News Fidel Castro Resigns: Tuesday Marks Historic Moment

[mheslep]

The thread seems to be obsessing a bit on the 'bling' associated with capitalism, so I post this proposition (abbreviated version seen earlier)by Milton Friedman to turn back to basic argument:

Human and political freedom has never existed, and can not exist without a large measure of economic freedom

...I'm only saying that to me, the "freedom of economic choice" (read, the principles of market economy) is not the pinnacle of "freedom". It can be a good thing, all you want, but in matters of *freedom*, it is not such a big thing - IMO. If they take it partly away from me (as they do), I don't care.

To me, the pinnacle of freedom, is freedom of expression, and freedom to walk about. These score on my personal list of important freedoms, orders of magnitude higher than the freedom to choose which hamburger I'm going to eat...

This is a ranking of the economics vs political/human freedoms and as suggested above they shouldn't be compared in that sense; rather one (human and political freedom) is utterly dependent on the other (economic). What good is your right to walk around on Sunday if you can't buy clothes and shoes, or take the train? How much freedom of speech does someone from sub-Saharan Africa or Haiti enjoy, who has never seen a computer or much less jumped on the net?

Several times you mentioned you consider your job as not important in the scheme of freedoms. As I recall you are a nuclear physicist or engineer, and perhaps a very good one. Suppose they come and say, 'speak as you like, but continue to do so and you will never again work in this field. You will work in the cane fields, or serve in the Army, or you will not work anywhere and starve.' A glancing familiarity with the Soviet dissident Sakharov, or the authors Orwell, Solzenitzen (Gulag and Cancer Ward) shows it is just this kind of attack on livelihood that has often been effective at stifling dissent. We need pay no attention to the burger du jour. I wouldn't though join w/ a state that banned that burger business w/out due process since someone else's livelihood may depend on that burger at the point of sale, or via the delivery system, farms, etc and thus their ability to walk about on Sunday.

http://www.englishrussia.com/?p=1632" 1990:

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Thanks for the photo of the Russian McDonald's mheslep. Earlier I had linked to http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DA1030F933A05757C0A96E948260" about the joint venture to put that McDonalds in, which was a project begun under the Soviet Union.

In the link you provided it shows Russians lining up for Большой Макs and drinking Pepsi's. But isn't this exactly the “bling” you mention in your first sentence? Consumer goods aren't freedom, no matter how good capitalism is at making them. I must ask - are those pictures of people enjoying McDonalds food and Pepsi representative of freedom to you? I would expect that's the reason you posted them.

And by the way: your comment about being free to walk around on Sunday: you know that having a day off during the week is actually a fairly recent thing in capitalist economies, right? I think it's only been during the last century or so this has been generally possible in the wealthier nations.

And also, in socialist and communist countries people are likely to have more time off during the week, right? Your point about banning private burger restaurants threatening livelihood doesn't seem to jive with the discussion earlier about the right to work and the way that many communist countries would guarantee their citizens a job and a paycheck. Assuming you made those comments in opposition to communism, I wasn't entirely clear.

⚛​

 

[mheslep]

Thanks for the photo of the Russian McDonald's mheslep. Earlier I had linked to http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DA1030F933A05757C0A96E948260" about the joint venture to put that McDonalds in, which was a project begun under the Soviet Union.

In the link you provided it shows Russians lining up for Большой Макs and drinking Pepsi's. But isn't this exactly the “bling” you mention in your first sentence?

No I don't consider people getting a meal at the only McD's in Russia bling! This however ...

Consumer goods aren't freedom, no matter how good capitalism is at making them. I must ask - are those pictures of people enjoying McDonalds food and Pepsi representative of freedom to you?

is simply 100's and 1000's of people waiting to get a meal of a quality (fresh, good service, ...) and low cost the likes of which they've probably never had at any business.

...fairly recent thing in capitalist economies, right? I think it's only been during the last century or so this has been generally possible in the wealthier nations.

Eh?

And also, in socialist and communist countries people are likely to have more time off during the week, right?

Source?

Your point about banning private burger restaurants threatening livelihood doesn't seem to jive with the discussion earlier about the right to work and the way that many communist countries would guarantee their citizens a job and a paycheck. Assuming you made those comments in opposition to communism, I wasn't entirely clear.

I equate 'time off' in Mao's China or the Soviet Union w/ time out of your cell to walk the yard in prison.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

No I don't consider people getting a meal at the only McD's in Russia bling!

?? Does that mean that you consider the true substance and core of capitalism to be a burger, fries, and a Coke, rather than something that's fairly peripheral? I'd actually disagree with you then and put a more positive spin on capitalism.

This however is simply 100's and 1000's of people waiting to get a meal of a quality (fresh, good service, ...) and low cost the likes of which they've probably never had at any business.

Yeah, I know that capitalism is much better than generating wealth than communism. That's what I meant by saying that capitalism is much better at making that sort of stuff. No one in this thread has been claiming that capitalism isn't way better at making wealth and all kinds of material stuff than is communism.

The issue is whether such creation of wealth via the capitalism method is so essential to freedom (or at all necessary to freedom) such that Cuba cannot be free without it. (Not that I would expect Cuba to become much wealthier than a Central American country or somewhere like Haiti or Jamaica.) You seem to have completely avoided the question about whether people enjoying McDonalds food and Pepsi is representative of freedom.

Eh?

Do you think that people working in Victorian / Gilded Age textile mills and steel mills generally got time off every week? Not to mention rural farmers? Seriously - I was under the impression that they didn't and that this was common knowledge. If you disagree, I can do some research.

Source?

I'm kind of surprised that you don't know about this. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Western_Europe": “France has enacted a 35-hour workweek by law, and similar results have been produced in other countries such as Germany through collective bargaining.”

I have to say, throwing out an imperious terse “Source?” demand on something like this which is fairly common knowledge, not to mention right there in Wikipedia, is a bit abrasive. You might consider couching your demands in softer terms, perhaps even using an entire sentence and indicating what the extent of your existing knowledge on the subject is. I have a hard time believing that you were completely unaware of this - the fact that Americans spend more time working than people in the rest of the world is pretty frequently cited.

