of Pinochet that he was different. Stalin wasn't succeeded by his son. That hardly absolves him from his many atrocious deeds.

I turn to consider the deficiencies of these régimes, which don't usually end as dynasties, but never produce democracies.

But Pinochet did produce a democracy. It took far longer than it should have, obviously, but that's how it ended: with a democratic election that he lost, and he peacefully stepped down. That is indeed very much in Pinochet's favor, relative to Castro (lest you falsely claim I'm praising him).

You keep trying to treat Castro as if he wasn't worse than Pinochet, but he absolutely was.

 

[Craig B]

There's nothing right about that. Nor does it correspond to US law. In the US, you can indeed destroy a house if you own it. That generally requires that you don't have a mortgage, but if you don't, then why shouldn't you be able to destroy it? And in fact, people do that all the time. Usually to build a better home in its place, but that's not a requirement. Same with farms. Same with factories.

We aren't socialists, you know.

I see. So restraints on the destruction of physical objects are "socialism". That's what I thought. That's my argument against "libertarianism" made for me. It explains Trump's behaviour in Scotland when he acquired land for his golf course and housing project.

How can we object to the clearances of tenants in nineteenth century Scotland and Ireland? The landlords "owned" the land. Property is property. That's that. Only a commie could find anything to object to.

I wonder if Mycroft will post saying that you have expressed

a fringe position

but to be honest I think you're mainstream "libertarian". It seems to be an absolutist ideology, and diluted versions of it don't make sense. It is utterly destructive of popular sovereignty or representative parliamentism, and is plainly and unquestionably feudal-absolutist in character.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

By what mechanism would it incorporate them, if not through a representative parliament advising municipalities on the limits of rights attaching to ownership of their land? And possessing both the desire and the ability to enforce such limits.

Since we've often disagreed elsewhere, it is refreshing to agree here. No caveats.

Property is theft. Here Zig, that's the sort of stuff actual anarchists believe, should make it easy for you to distinguish between actual anarchists and crypto-fascists in a ridiculous transparent yellow-black disguise.

I enjoyed reviewing the second link. From it:

Anarchist theorist Rothbard argued that all government services, including defense, are inefficient because they lack a market-based pricing mechanism regulated by the voluntary decisions of consumers purchasing services that fulfill their highest-priority needs and by investors seeking the most profitable enterprises to invest in.

Model-gazing nonsense that has forgotten where/how the model was derived as an abstraction. Gosh, doesn't this worship of "perfect" and "pure" markets smack of religion? That alone should act to tip off the clueless, but it seems greed is a greater master than reason.

 

[Craig B]

doesn't this worship of "perfect" and "pure" markets smack of religion?

It is a kind of religion, and it has other absolutist implications.

If owning a factory is manifestly the same category of thing, according to the absolutist Libertarian ideology, as owning a pair of socks, how do we handle this? From Glasgow industrial practice Up to 1958 in the cited case, an ironworks with blast furnaces.

He also remembered that it was an international workforce at Dixon’s with Italians, Polish, Lithuanian and the Irish all helping to make up the squads but stated that the machine shop was manned exclusively by ‘Scots.’​

The expression Scots is in scare quotes because the informant in fact means that Catholics were recruited as labourers, but all skilled jobs went to Protestants.

The recruitment of Catholics as labourers was, it seems, insisted upon by the government during WW2, but the owners were able to keep the machine shop free of Popery up to the closure of the plant in 1958.

Now, if I own my socks and don't want Catholics to wear them, have I the right to decide that? If I own a factory, have I a similar exclusionary right? If not, why not? Property is property.

 

[Craig B]

But Pinochet did produce a democracy. It took far longer than it should have, obviously, but that's how it ended: with a democratic election that he lost, and he peacefully stepped down.

You're clearly joking. If you're a democrat, is this the best way to start?

Before the coup, Chile had for decades been hailed as a beacon of democracy and political stability while the rest of South America had been plagued by military juntas and Caudillismo. The collapse of Chilean democracy ended a streak of democratic governments in Chile, which had held democratic elections since 1932.​

In fact Chilean democracy was strong enough to reassert itself, no thanks to Pinochet. He had no choice but to step down, as it was he who had prearranged, years before, the plebiscite he lost. Prior to the Castro revolution Cuba was not a functioning democracy, and Castro never faced these constraints on his rule. His death will, I hope, permit the establishment of a constitutional order of administration.

