Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (3 Viewers)

[coldseat]

I thought of posting this in the All Things Racist thread, but ultimately felt it would be better in it's own thread. I ran across this opinion by George Will warning about the creeping danger of equity based government policy pushed by progressives. His overriding point is:

Harlan’s Plessy dissent insisted that the Constitution’s post-Civil War amendments forbid “the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude.” Today, 125 years later, multiplying departures from colorblind government — myriad race-based preferential treatments — are becoming a different but also invidious badge: of permanent incapacity.

Laws or administrative policies adopted for (in the words of today’s chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr.) the “sordid” practice of “divvying us up by race” can be deleterious for the intended beneficiaries. Benefits allocated to a specially protected racial cohort might come to be seen as a badge of inferiority. Such preferences might seem to insinuate that recipients of government-dispensed special privileges cannot thrive without them.

Government spoils systems, racial or otherwise, wound their beneficiaries. Getting used to special dependency, and soon experiencing it as an entitlement, the beneficiaries might come to feel entitled to preferences forever. Hence, progressives working to supplant equality of opportunity with “equity” — race-conscious government allocation of social rewards — are profoundly insulting, and potentially injurious, to African Americans and other favored groups.

Canellos’s stirring biography resoundingly establishes that Harlan was a hero. So, what are those who today are trying to erase the great principle of colorblindness that Harlan championed?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/30/pursuing-equity-over-equality-reveals-nations-moral-regression/

This is a very convincing argument for equality based government policy, one that I used to believe in, but it ignores a lot of realities and history. First, it ignores that centuries of purposeful inequality in government policy have directly led to the economic, social, and community destabilization and destitution that prevented black families for accumulating wealth. And how those purposeful actions have lead to the astonishing difference in the wealth gap between black and white families that has only worsened over time. While conservative will acknowledge this wealth gap and pay lip service to closing it, they fail to admit/consider how equality based public policy (something we've been trying to implement in race neutral government policy since the 60's) has failed to correct the issue and in many case has served to exacerbate it. While race neutral, equality based government policy may be easier for white voters to accept, it fails to address the historic inequalities entrenched by centuries of purposeful government based inequality. John Oliver make this point perfectly in this piece on housing discrimination. It's a 30 minute commitment, but well worth it because he provides a lot of prospective.



My overall point here is that if we you actually care or want to correct the effects centuries has purposeful government inequality, you actually have to target the aid and remediation to the people who where targeted in the inequality (i.e. equity based government policy). Anything else is paying lip service to the problem and asking black people in particular to "just get over it".

 

[Optimus Prime]

To go back to the original theme of this thread about equality and equity

In another thread someone used the race analogy but one runner is starting 20 meters behind (I've also heard versions with not only starting behind but also have ankle weights and a heavy backpack)

The analogy I've always heard more often was marbles

2 people - Person A and Person B

Person A gets 3 marbles a day while Person B gets 1

After a year the powers that be declare this to be unfair and wants to change things to make it more equal

Great! But what does that mean and how do you do it?

And there are two issues: making it fair moving forward and to rectify past imbalance

Issue 1 - Fair moving forward

Solution 1 - Take a marble from Person A and give it to Person B - now both get 2 marbles a day

Solution 2 - Both Person A & B get 3 marbles a day

Solution 3 - Both Person A & B get 1 marble a day

Which option do you go with?

Which option can you do without Person A screaming bloody murder?

In solution 2 Person A stays a 3 a day so hasn't 'lost' anything, so can't say 'They're taking our marbles!' But from A's point of view B is all of a sudden getting 3 times what they were before while they stay the same and 'how is that fair?!'

And don't forget the past. no matter what solution there is for moving forward there is the past to deal with

We're a year in, so person A has 1095 marbles to Person B's 365

How do you make that right? Even if everything is fair and even for the future how do you make up that 730 marble shortfall?

And again, how do you do it so Person A doesn't think it's the greatest injustice in the history of the world?