I equate 'time off' in Mao's China or the Soviet Union w/ time out of your cell to walk the yard in prison.

Uh, to use your own stock response - source? That basically sounds like something straight off of a propaganda press. I hope you can at least concede that it's a bit pejorative. And actually… why did you even respond to a comment about threatened livelihoods and the Right to Work with something about time off?

In any case - as has been pointed out here, Russia and China haven't been made into havens of freedom by becoming capitalist. Capitalism doesn't equal freedom. It would be a fallacious argument to say that Cubans shouldn't be allowed to choose communism because Stalin and Mao were evil a▒▒holes. Just in case anything like that notion should arise.

I know you just came back from having been gone for a while, so to recap, my position in this thread has been that Cubans should be allowed to choose communism if they want to keep it without any interference with the U.S. And I still maintain my position from before that in general the U.S. is not such an expert on freedom, particularly in third-world countries we get involved in, that we ought to be dictating things like Cuba needs capitalism and McDonalds and Burger King to be free.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

A glancing familiarity with the Soviet dissident Sakharov, or the authors Orwell, Solzenitzen (Gulag and Cancer Ward) shows it is just this kind of attack on livelihood that has often been effective at stifling dissent.

Sakharov was a dissident in that he opposed their war in Afghanistan, but he also the scientist who built the nuclear bomb for the Soviet Union and was an official who helped to negotiate test ban treaties. Also, you appear to be citing a work of fiction here if you're referring to Orwell's 1984.

To my recollection Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago is about the prison camps in Siberia where individuals purged and disappeared by Stalin and the party cadre who succeeded him were sent. What does it have to do with attacks on livelihood stifling dissent? Because you can't work if you're sent to prison? Not exactly a unique feature of communism.

Trying to imply that the actions of dictators who have ruled communist countries indicate something about the principles of communism, and hence events similar to the depredations of Stalin and Mao would be inevitable in Cuba were it to remain communist, would be a fallacious argument.

In [post=1621386]this post[/post] I explained what my interpretation of communism is. I'm willing to do research to find links to support it but don't just say “Source?” a bunch of times - you explain what you think communism is - particularly what Cuban communists would say communism is and what they would pursue - and I'd be willing to research the points where your opinion differs from mine.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And by the way: your comment about being free to walk around on Sunday: you know that having a day off during the week is actually a fairly recent thing in capitalist economies, right?

Invented centuries BC by the Jews living under a king.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Your point about banning private burger restaurants threatening livelihood doesn't seem to jive with the discussion earlier about the right to work and the way that many communist countries would guarantee their citizens a job and a paycheck.

I took him to mean that the job and paycheck were not guaranteed to those to fail to toe the party line. That is my impression of the purpose of the Gulag and it's equivalents around the world.

Regardless of the equivocation between freedom in the US and freedom in Cuba, I assume you are not posting from Cuba. If I'm not wrong, the internet is illegal there. Small wonder if it is. People without economic freedom would have plenty to say if they were allowed to talk anonymously.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Trying to imply that the actions of dictators who have ruled communist countries indicate something about the principles of communism, and hence events similar to the depredations of Stalin and Mao would be inevitable in Cuba were it to remain communist, would be a fallacious argument.

Please forgive my gross spelling errors in the following.

I agree with you here. But it's not just Stalin and Mao, it's Lenin, Krustchov, Brezniev, Deng, Ho, Pol, Kim, Tito, Chauchesku, Honeker, Castro, and the list goes on. Dictators all, no exceptions. This doesn't prove that the next one won't be the first leader of a Communist country that isn't a dictator, but inductive reasoning does have its good points. It can in some cases help you avoid unmitigated disaster. Anyway, Raul doesn't look like a mold breaker to me.

 

[vanesch]

The thread seems to be obsessing a bit on the 'bling' associated with capitalism, so I post this proposition (abbreviated version seen earlier)by Milton Friedman to turn back to basic argument.

I think that this is an erroneous statement by Friedman. I think he has a hidden assumption - which is maybe correct, but which illustrates entirely the point I'm trying to make.

I don't think that political freedom is DEPENDENT on economic freedom, which is what Friedman (IMO erroneously) says. However, what I agree with, and this is probably the source of the confusion: political freedom is NOT IMPORTANT if you don't have an economy that is working well. I said this before: with an empty stomac, you don't care much about your freedom of speech. You want to eat.

However, the hidden assumption made by all of your arguments seems to be that without economic freedom, there is not an efficient economy. This might very well be true! But it is another issue. In this case - and that was what I was claiming - economic freedom is a TOOL to obtain a good working economy. It is just a means to get the "right allocation of means and ressources for the efficient production of services and goods". So we don't really need economic freedom as a FREEDOM, we need a GOOD WORKING economy. And it might very well be (I'm also of that opinion btw.) that you can only obtain such a thing with enough private initiative. The "free choice of goods" is then nothing else but a kind of regulating mechanism which makes the machine run smoothly. As I said, personally, I hate having to make choices for many things: I would prefer if somebody else made the GOOD CHOICES in my place, so that I can concentrate on things I like.

But it still means that I expect somehow that the GOOD STUFF is presented to me: that I am presented with rather GOOD FOOD (even if I don't choose it, like when my mom was making dinner for me as a kid), that I'm presented a GOOD JOB which suits me and my abilities, that one gives me a GOOD HOUSING that I don't choose, but that's nice for me etc... However, it seems that unfortunately I have to do all that stuff myself, and that I have to make choices ("use my economic freedom") to obtain that. I would have preferred an economical system which runs so smoothly, that all this stuff is assigned to me, with some studies which try to find the stuff that suits me best, without me getting involved into all this. A bit like the doctor that looks at your case, and prescribes you the best possible medicin that will take care of you. You don't use your "economic freedom" to choose your medicin do you ? You trust your doctor. Well, I'd prefer an economic system that treats me in the same way, and provides me with exactly the house, job, car, food,... I need, without me having to get occupied with all that stuff. But unfortunately it is not going to happen this way. So I HAVE TO make choices. In that case, well, using my economic freedom is a BURDEN which takes away my time from more fun activities, but it is very well possible that this is the only way to get all that stuff reasonably. As such, it means that I have to sacrifice some time to having to make economic choices, just as my contribution to the good working of economy is.