 

[Mycroft]

I see. So restraints on the destruction of physical objects are "socialism". That's what I thought. That's my argument against "libertarianism" made for me. It explains Trump's behaviour in Scotland when he acquired land for his golf course and housing project.

Restraints on what a person can do with their own private property are anti-libertarian.

I wonder if Mycroft will post saying that you have expressed

I'm pretty sure his "We aren't socialists, you know." comment was meant to be tongue in cheek.

but to be honest I think you're mainstream "libertarian". It seems to be an absolutist ideology, and diluted versions of it don't make sense. It is utterly destructive of popular sovereignty or representative parliamentism, and is plainly and unquestionably feudal-absolutist in character.

Because you're working very hard to interpret it that way.

 

[Mycroft]

Now, if I own my socks and don't want Catholics to wear them, have I the right to decide that? If I own a factory, have I a similar exclusionary right? If not, why not? Property is property.

Yes, this is a perfectly valid criticism of libertarianism. If you apply libertarian principles to the exclusion of all other principles, you get issues like this.

Or for a modern real-world example, there was an issue years back where a bakery didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding. Libertarian principles would support that decision, saying it's their business and if they want to reject working for someone they should be able to for any reason.

They might further add that a business that made decisions like that would eventually go under as being discriminatory in their practices gives their competitors an advantage, but I personally am skeptical of that reasoning.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, this is a perfectly valid criticism of libertarianism. If you apply libertarian principles to the exclusion of all other principles, you get issues like this.

and if you don't apply them to the exclusion of all other principles, what is Libertarianism? Can it be applied in part? What ideological sense would that make? If it is to be diluted, moreover, where is the diluting substance to come from? Some kinda goddam commies?

Or for a modern real-world ...

Believe me, religious bigotry exists in the real modern world. It is "social engineering" that keeps it in check.

They might further add that a business that made decisions like that would eventually go under as being discriminatory in their practices gives their competitors an advantage, but I personally am skeptical of that reasoning.

Your scepticism is well founded.

 

[Aepervius]

There's nothing right about that. Nor does it correspond to US law. In the US, you can indeed destroy a house if you own it. That generally requires that you don't have a mortgage, but if you don't, then why shouldn't you be able to destroy it? And in fact, people do that all the time. Usually to build a better home in its place, but that's not a requirement. Same with farms. Same with factories.

We aren't socialists, you know.

You need demolition permit though. And it is not a formality, it can be refused.

e.g.

https://www.boston.gov/departments/inspectional-services/how-get-demolition-permit

www.fallscitynebraska.org/media/use..._city/rl/city_forms/DemoPermitApplication.pdf

 

[Craig B]

Restraints on what a person can do with their own private property are anti-libertarian.

Why does property have value, such that anyone would want to own it? It may be a personal chattel, like clothing to keep out the cold. This kind of property usually isn't a problem. But it may be worth buying because it is fulfilling a social function for which people are willing to pay. Example, a corner shop or a factory or a public transport service.

Now the fact of being owned by an individual doesn't annihilate the functions that these undertakings perform. Thus it is in principle the case that by buying them, the owner has assumed the responsibility fairly and reasonably to perform the functions entailed in the operations. If the owner decides that Catholics are not permitted to buy goods from his shop, or black passengers must sit in the rear seats of the streetcars, and give up their seats when white passengers board the vehicle, then that right is not conferred on the owner by purchase. It is excluded by the function of the undertaking that the owner has purchased.

This function is not annilhilated by the act of purchase, or negated by the right of ownership. It is an indelible part of the character of the enterprise, whether that is individually, collectively or publicly owned.

I don't think that Libertarianism - as you yourself describe it - can be in any way reconciled or commingled with the principles I have stated in this post.

 

[caveman1917]

I see you don't set much store by the struggle for suffrage that occupied the minds and exertions of former generations. You could not be more wrong than you are in your evident dismissal of these.