 

[bird]

Cripes. Of course actual socialism can only exist via coercion. But then again the health of any state is coercion as opposed to war. The ownership of the means of production by the state implies coercion unless the state purchases the assets of production at fair value. Beyond that the concept of private property requires the state to permit it. A legal system that allows private ownership of property is needed for capitalism to come into being. Once capital gains its footing it seeks the constriction of competition. As John D. Rockefeller is supposed to have said: “competition is a sin”. Via the instrument of government capital utilizes asymmetric information to advance its interests.

 

[Paul]

Cripes. Of course actual socialism can only exist via coercion. But then again the health of any state is coercion as opposed to war. The ownership of the means of production by the state implies coercion unless the state purchases the assets of production at fair value. Beyond that the concept of private property requires the state to permit it. A legal system that allows private ownership of property is needed for capitalism to come into being.

Capitalism requires non aggression and that the state allows private property. It is quite simple.

Once capital gains its footing it seeks the constriction of competition. As John D. Rockefeller is supposed to have said: “competition is a sin”. Via the instrument of government capital utilizes asymmetric information to advance its interests.

Yes, competition is hated. However whenever there is competition the consumer benefits by obtaining better goods or services for much less money.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Thanks for the above.
Ultimately wealth is created when someone comes up with an invention that enhances the quality of life of others. Circulating currency is not enough If wealth is not created.

Capitalism needs consumers and sometimes they create contraptions that people do not need but end up buying. What really matters is that the consumer feels there is value. If I buy a good book for $20.00 and I enjoy reading the book then the book is much more than $20.00 dollars. The writer earns money, and the printer does too. Everybody increases the wealth.

You really have a poor understanding of pretty much everything you comment on.

 

[Saintamaniac]

The people have the money to buy because a capitalist set up a business where the worker gets the opportunity to create wealth. The employer pays the worker for the wealth created (obviously not all of it). The employer provides a service or goods and makes a profit.

 

[not2rich]

Capitalism requires non aggression and that the state allows private property. It is quite simple.

Yes, competition is hated. However whenever there is competition the consumer benefits by obtaining better goods or services for much less money.

But he is saying, correctly, that capitalism doesn't increase competition. A government and rule of law is necessary to establish property rights and the rules of the game. But once those are in place, competitors in the market seek to influence the government and change the rules of the game to decrease competition.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

You really have a poor understanding of pretty much everything you comment on.

It’s actually pretty impressive to be so consistently wrong. I mean, even a broken clock is right twice a day which means it has a better batting average.

 

[bird]

Capitalism requires non aggression and that the state allows private property. It is quite simple.

Yes, competition is hated. However whenever there is competition the consumer benefits by obtaining better goods or services for much less money.

Your first statement is nonsense. Capitalism is a system of economic transactions which requires laws to permit it to exist.

Your second statement is simplistic and obvious. It does nothing to refute that capital does not want competition and engages in destruction of competition.

 

[Paul]

Your first statement is nonsense. Capitalism is a system of economic transactions which requires laws to permit it to exist.

I agree. At a fundamental level it is a voluntary transaction between two people. In this transaction both sides feel there is a benefit to the transaction’

Your second statement is simplistic and obvious. It does nothing to refute that capital does not want competition and engages in destruction of competition.

As a general rule capitalists do not want competition. However competition is inevitable and when it happens the capitalist must provide a service or goods for less money.

 

[Paul]

But he is saying, correctly, that capitalism doesn't increase competition. A government and rule of law is necessary to establish property rights and the rules of the game. But once those are in place, competitors in the market seek to influence the government and change the rules of the game to decrease competition.

I agree, there is such a thing as crony capitalism. This is a form of cheating and not real capitalism.

 

[samiam5211]

Capitalism requires non aggression and that the state allows private property. It is quite simple.

Can private property rights exist without the state?

 

[V Chip]

not real capitalism.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[bird]

I agree. At a fundamental level it is a voluntary transaction between two people. In this transaction both sides feel there is a benefit to the transaction’


As a general rule capitalists do not want competition. However competition is inevitable and when it happens the capitalist must provide a service or goods for less money.

So, should these voluntary transactions be subject to particular rules and guidelines?