So I would be happier in an economic system that makes all the right decisions in my name: that provides me with the right stuff. In that case, I don't see what I would do with any economic freedom. But I would still see what I would do with my freedom of speech!

What good is your right to walk around on Sunday if you can't buy clothes and shoes, or take the train? How much freedom of speech does someone from sub-Saharan Africa or Haiti enjoy, who has never seen a computer or much less jumped on the net?

I agree with that, but it is a different point. As I said, political freedom is not the most important thing if the economy is failing totally.

Several times you mentioned you consider your job as not important in the scheme of freedoms. As I recall you are a nuclear physicist or engineer, and perhaps a very good one. Suppose they come and say, 'speak as you like, but continue to do so and you will never again work in this field. You will work in the cane fields, or serve in the Army, or you will not work anywhere and starve.'

That wouldn't then be the job in which I would be most efficient (or even slightly efficient!), so a good working economy wouldn't impose that onto me. If they'd analyse my profile, my abilities and weaknesses, then they'd probably assign me a job that suits me. In that case, I wouldn't mind.

EDIT: btw, if they do to me what you describe, then I don't have freedom of speech. I would undergo a (hidden) punishment because of what I say, which is exactly the opposite of freedom of speech. The problem I see, is that economic freedom can actually do exactly as you say: go and say something your boss doesn't like, and you'll suffer a similar kind of punishment. Imagine your boss being a gun collector, and you an activist against the possession of guns. You might have a problem one day. And your boss can hide behind HIS economic freedom to kick you out (and tell his buddies not to hire you "you'll never work in this town again").
In the case you cite, if freedom of speech is a guaranteed right, then you might go to court to get your job change (the army...) cancelled, exactly on the basis of that right. Go and do that against the economic freedom of your boss... He'll just say he's free to hire whom he likes.

A glancing familiarity with the Soviet dissident Sakharov, or the authors Orwell, Solzenitzen (Gulag and Cancer Ward) shows it is just this kind of attack on livelihood that has often been effective at stifling dissent. We need pay no attention to the burger du jour. I wouldn't though join w/ a state that banned that burger business w/out due process since someone else's livelihood may depend on that burger at the point of sale, or via the delivery system, farms, etc and thus their ability to walk about on Sunday.

But again, I'm not arguing against that. I realize the importance of a good working economy before items like political freedom even become an issue. I also realize that one probably needs a good dose of "economic freedom" just to get to that good working economy. But to me, that "economic freedom" is just a tool, an organizational principle, in order to get a good working economy, and not a "freedom" in itself one can enjoy.

So in that case, to me at least, economic freedom is a necessary burden, not a goal by itself.

 

[vanesch]

I'm kind of surprised that you don't know about this. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Western_Europe": “France has enacted a 35-hour workweek by law, and similar results have been produced in other countries such as Germany through collective bargaining.”

Ah, those famous 35 hours! Well, there is a debate going on here right now about the sense of this. It's not so much the time (the number 35) rather the principle, that it is *forbidden* to work much more than this. The current president (Sarkozy) is vehemently opposed to this "lock", and wants to liberate the working time: that is, he wants to allow people to work more than this (for a bigger paycheck): he wants to allow people to do more overtime.

The problem is that unions object to this, because they are affraid that the overtime will be IMPOSED by the companies, and not be a free choice of the workers. In any case, in certain sectors where people got the possibility to do more overtime, it turns out that it doesn't have a big success. Some people use it, most stay with their normal working hours.

The "35 hour week" doesn't actually mean that you work only 35 hours a week, it means that you get more hollidays. For instance, I have (apart from weekends and official hollidays) something like 50 days off per year. I have to say that this seriously increases my freedom to walk about, and not only on sunday Under a new law, I could "sell" part of my days off to my employer, but I don't consider that!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In any case, in certain sectors where people got the possibility to do more overtime, it turns out that it doesn't have a big success. Some people use it, most stay with their normal working hours.

Sounds like the definition of a roaring success to me. Nobody needs the freedom to do as the majority do, they always have that freedom.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

with an empty stomac, you don't care much about your freedom of speech. You want to eat.

In that sense, my stomach is always empty, and yet I care passionately about my freedom of speech.

Let's not mistake what lack of economic freedom means. You would NOT be allowed to choose between meat and fish, that goes by the wayside. You would be living in a prison, enjoying all the freedoms that a prisoner enjoys. You would wear whatever clothing you were told to wear, you would eat what you were told to eat. You would read the newspapers you were told to read. The alternative would require somebody else to have economic freedom even if you were given none. You could walk around on Sunday and speak as you please, but wherever you went and whatever you said, you would still be in prison.

 

[vanesch]

In that sense, my stomach is always empty, and yet I care passionately about my freedom of speech.

But the opposite claim was just made:

What good is your right to walk around on Sunday if you can't buy clothes and shoes, or take the train? How much freedom of speech does someone from sub-Saharan Africa or Haiti enjoy, who has never seen a computer or much less jumped on the net?

Let's not mistake what lack of economic freedom means. You would NOT be allowed to choose between meat and fish, that goes by the wayside.

Well, if they serve me a good meal that suits me, even though I didn't CHOOSE it, I wouldn't mind. In fact, most of the time, this is the case: when I go to the cantine, ok, I have a choice between 2 or 3 different meals, but I usually take the one with the shortest queue. But even if you go to a fancy dinner, usually, you don't have much of a *choice* but it will be very good in any case!

You would be living in a prison, enjoying all the freedoms that a prisoner enjoys. You would wear whatever clothing you were told to wear, you would eat what you were told to eat.

As I said before, I don't mind. In practice, this IS already the case in my life, simply because I don't care much about those items. I eat whatever is served on the shortest queue, I wear whatever my wife has decided I should wear, ...
I'm most of the time *bored* with these kinds of choices. As long as one presents me with GOOD stuff, that's ok with me.

