tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post1654958026506452154..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: US Real GNP 1945–1973Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-49436958603063274592011-12-11T00:51:14.316-08:002011-12-11T00:51:14.316-08:00How can you be so sure of (1)?
http://socialdemoc...<i>How can you be so sure of (1)?</i><br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-posts-on-fractional-reserve-banking.html?showComment=1323557823387#c2061218117543789430Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27204448546495882952011-12-11T00:49:09.409-08:002011-12-11T00:49:09.409-08:00"Another example, two people cannot legitimat...<i>"Another example, two people cannot legitimately contract to create more than one property claim to the same property. Objectively, there is one property, but there are two claims. Both can't be legitimate at the same time.</i><br /><br />There isn't "more than one property claim to the same property".<br /><br />The FR account is nothing but a debt/debt instrument, and the money was a loan or <i>mutuum</i>, not a bailment.<br /> <br />In demand deposits, you have <i>lost your property rights to the money when you lent it to the bank</i>, and instead have entered into a contract with the bank to allow them to use it, even though they are obliged to re-pay to you on demand money the debt, or money to the same amount in whole or in part from their other reserves, other unused deposits, sale of financial assets or lending from other banks.<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/09/if-fractional-reserve-banking-is.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-17090864951194288102011-12-10T14:47:50.182-08:002011-12-10T14:47:50.182-08:00Lord Keynes:
"How can you be so against tho...Lord Keynes:<br /><br /><br />"How can you be so against those Austrians who want to curtail it as well?"<br /><br />"(1) because their claim that it is fraud is wrong."<br /><br />"(2) that being so, their justfifictaion for wishing to ban it (alleged fraud) under natural rights ethics collapses."<br /><br />How can you be so sure of (1)?<br /><br />"Woah, that is an extraordinary claim. Define "devastating, negative effects" here please."<br /><br />"(1) bank runs hitting FR banks causing bank collapses"<br /><br />"(2) mass loss of people's savings, and dsiastrous collpase in investment as the financial sector collapses"<br /><br />"(3) depression"<br /><br />For (1), how many bank runs are necessary to go from "not devastating" to "devastating"?<br /><br />For (2), to what extent in the loss of savings, and to what extent in the decrease of investments, are necessary to go from "not devastating" to "devastating"?<br /><br />For (3), this is just a label. It is definitional. So it cannot serve as a legitimate foundation for knowing when the objective economy goes from one reality to another reality.<br /><br />"Do you believe in the government's doctrine of "too big to fail"? That any time the company is teetering on bankruptcy, it should be bailed out at taxpayer's expense?"<br /><br />"No."<br /><br />"In the case of banks they can be regulated to ensure that they are not too big to fail, or just stopped from engaging in investment policies that led to their mass failure in the first place."<br /><br />That response is terribly flawed. It is flawed because it ignores the likely possibility that the government determines that its regulated banks are too big to fail, which means you cannot say that they can be regulated out of being so determined as too big to fail (see our current regulated banking system and the government's determination that they are too big to fail), and it is also flawed because it incorrectly presumes that regulations, laws, times when the government can use force and when they cannot, which are necessarily backward looking, can somehow stop the negative effects of credit expansion, which is always future oriented, all of which is grounded on the absurd notion that the government can even KNOW and PREDICT how much credit expansion is "good" and when it goes bad."<br /><br />How can the government know that $X credit expansion is "bad", but $(X+x) credit expansion is "bad"? <br /><br />How can the government know that $Y total market capitalization / asset valuation is "good", but $(Y+y) total market capitalization / asset valuation is "bad"?<br /><br />What specific regulations can possibly allow the government to stop credit bubbles, given the fact that they allow credit expansion?<br /><br />How can merely saying "more regulation please!" to the government possibly suffice as an informed understanding of what regulations can and cannot do when it comes to the effects of credit expansion? What contribution are you making to the topic by saying the magic word of "regulation"? <br /><br />Speaking of "incoherent"...Christofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-87391715059579129892011-12-10T14:45:57.023-08:002011-12-10T14:45:57.023-08:00Lord Keynes:
""Isn't that a (rheto...Lord Keynes:<br /><br /><br />""Isn't that a (rhetorical) argument that FR should NOT be curtailed?"<br /><br />"Correct. To demonstrate that the anti-FRB libertarian position, when conbined with natural rights, is incoherent"<br /><br />False. Natural rights is ultimately based on objective reality. FR is not necessarily (so goes the argument), because the mere fact that people voluntarily contract is not by itself sufficient to make it justified. For example, two people cannot legitimately contract to murder a third person, even if the first two people voluntarily did so. Another example, two people cannot legitimately contract to create more than one property claim to the same property. Objectively, there is one property, but there are two claims. Both can't be legitimate at the same time.<br /><br />Have you read Hoppe's "Economics and Ethics of Private Property"? He devotes an entire chapter to critiquing Selgin and White's "free banking" advocacy, and uses a rationalist foundation (what you call "natural rights") to argue against it.<br /><br />Like I said, I'm still on the fence, but saying that it is incoherent to be against FR and still be in favor of natural rights, is just plain wrong.Christofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-10630927357464652202011-12-08T20:22:48.903-08:002011-12-08T20:22:48.903-08:00"Do you believe in the government's doctr..."Do you believe in the government's doctrine of "too big to fail"? That any time the company is teetering on bankruptcy, it should be bailed out at taxpayer's expense? "<br /><br />No.<br />In the case of banks they can be regulated to ensure that they are not too big to fail, or just stopped from engaging in investment policies that led to their mass failure in the first place.