Competition is not arbitrarily inevitable. When competition happens a far more likely scenario is that the new competitor goes broke due to lack of access to raw materials/methods of production caused by large competitors wielding market altering size or the new product/service/technology is interesting enough that large competitors buy the new company. Consolidation occurs all the time. The industry that I am in is an excellent example of that. There are probably 200+ specialized paint/coating/lining manufacturers. There are, however, approximately 5-6 massive ones that wield enormous influence. Since the industry grows organically at about 2% which is approximately inflation, the want by top management of 10% growth means two things: massive price cutting to elimitate competition and/or consolidation.

 

[Saintamaniac]

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Lol, he's a walking talking example of a high school freshman trying to participate in a conversation with PH D candidates. He's heard some of the concepts but has no clue of what they mean.

 

[UriUT]

To go back to the original theme of this thread about equality and equity

In another thread someone used the race analogy but one runner is starting 20 meters behind (I've also heard versions with not only starting behind but also have ankle weights and a heavy backpack)

The analogy I've always heard more often was marbles

2 people - Person A and Person B

Person A gets 3 marbles a day while Person B gets 1

After a year the powers that be declare this to be unfair and wants to change things to make it more equal

Great! But what does that mean and how do you do it?

And there are two issues: making it fair moving forward and to rectify past imbalance

Issue 1 - Fair moving forward

Solution 1 - Take a marble from Person A and give it to Person B - now both get 2 marbles a day

Solution 2 - Both Person A & B get 3 marbles a day

Solution 3 - Both Person A & B get 1 marble a day

Which option do you go with?

Which option can you do without Person A screaming bloody murder?

In solution 2 Person A stays a 3 a day so hasn't 'lost' anything, so can't say 'They're taking our marbles!' But from A's point of view B is all of a sudden getting 3 times what they were before while they stay the same and 'how is that fair?!'

And don't forget the past. no matter what solution there is for moving forward there is the past to deal with

We're a year in, so person A has 1095 marbles to Person B's 365

How do you make that right? Even if everything is fair and even for the future how do you make up that 730 marble shortfall?

And again, how do you do it so Person A doesn't think it's the greatest injustice in the history of the world?

I'll not pretend that I know which policy will be more beneficial. However, taxation to redistribute wealth is essential to a healthy society. That said, the trick isn't to convince Person A, but person B. We are a democratic country after all where the rule of the majority is fundamental. No matter how often "coercion" is thrown out, the rules are set to have the majority dictate the policy. Otherwise, it is either the rule of minority tyranny or anarchy. For example, is brexit coercion to those who voted no? or any laws for that matter? How about the saints lose and they say coercion because a rule screwed them over?

 

[UriUT]

I agree. At a fundamental level it is a voluntary transaction between two people. In this transaction both sides feel there is a benefit to the transaction’


As a general rule capitalists do not want competition. However competition is inevitable and when it happens the capitalist must provide a service or goods for less money.

As a capitalist, you should know that competition is driven by demand and pricing, and that it is very much desired. People like rockefeller don't want competition because they control pricing. That leaves consumers at the tyranny of that producer...very anti freedom....

 

[Paul]

As a capitalist, you should know that competition is driven by demand and pricing, and that it is very much desired. People like rockefeller don't want competition because they control pricing. That leaves consumers at the tyranny of that producer...very anti freedom....

Corruption happens in all human activities. You also find corruption among those that favor socialism. Despite the corruption this is the most prosperous time in world history.

 

[Paul]

I'll not pretend that I know which policy will be more beneficial. However, taxation to redistribute wealth is essential to a healthy society. That said, the trick isn't to convince Person A, but person B. We are a democratic country after all where the rule of the majority is fundamental. No matter how often "coercion" is thrown out, the rules are set to have the majority dictate the policy. Otherwise, it is either the rule of minority tyranny or anarchy. For example, is brexit coercion to those who voted no? or any laws for that matter? How about the saints lose and they say coercion because a rule screwed them over?

Those that favor a socialism have no issues with coercion. That is proble.