You would read the newspapers you were told to read.

As long as I can WRITE in that newspaper what I want, that's ok with me !

The alternative would require somebody else to have economic freedom even if you were given none. You could walk around on Sunday and speak as you please, but wherever you went and whatever you said, you would still be in prison.

Well, if that's what a prison is like, I don't mind living in a prison then. If "living in a prison" means: some or other system takes care of most of the material issues and presents you with good solutions for them so that you don't have to bother with it, that would be heaven to me! If I get the stuff I need (even if I don't *choose* it myself amongst good and bad stuff, and have to find out *myself* what suits me), I can say what I want, and I can walk where I want, what more can you desire ?

Now, I'm not so naive as to think that such a system exists! I unfortunately have to take care of myself for all that stuff... But it's a nuisance, and I'd prefer to dream that I would not have to.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I have a choice between 2 or 3 different meals, but I usually take the one with the shortest queue.

That too is a choice. That too will be taken away from you. You'll be the one at the end of the longest queue, freely and pointlessly yapping about how you wish you were on the shorter queue.

 

[vanesch]

Sounds like the definition of a roaring success to me. Nobody needs the freedom to do as the majority do, they always have that freedom.

In fact, I agree with you. I also think one should have the freedom to work more if you want to earn more money. But it is true that the problem exists that some pressure from the employer could be put on workers to accept (even though they don't like it) overtime.

So the tradeoff is rather: should one run the risk of employers IMPOSING overtime upon a majority of employees just to allow a small minority to do overtime as they desire ?

 

[vanesch]

That too is a choice. That too will be taken away from you.

Yes, but it means I don't care much. In fact, I think I would prefer an imposed no-choice fancy dinner every noon, rather than the choice between 20 lousy meals I would delegate my daily "choice of meal" immediately to any 3-star Michelin chef (even a 2-star would do )

Also, choosing between 3 different equally-priced meals by the same company is not really an "economic freedom". An (passive) economic freedom is to choose between different economical agents, and whether or not to spend money (and how much) in doing so. Real active economic freedom is to set up your own business.

The advantage of this (the advantage of capitalism) is that lousy stuff gets out of business sooner or later, because people make bad choices, get upset, and then don't make them anymore. But if it were possible (I don't know if it is!) NOT to have lousy stuff in the first place by one or other miracle, and so that only GOOD stuff is offered, then having to make choices is nothing but a burden.
In "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman", that all-American physicist explains how it was difficult for him to make a choice of dessert each day. So he decided to stick with some chocolate cookie (if I remember well) every day, *just not to have to make a choice anymore*.

And, btw, I'm pretty sure that even Stalin had something to say about which meal he liked

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I also think one should have the freedom to work more if you want to earn more money.

Isn't that economic freedom?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Well, if that's what a prison is like, I don't mind living in a prison then. If "living in a prison" means: some or other system takes care of most of the material issues and presents you with good solutions for them so that you don't have to bother with it, that would be heaven to me! If I get the stuff I need (even if I don't *choose* it myself amongst good and bad stuff, and have to find out *myself* what suits me), I can say what I want, and I can walk where I want, what more can you desire?

Now, I'm not so naive as to think that such a system exists! I unfortunately have to take care of myself for all that stuff... But it's a nuisance, and I'd prefer to dream that I would not have to.

You are wrong. Such a system does exist. Take a brick and toss it though the window of a McDonalds or a Burger King (your choice). You will be taken to a heaven on earth.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This is not entirely appropriate, but the old image of a donkey, staved to death, while standing midway between two piles of hay just popped into my mind.

 

[BobG]

EDIT: btw, if they do to me what you describe, then I don't have freedom of speech. I would undergo a (hidden) punishment because of what I say, which is exactly the opposite of freedom of speech. The problem I see, is that economic freedom can actually do exactly as you say: go and say something your boss doesn't like, and you'll suffer a similar kind of punishment. Imagine your boss being a gun collector, and you an activist against the possession of guns. You might have a problem one day. And your boss can hide behind HIS economic freedom to kick you out (and tell his buddies not to hire you "you'll never work in this town again").
In the case you cite, if freedom of speech is a guaranteed right, then you might go to court to get your job change (the army...) cancelled, exactly on the basis of that right. Go and do that against the economic freedom of your boss... He'll just say he's free to hire whom he likes.

Actually, this was a real problem in the US up until the late 1800's. Massachusetts was the first state to start using secret ballots in 1888 and within 4 years, the entire US was using secret ballots. If you were working in a small one company town, the company could have representatives at the polling places to see how their employees voted. Voting against the company's best interest was just about as smart as trying to start a union.

To be honest, it probably still isn't a wise economic decision to vote for something that will result in the company you work for (and similar companies) laying off workers. Even if you're not one of the folks laid off, depressing the entire city's economy will have an adverse effect on you. But at least you can't be fired for harming the company at the voting booth or for having different political views from your employer.

That probably doesn't travel too far. Imagine being a committee leader on a group dedicated to preserving open space in the local community and having the company you work for try to buy one of the areas you're trying to protect because the company wants to build a new factory.

Sometimes freedom of speech means having the freedom not to say anything at all (which would be a good idea in the open space scenario since there's some serious conflict of interest issues regardless of whether the company succeeds in getting the land or not).

 

[vanesch]

Isn't that economic freedom?

Sure. *IF* you are in a capitalist system, where you HAVE to make choices, and you HAVE to solve your own problems like finding a home, and buying food, then you need also the means to achieve that, and having a lever on your income is one of those means. So you don't do overtime because you like it, you do overtime because you need the money to "use your economic freedom" (that is, buy yourself some food, a house, or a car, or...).

Now, don't understand me wrong. As I said several times, I think economic freedom is a good thing, because it makes the economy run well. And that's important.