Yes, you promote liberalism, I understood that already You didn't answer my question though. The government is representative...of what? What does it represent? Saying "the government is representative" is not a complete sentence, pretty much like saying "a capitalist economy is efficient" without saying efficient at doing what.

Oh and I don't tend to dismiss struggles, I do tend to dismiss social/economic/political structures which I find problematic.

By dispersing the Russian Constituent Assembly^WP, for example, the Bolsheviks unwittingly destroyed the Russian Revolution. They were among the parties who had earlier demanded its speedy convocation in opposition to the procrastination of the Provisional Government. But when the elections produced a result adverse to their party they saw no mortal danger in dissolving the assembly. But such danger there was, even to their own persons.

The Constituent Assembly was irrelevant at that time, it had no authority anymore. If you're looking for the point where the Bolsheviks destroyed the Russian revolution, consider their take-over of the soviets instead.

 

[caveman1917]

That article says half the worlds wealth is owned by 62 people.

Which pretty much equates to half of the world's property, if we measure the amount of property in terms of its value - which seems the obvious measure to use.

Edited to add:

The article doesn't even say that. It claims the 62 wealthiest people in the world have the same wealth as the bottom half (in terms of wealth) of the world population. That means there is an awful lot of wealth owned by those people who are in the upper half, but not that top 62.

True, I misread that. The point stands though, the mere cost of buying a ring of land is not the limiting factor. So you can't hide behind "nobody would do that because it costs so much".

Land is generally not sold in rings. To make a ring around a city, you would need to buy tens of thousands of individual parcels to make that ring.

Yes, and?

Then what would you do about the publically owned roads in and out of town?

What publically owned roads? Wasn't the state limited to protection of capitalist property rights? So under libertarianism the state would own roads?

Would nationalizing the railways be a policy consistent with libertarianism? They are just another form of roads after all.

How is protecting your access to your property not protecting your property rights?

The state forces me to allow trespassing on my private property? People are free to make or not make a voluntary exchange of money for the rights to pass through my private property, there is no coercion, they could just choose to remain in/outside the city if they don't like the market price of "everything they've got".

Yeah, let's talk about that for a second.

Yeah, let's not.

 

[caveman1917]

Model-gazing nonsense that has forgotten where/how the model was derived as an abstraction. Gosh, doesn't this worship of "perfect" and "pure" markets smack of religion?

Worship of "markets" because they are "efficient". You know, there's a reason why the disciples of this particular belief system never add what exactly the market is supposed to be efficient at. Here's as far as I've been able to determine exactly what they mean by "efficient":

Suppose there are 3 people, Alice, Bob, and Charlie. Alice has some medication at surplus which she doesn't need anymore. Bob needs the medication to survive and has 100$ to spend. Charlie is a dick and wants to see Bob die, he's rich and has 1000$ to spend. Then the efficient distribution of resources, according to this particular definition of "efficient", is that Alice gives the medication to Charlie for 100.01$ (the so-called "market clearing price") and Bob dies.

That alone should act to tip off the clueless, but it seems greed is a greater master than reason.

They (anarcho-capitalists) only exist on the Anglophone internet anyway, although apparently they're real in the US as part of the so-called "alt-right". Or at least I've seen a picture with a bunch of people holding confederate flags and "anarcho-capitalist" flags with "Don't tread! Come and take it!" on it, and some anarchists went and took the flags from them. There has been a sighting in Greece as well, although that might have just been a troll story.

 

[Craig B]

The government is representative...of what? What does it represent? Saying "the government is representative" is not a complete sentence, pretty much like saying "a capitalist economy is efficient" without saying efficient at doing what.

Representative of the persons or organisations chosen by voters at an election. It might be possible to imagine a more "representative" way of doing things, but the Bolsheviks did not achieve more; they attained less, than what is meant by a representative parliamentary government. I have no special definition of my own, of that expression.

Oh and I don't tend to dismiss struggles, I do tend to dismiss social/economic/political structures which I find problematic.

That is a very serious mistake, and one that I would have expected you to avoid. Problems are meant to be examined, not dismissed.