What I'm trying to make, as a point, is that it is not (at least to me) some "goal by itself". Playing the economic game ("using your economic freedom") and trying to make sure you have enough income, and trying to find out how you have to spend it to your advantage is just a *means* to get some level of material comfort, without which life is difficult. So the goal is not the playing of the economic game, the goal is to obtain some reasonable material comfort. The *means* is making economic choices, and trying not to make too many mistakes in doing so. But it is not the goal. The goal is material comfort, which is high enough so that finally, you can enjoy your REAL freedoms, which are freedom of speech, and freedom to think, and freedom to walk about.

Now, I recognize that to some people, the means become the goal. In the same way as for some people, making money is a goal in itself (while to me, that's just part of the means one needs to achieve a certain level of comfort given the system in which we function).

If (by some miracle) one would *provide me* with the necessary material comfort (without me having to do anything, especially not having to think about it, and try to make the right choices, and avoid the bad ones), then that would be a bonus to me. But I realize that human nature is not that way that this will happen, and therefor, economic freedom, and the material comfort it gives you when you do not make too many wrong choices, is a good means to achieve this. But it is, in my eyes, no more than this: a tool.

My preferred (dream) life would be to be a Greek philosopher, whom one brings his meals, his clothes and everything material, and who just goes walking about and chatting and giving his free speech to anyone who wants to hear it But I realize that's not going to happen, so unfortunately I have to make my hands dirty, find out for myself which house I should buy, which car I should buy and which job I should apply for.

 

[vanesch]

This is not entirely appropriate, but the old image of a donkey, staved to death, while standing midway between two piles of hay just popped into my mind.

That's exactly it !

The donkey's life would be easier if his owner would just give him one single haystack.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That's exactly it !

The donkey's life would be easier if his owner would just give him one single haystack.

The donkey's life is as easy as it can get. It's over. But the image isn't very appropriate. The donkey really can't decide between the two haystacks because they are literally the same. I'm thinking of putting you between a thick steak, broiled, not stirred, a baked potato with sour cream, asparagus spears, a Pinot Noir (Louis Jadot, 2001 springs to mind) such as my wife (a capitalist roader if ever there was one) prepares to a tee on the one hand, and a McDonalds' burger, Coke, and fries on the other, and watching you starve to death. They're both food aren't they.

 

[vanesch]

The donkey's life is as easy as it can get. It's over. But the image isn't very appropriate. The donkey really can't decide between the two haystacks because they are literally the same. I'm thinking of putting you between a thick steak, broiled, not stirred, a baked potato with sour cream, asparagus spears, a Pinot Noir (Louis Jadot, 2001 springs to mind) such as my wife (a capitalist roader if ever there was one) prepares to a tee on the one hand, and a McDonalds' burger, Coke, and fries on the other, and watching you starve to death. They're both food aren't they.

I could always flip a coin

But you really don't (want to) see what I'm trying to say. I'm not AGAINST economic freedom, I'm not AGAINST economic choices (although sometimes they just bore me) etc... As I said several times before, I think an efficient economy is important, and a way to obtain that is with a good dose of free market mechanism.

Simply, I don't consider them as an *important freedom*. If somehow by a miracle, one could obtain the same efficient economy without having to make economic choices, and obtain the same level of material comfort, then I really wouldn't mind.

There was the claim here that freedom STARTS with economic freedom, that it is the utmost source of whatever one could call "freedom" etc... and personally, I disagree with that statement, for the reasons I tried to make clear. Most economic choices to me are boring and sometimes risky (in that the choices are not "free", but will have serious consequences for your material future).

I tried to compare making economic choices to taking some medicine: in the same way it doesn't come (I hope) to your mind to just go and pick some medication when you are ill, but rather follow your doctor's prescription, if someone could give me a prescription of what are the economic choices I should make which are good for me, that would be one burden less. The whole (successfull) idea of the free market is that one makes the hypothesis that concerning those choices, you are probably the best "doctor" to find out what is the right decision. So you are simply your own doctor in this respect.

So going to measure the economic freedom of other peoples, and decide upon that basis whether one should "liberate" them or not, seems to me to be an utmost idiocy. If ever one is going to make a scale of "liberty score" so as to classify in what order one is going to ram down through some people's throat some or other liberation with bombs and everything, I would go for a measure which finds out how freely one can express oneself and how freely one can walk about (so not too much private property of ground, which would stop people from walking about!).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I could always flip a coin

Why would there be coins in your world?

 

[BobG]

Thanks for the photo of the Russian McDonald's mheslep. Earlier I had linked to http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DA1030F933A05757C0A96E948260" about the joint venture to put that McDonalds in, which was a project begun under the Soviet Union.

In the link you provided it shows Russians lining up for Большой Макs and drinking Pepsi's. But isn't this exactly the “bling” you mention in your first sentence? Consumer goods aren't freedom, no matter how good capitalism is at making them. I must ask - are those pictures of people enjoying McDonalds food and Pepsi representative of freedom to you? I would expect that's the reason you posted them.

⚛​

Russians eating McDonalds and drinking Pepsi aren't representative of freedom, but http://www.buzzle.com/articles/126497.html is. Capitalism is a response to freedom, not a prerequisite for freedom.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I beg you to abandon the medical analogy. I don't mind watching you starve to death, but I want you to get a second opinion on the important medical decisions. I have nothing to say one way or the other about whether freedom "STARTS with economic freedom, that it is the utmost source of whatever one could call 'freedom'", as you put it. Rather, I would say that without economic freedom, all other freedoms are pointless.

 

[mheslep]

And also, in socialist and communist countries people are likely to have more time off during the week, right?

I'm kind of surprised that you don't know about this. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Western_Europe": “France has enacted a 35-hour workweek by law, and similar results have been produced in other countries such as Germany through collective bargaining.”

Yes, yes on EU workweeks. I'm referring to the days off in 'communist' countries, I should have specified. Do you then retract the communist part? Hopefully you can refer to the ex-Soviet Union, Eastern Block or Mao's China since there's some history and open documentation there now.

 

[mheslep]

Human and political freedom has never existed, and can not exist without a large measure of economic freedom

I think that this is an erroneous statement by Friedman...
I don't think that political freedom is DEPENDENT on economic freedom, which is what Friedman (IMO erroneously) says.

Have any historical examples in mind that counter Friedman?

political freedom is NOT IMPORTANT if you don't have an economy that is working well. I said this before: with an empty stomac, you don't care much about your freedom of speech. You want to eat.

However, the hidden assumption made by all of your arguments seems to be that without economic freedom, there is not an efficient economy.

I think we're mostly on the same page. Efficiency is mostly irrelevant to my take on Friedman, which mainly requires the freedom to earn a livelihood. For instance, I'd say today's modern commodities market is far more efficient at connecting buyers and sellers than was the same market 120 yrs ago, but that's irrelevant to MF's statement above. Both today and 120yrs ago in the US the vast majority of Americans had the ability to earn a livelihood, and thus the state or powerful interests could largely not stifle dissent [1]. Even at the height of the US depression in the 30's with wide spread suffering (and predominately caused by the fed. reserve in the opinion of many), there was still 'a large measure' of economic freedom.

I agree with that, but it is a different point. As I said, political freedom is not the most important thing if the economy is failing totally.

Again this seems to ~ concur w/ Friedman.

That wouldn't then be the job in which I would be most efficient (or even slightly efficient!), so a good working economy wouldn't impose that onto me. If they'd analyse my profile, my abilities and weaknesses, then they'd probably assign me a job that suits me. In that case, I wouldn't mind.

You might enjoy (seen?) the new German film 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others" ' which won Best Foreign Film. Its a drama, based on well documented events that describes the lives of East Germans in the theater world living under the Stazi. No one in the film is sent off to the gulag. The brilliant, the talented, that is those with ample gifts to communicate politically are simply denied the opportunity to perform/publish for the rest of their lives, should they stray in the slightest from the mind of the state. Its devastating.

The problem I see, is that economic freedom can actually do exactly as you say: go and say something your boss doesn't like, and you'll suffer a similar kind of punishment. Imagine your boss being a gun collector, and you an activist against the possession of guns. You might have a problem one day. And your boss can hide behind HIS economic freedom to kick you out (and tell his buddies not to hire you "you'll never work in this town again").

Good example. If you have a 'large measure' of economic freedom then by definition you can find another job. If your boss is say, a 19th century Tammany Hall city boss, then you have much less economic freedom due the breakdown in the rule of law and state interference, and your political rights are equally diminished. If your gun loving boss is the state and the state is everyone's boss, then you necessarily have near zero economic freedom. Better start loving guns. Friedman down the line.

So in that case, to me at least, economic freedom is a necessary burden, not a goal by itself.

Absolutely. As per Timothy 6: 'the love of money is the root of all evil'. Not just money; the mistake is placing it above all else.

[1] Principally two things get in the way of economic freedom 1) the failure of the rule of law (e.g. Jim Crow) and 2) interference by the state (e.g. sedition act)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

As per Timothy 6: 'the love of money is the root of all evil'.

I hope you are not confusing economics with finance. They are different things entirely. If you ever brought a goat to the supermarket in order to trade it for eggs and cheese, you would love money too.

 

[mheslep]

I hope you are not confusing economics with finance. They are different things entirely. If you ever brought a goat to the supermarket in order to trade it for eggs and cheese, you would love money too.

I 'like' money, and material things; I understand its value and try to be careful with it. I don't love it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I 'like' money, and material things; I understand its value and try to be careful with it. I don't love it.

But my issue is economic freedom, not financial freedom (if anyone is offering financial freedom, I'm accepting). When I say I love money, I don't mean that I want it to flow out of my showerhead. I mean I love the fact that I don't have to barter to get on in life. I don't even have experience at bartering, it just seems like an awful burden to have to evaluate everything I want to get rid of in units of things I want to have. And to go find someone who actually wants my stuff and at the same time has the stuff that I want. Money is great.

But none of this has anything to do with economic freedom. I want the freedom to produce the things that I think worthwhile producing, I want the freedom to consume the things that others produce. The ones I want, and not the ones I don't want. Even in a barter system I would still want that.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I took him to mean that the job and paycheck were not guaranteed to those to fail to toe the party line. That is my impression of the purpose of the Gulag and it's equivalents around the world.

Regardless of the equivocation between freedom in the US and freedom in Cuba, I assume you are not posting from Cuba. If I'm not wrong, the internet is illegal there. Small wonder if it is. People without economic freedom would have plenty to say if they were allowed to talk anonymously.

Do you find the situation where the internet is available but censored in capitalist China more appealing? I'd agree with you that it's probably not widely available in Cuba. But I'd be kind of skeptical that it's all that much more common for someone in capitalist Haiti to have internet access.

Job and paycheck being under threat from someone not toeing the party line is not a communist phenomenon, it happens in every sort of economy and it happens not infrequently in our history in the U.S. itself. Thoreau, for example, thrown in jail for not paying taxes to support the Mexican War, not unlike mheslep's “dissident” Sakharov's objection to Soviet Afghanistan.

I agree with you here. But it's not just Stalin and Mao, it's Lenin, Krustchov, Brezniev, Deng, Ho, Pol, Kim, Tito, Chauchesku, Honeker, Castro, and the list goes on. Dictators all, no exceptions. This doesn't prove that the next one won't be the first leader of a Communist country that isn't a dictator, but inductive reasoning does have its good points. It can in some cases help you avoid unmitigated disaster. Anyway, Raul doesn't look like a mold breaker to me.

Thanks for the vote of agreement, but, uh... Hitler? Franco? Mussolini? Papa Doc Duvalier? Pinochet? Noriega? Saddam Hussein? Musharrif? What were you saying about inductive reasoning? Your perspective on dictators in the 20th century seems somewhat selective and in particular left out the latter four that the U.S. supported. A very long list of capitalist dictators in history could easily be made.

Another point - do you know that we regarded the Soviets as righteous free allies during and after WWII? I remember seeing an “Our Friends the Soviets!” picture book, a U.S. gov't publication, from the early 1950's. I'll repeat one of my points because it's in context here: the idea that communism is inextricably wedded to evil is simply a bit of Cold War era propaganda.