The Constituent Assembly was irrelevant at that time, it had no authority anymore. If you're looking for the point where the Bolsheviks destroyed the Russian revolution, consider their take-over of the soviets instead.

No, it was strangled at birth. I don't know if the Soviets could have survived without powers and procedures defined by a constitution. Their destruction by the Bolsheviks is related in my link, and was subsequent to the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. Here is the wiki account.

Instead the socialists ... hoped that Soviet re-elections would go their way once the Bolsheviks proved unable to solve pressing social and economic problems. They would then achieve a majority within local Soviets and, eventually, the Soviet government, at which point they would be able to re-convene the Constituent Assembly.

The socialists' plan was partially successful in that Soviet re-elections in the winter and especially spring of 1918 often returned pro-SR and anti-Bolshevik majorities, but their plan was frustrated by the Soviet government's refusal to accept election results and its repeated dissolution of anti-Bolshevik Soviets.​

So all democratic assemblies were forcibly dissolved, parliament and Soviets alike. As I say, the perpetrators of this criminality didn't realise the mortal danger it represented, to the Revolution and to their own persons. Later, under the firm hand and stern mind of comrade Stalin, they understood their mistake, but by then it was too late for remedy.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Worship of "markets" because they are "efficient". You know, there's a reason why the disciples of this particular belief system never add what exactly the market is supposed to be efficient at. Here's as far as I've been able to determine exactly what they mean by "efficient":

Suppose there are 3 people, Alice, Bob, and Charlie. Alice has some medication at surplus which she doesn't need anymore. Bob needs the medication to survive and has 100$ to spend. Charlie is a dick and wants to see Bob die, he's rich and has 1000$ to spend. Then the efficient distribution of resources, according to this particular definition of "efficient", is that Alice gives the medication to Charlie for 100.01$ (the so-called "market clearing price") and Bob dies.

Here I think you use the term "efficiency" in a non-standard way. Without disputing for the moment that one might structure the field of play in such as way as to encourage preferred outcomes, efficiency is normally understood as at equal cost, fewer inputs/time, or permutations thereof. There are good reasons to care about efficiency regardless of preference for any given socioeconomic system, simply because resources are limited, and needs must be met.

 

[caveman1917]

Representative of the persons or organisations chosen by voters at an election.

A government representative of itself then?

It might be possible to imagine a more "representative" way of doing things, but the Bolsheviks did not achieve more; they attained less, than what is meant by a representative parliamentary government.

The question isn't what the Bolsheviks did or did not attain, but what a "representative government" is representative of.

That is a very serious mistake, and one that I would have expected you to avoid. Problems are meant to be examined, not dismissed.

Meh, as if the dismissal of a governmental structure can not be the result of an examination of its problems.

No, it was strangled at birth.

Yes, by someone who clearly had the power base to do so. Power in Russia wasn't with the Constituent Assembly but with the Soviets. This dual power structure had, ever since the february revolution, increased the power of the Soviets against the Provisional Government. By the time the Constituent Assembly was created - as a sort of continuation of the Provisional Government - it was no more than a tool, it had no authority. Hence why it could simply be strangled if it didn't suit expectations, which is pretty much my point here.

I don't know if the Soviets could have survived without powers and procedures defined by a constitution. Their destruction by the Bolsheviks is related in my link, and was subsequent to the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly.

The Bolsheviks had been maneuvering in the Soviets long before they eventually destroyed them outright. IIRC things like manipulating the number of votes given to each Soviet in higher assemblies so as to favour the Soviets they controlled (mostly in industrial urban areas, Petrograd for example).

 

[caveman1917]

Here I think you use the term "efficiency" in a non-standard way.

Nope. That's exactly what it means. Every person acts rationally[*] and the solution is Pareto-efficient.


[*] "rational" in the economic sense, not to be confused with "rational" as "rational thinking".

There are good reasons to care about efficiency regardless of preference for any given socioeconomic system, simply because resources are limited, and needs must be met.

Yes, although it's not called "needs" which must be met but (effective) "demand". In the example I gave, Charlie "needs" the medication more than Bob because he puts more money behind it - that is how "needs" are measured relatively to eachother in their market belief system.