Let's not mistake what lack of economic freedom means. You would NOT be allowed to choose between meat and fish, that goes by the wayside. You would be living in a prison, enjoying all the freedoms that a prisoner enjoys. You would wear whatever clothing you were told to wear, you would eat what you were told to eat. You would read the newspapers you were told to read. The alternative would require somebody else to have economic freedom even if you were given none. You could walk around on Sunday and speak as you please, but wherever you went and whatever you said, you would still be in prison.

Jimmy - are you saying that this is the way everyone's life is in communist countries, but outside of them this doesn't happen because there's capitalism and economic freedom? Even if you aren't literally saying that you seem to be implying it. All of the things you talk about above have been the state of affairs in capitalist countries frequently in history and are the case in many capitalist countries today.

People in communist countries don't / didn't live alien incomprehensible lives. Just like people in the U.S. or Brazil or Iran or capitalist China they hang out with friends, they have family feuds, they play sports or cheer for their teams, they gripe about stupid things the government does. Yes, in many ways people in many communist countries have been oppressed. But saying it's always like living in prison to be a citizen of a communist state is hyperbole.

Ah, those famous 35 hours! Well, there is a debate going on here right now about the sense of this. It's not so much the time (the number 35) rather the principle, that it is *forbidden* to work much more than this.

Yes, that's my understanding, that it's more that businesses get in trouble if they make an employee work too much or outside of particular hours rather than trying to limit the options of workers.

Sounds like the definition of a roaring success to me. Nobody needs the freedom to do as the majority do, they always have that freedom.

Jimmy, I know that was about a variation in the law allowing more voluntary overtime - but unless I'm mistaken, you're calling the implementation of socialist labor policy a roaring success here?

I beg you to abandon the medical analogy. I don't mind watching you starve to death, but I want you to get a second opinion on the important medical decisions. I have nothing to say one way or the other about whether freedom "STARTS with economic freedom, that it is the utmost source of whatever one could call 'freedom'", as you put it. Rather, I would say that without economic freedom, all other freedoms are pointless.

Do you have some sort of blinders on so that you can't see all the people in capitalist countries around the world starving to death?

Yes, yes on EU workweeks. I'm referring to the days off in 'communist' countries, I should have specified. Do you then retract the communist part? Hopefully you can refer to the ex-Soviet Union, Eastern Block or Mao's China since there's some history and open documentation there now.

Ah, I see. The Soviet Union limited the work week to 41 hours quite early in its existence, much earlier than France went to 35. Do you really not believe that? I can go get a reference if you really don't.

Both today and 120yrs ago in the US the vast majority of Americans had the ability to earn a livelihood, and thus the state or powerful interests could largely not stifle dissent [1].
…
[1] Principally two things get in the way of economic freedom 1) the failure of the rule of law (e.g. Jim Crow) and 2) interference by the state (e.g. sedition act)

How about the Pullman strike, Pinkerton company union breaking, etc., all of the things that prompted the Communist Revolution in other countries? Of course those things happened here.

And it seems a bit silly to cite “failure of the rule of law” as an explanation for the oppression of former slaves in a supposedly otherwise freedom-loving and freedom-generating capitalist society. Obviously there weren't any laws in the Soviet Union that said Stalin or the party elite should terrorize and oppress people either.

I mean I love the fact that I don't have to barter to get on in life. I don't even have experience at bartering, it just seems like an awful burdon to have to evaluate everything I want to get rid of in units of things I want to have.

What does bartering have to do with a communist economy?

―​

To reiterate another point I made earlier: Simply mentioning a whole bunch of bad stuff that occurred in communist countries in the past doesn't have any relevance to what would happen if the people of Cuba democratically chose communism. All of the occurrences you guys are citing happen in capitalist countries all the time - particularly in Cuba's capitalist neighbor Haiti.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Hitler? Franco? Mussolini? Papa Doc Duvalier? Pinochet? Noriega? Saddam Hussein? Musharrif?

Hitler - Nationalist Socialist Party
Mussolini - Italian Social Republic
Hussein - Arab Socialist Ba'th Party

I am against dictatorships of all stripes. But my list of Communist dictators was a short list. Why don't you have a list of Communist leaders that were not dictators? How about a list of non-Communist leaders that were not dictators?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Hitler - Nationalist Socialist Party
Mussolini - Italian Social Republic
Hussein - Arab Socialist Ba'th Party

I am against dictatorships of all stripes. But my list of Communist dictators was a short list. Why don't you have a list of Communist leaders that were not dictators? How about a list of non-Communist leaders that were not dictators?

Of course, there are lots of names on both of those lists! There can only be one dictator in a country at a time.

And if you're going to include members of any political party with the word “Social” or “Socialist” in it you'll be including many of the leaders in recent European history. And of course socialist or not the United States supported Saddam Hussein!

You're really, seriously saying that that if the split between communist / socialist dictators and capitalist dictators were 60%-40% or something that would be evidence that capitalism is good and free and communism is bad and oppressive? (I don't know if the real percentage would be anything like that - I suspect not since there have only been communist and socialist dictators during the last hundred years or so and there have always been capitalist dictators - but I'm pointing out that this is a somewhat flawed criticism of communism.)

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

but I'm pointing out that this is a somewhat flawed criticism of communism.)

Until you give me your list of Communist leaders who were not dictators, the induction stands.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Until you give me your list of Communist leaders who were not dictators, the induction stands.

Ah, so socialists are okay for you to cite, but not for me, eh?

You seriously consider that the equivalent of an induction proof? You could “prove” just about anything with it.

Easy cheesy, the other members of the revolutionary parties. Like I said, there can only be one dictator at a time. Trotsky, Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Zhang Guotao, Peng Dehuai, Lin Biao, Zhou Enlai… and that's just within China and the Soviet Union.

But like I just said and you ignored: let's say that your list of dictators in communist countries proves that having a communist economy is Miracle-Gro for evil dictators. Since you're talking in terms of proofs, is that going to prove that capitalism promotes freedom? Once again - you're making the world out as a black-and-white right-and-wrong fantasy. Examples of bad things happening in communist countries don't mean that future Cuban capitalism equals freedom and future Cuban communism equals oppression.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Also, it's a bit silly of you to say “you have to respond to question X I asked or I'm right!” when you have failed to respond to easily 95% of the points and questions I've made in this thread, sometimes flaunting your refusal to respond.

⚛​

 

[vanesch]

Why would there be coins in your world?

As an educational tool, to learn about experimental statistics of course

 

[vanesch]

The problem I see in this discussion is that apparently, you have or full-fledged capitalism or Stalinist communism, no other options seem to be considered. This is rather strange, because most economies in the world are non of both (anymore). Most European countries have mixed economies, especially France, who is on one hand quite capitalistic, but has on the other hand many laws (some of which I find rather odd myself!) which would give grey hair to any hard-line capitalist - in fact they do

For instance, for taxis, there is a fixed number of them, and if you want to drive a cab, your only option is to buy the license from another driver who quits. This means that those licenses go over the corner for about 200 000 Euro, and it became an investment tool. Recently the government vaguely suggested that it wanted to review this system to make it more open, and as a result, we got a massive taxi strike on our hands for several days, until the government backed away to leave the current system in place.

So visibly, economic freedom, even desired by the government, is not always what people desire. As such, it cannot be such a fundamental freedom without which life becomes hopeless.

Now, if you look at former president of France, Francois Mitterand (1981-1995: two mandates of 7 years), a socialist, he would probably be considered a communist to some (he had communist ministers in his government). He did amongst other things, the following:
- abolished dead penalty
- nationalised 36 big money bancs (Suez, Paribas...), and industrial groups (Rhone-Poulenc (chemical/medical), Saint-Gobin (glass), Thomson (electronics).
- introduced taxes on fortune (you pay on your possessions, not only on your income)
- price regulations for common products in supermarkets
- abolishment of a special court of crimes against the state
- abolishment of the "crime" of homosexuality
- 39 hour working week
- wanted to forbid non-state education (this didn't pass)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Also, it's a bit silly of you to say “you have to respond to question X I asked or I'm right!” when you have failed to respond to easily 95% of the points and questions I've made in this thread, sometimes flaunting your refusal to respond.

I never put words in your mouth. That would be dishonest of me. Nor do I claim that I am right because you are silent, I claim that I am right because I am right. I don't demand that you provide a list. Provide one if you will. It's a free country. You needn't provide a long list, paraphrasing Einstein, if I am wrong, one will do.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I never put words in your mouth. I don't demand that you provide a list. Paraphrasing Einstein, if I am wrong, one will do.

Oh, well in that case I guess it's not hypocritical at all for you to say “you have to respond to question X I asked or I'm right!”

My point is that your approach for discussing this subject primarily seems to involve artfully ignoring anything that doesn't fit with what you've previously said. But certainly, you're free to approach the discussion that way if you wish. And of course, it's not like what we discuss here is going to actually affect events in Cuba (unless you really are the director of the CIA… *wink*)

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

It just occurred to me that your responses might be short because you have some physical disability that makes it difficult for you to type. If that's the case, I apologize for inconsiderate criticism of your taciturn responses. Otherwise, if you're intentionally being taciturn… well, it's still certainly your prerogative to only put into the discussion what you wish.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Oh, well in that case I guess it's not hypocritical at all for you to say “you have to respond to question X I asked or I'm right!”

I never said that, I said 180 degrees the opposite.

Nor do I claim that I am right because you are silent, I claim that I am right because I am right. I don't demand that you provide a list. Provide one if you will. It's a free country.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

You said

But my list of Communist dictators was a short list. Why don't you have a list of Communist leaders that were not dictators? How about a list of non-Communist leaders that were not dictators?

I said

Of course, there are lots of names on both of those lists! There can only be one dictator in a country at a time.

And a bunch of other stuff besides that. You replied with a single sentence

Until you give me your list of Communist leaders who were not dictators, the induction stands.

Regardless of what Einstein says, you asked for a list. If your complaint about me speculating on why you evade questions is that such speculation is unfair or impolite, you aren't exactly going out of your way to conduct yourself in an especially fair or polite manner, if you're going to randomly name-drop unrelated authorities like Einstein and avoid speaking on any topic or aspect of the conversation that can't be spun somehow to support your views about freedom.

But like I said, I'm not complaining. Your conduct says more about how you think about your own views, and hence their validity, than it says anything about my views on freedom.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Please forgive my gross spelling errors in the following.

I agree with you here. But it's not just Stalin and Mao, it's Lenin, Krustchov, Brezniev, Deng, Ho, Pol, Kim, Tito, Chauchesku, Honeker, Castro, and the list goes on. Dictators all, no exceptions. This doesn't prove that the next one won't be the first leader of a Communist country that isn't a dictator, but inductive reasoning does have its good points. It can in some cases help you avoid unmitigated disaster. Anyway, Raul doesn't look like a mold breaker to me.

The induction stands until a counterexample is given. It doesn't stand because you are silent, it stands because no counterexample has been given.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

This is not entirely appropriate, but the old image of a donkey, staved to death, while standing midway between two piles of hay just popped into my mind.

Reminds me more of a poem from Ancient Rome about a dog who found two bones...
Freedom from choice is what you want, Devo.

Also, was the mention of Mitterand missed?

 

[Art]

The induction stands until a counterexample is given. It doesn't stand because you are silent, it stands because no counterexample has been given.

Rexhep Meidani (1997-2002) of Albania was democratically elected and abided by the democratic process when in power ceding the presidency to Alfred Moisiu (an ex-communist now a political neutral) in 2002.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Rexhep Meidani (1997-2002)

He was a member of the Socialist Party since 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rexhep_Meidani"
Albania itself hadn't been a Communist country since 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Communist_Albania

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Also, was the mention of Mitterand missed?

My bad. I haven't been following this thread very carefully. Mitterand was elected as representative of the Socialist Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Mitterrand"
France itself was not a Communist country.