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-29464657483985460172011-12-08T20:20:09.638-08:002011-12-08T20:20:09.638-08:00"Woah, that is an extraordinary claim. Define...<i>"Woah, that is an extraordinary claim. Define "devastating, negative effects" here please."</i><br /><br />(1) bank runs hitting FR banks causing bank collapses<br /><br />(2) mass loss of people's savings, and dsiastrous collpase in investment as the financial sector collapses<br /><br />(3) depressionLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-61780897085903757682011-12-08T20:18:14.205-08:002011-12-08T20:18:14.205-08:00Which means you want to curtail voluntary FR contr...<i>Which means you want to curtail voluntary FR contracting!<br /><br />How can you be so against those Austrians who want to curtail it as well? </i><br /><br />(1) because their claim that it is fraud is wrong.<br /><br />(2) that being so, their justfifictaion for wishing to ban it (alleged fraud) under natural rights ethics collapses.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-668366255358326532011-12-08T20:16:22.531-08:002011-12-08T20:16:22.531-08:00"Isn't that a (rhetorical) argument that ...<i>"Isn't that a (rhetorical) argument that FR should NOT be curtailed? '</i><br /><br />Correct. To demonstrate that the anti-FRB libertarian position, when conbined with natural rights, is incoherentLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-23315224001698278252011-12-08T20:14:10.740-08:002011-12-08T20:14:10.740-08:00"When exactly does holding more cash go from ...<i>"When exactly does holding more cash go from "who cares" to "OK, now it's a problem"?"</i><br /><br />It's called recesssion/depression.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-36062604002793047362011-12-08T13:18:25.617-08:002011-12-08T13:18:25.617-08:00Lord Keynes:
"The issue then becomes just a...Lord Keynes:<br /><br /><br />"The issue then becomes just a debate for philosophy of ethics."<br /><br />I know. Debates about economics, and political philosophy, often does this. It's all interconnected. It is a consequence, I believe, of human knowledge being hierarchical. Arguments have premises, and those premises have premises, and so on.<br /><br />So the entire sum of human knowledge would resemble a tree like structure, where the more you dig down any given field of inquiry (branch), you keep going back to the same core premises (root), and THAT is where, I think, it gets really interesting, wouldn't you agree?<br /><br />For these core premises are what supports one's entire worldview. If there is an error in those core premises, then one's whole worldview can get screwed up.<br /><br />"But demand was skyrocketing on account of government inflation and spending. Do you mean civilian based demand?"<br /><br />"Civilian demand for consumer goods was severely contracted from 1942."<br /><br />Wouldn't that be a logical consequence of redirecting scarce resources into the war effort? Since it's possible for damn near the entire set of resources to be so diverted, leaving only that which is needed to keep people biologically relatively healthy, then would you still call that a "stimulated" economy?<br /><br />I mean, the Soviets had a huge army, and tens of millions in the military. But most people were dirt poor, that is, most who weren't killed or starved to death. Should we say that the USSR economy was "productive"?<br /><br />I don't mean to be trite, I just want to know why the heck you believe the things you believe. It's captivating to see someone adhere to an ethics so apart from mine, which I consider to be pretty straightforward and based on human decency.<br /><br />"Do you have an answer for my actual question?<br /><br />"You actual question is:"<br /><br />"why should anyone go against these preferences?"<br /><br />"I've already answered it in the response: because it has severe negative effects on the economy, effecting many other people."<br /><br />But you've already said that this doesn't matter. You said that if I choose not to spend as much money at your place of business, then that's OK. But doesn't that have negative effects on your business too? <br /><br />When exactly does holding more cash go from "who cares" to "OK, now it's a problem"?<br /><br />Where is the individual based ethics in your worldview?<br /><br />"A consequentialist ethical theory provides the justification for why it is morally acceptable just as stopping people from drink driving even though might "want" to do so is justified, or stopping people from driving cars which are potetially dangerous to other people on the roads, etc etc etc."<br /><br />OK, but you have to actually make the argument, don't you? I mean, my ethics provides the justification for why it is morally UNACCEPTABLE, just as punishing someone for drunk driving is unacceptable if they didn't harm anyone else. My ethics states that punishing drunk drivers is punishing people solely for what they are doing to their own bodies. My ethics also states that if a driver is responsible for harming another driver, then they should be held liable, drunk or not.<br /><br />I mean, if we should punish people for drunk driving, then what exact blood alcohol level is going to be the cutoff? Some people have higher tolerances than others. Suppose that a person with 0.04 is more "drunk" than someone who has 0.06, and the "legal" cutoff is 0.05? Isn't it ridiculous to punish the "sober" guy, but not the "drunk" guy?Christofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-50033388759052903642011-12-08T12:56:16.907-08:002011-12-08T12:56:16.907-08:00I mean, you said:
"If consumers and banks wa...I mean, you said:<br /><br />"If consumers and banks want to freely and voluntarily engage in fractional reserve (FR) banking, where it is understood by all parties that FR transactions/demand accounts are mere mutuum loans and debt instruments, because all parties wish to benefit from FRB, then why should anyone go against these preferences? They would necessarily be attacking people's values, and imposing their own values on them."<br /><br />Isn't that a (rhetorical) argument that FR should NOT be curtailed?Christofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-87021718948338431352011-12-08T12:55:18.889-08:002011-12-08T12:55:18.889-08:00Lord Keynes:
"I mean you just got through gi...Lord Keynes:<br /><br />"I mean you just got through giving me a whole spiel about how fractional reserve banking should not be stopped because people voluntarily enter into it. OK, fair enough. Yet when the context is people holding more money, which is also voluntary just like FR, then all of a sudden, voluntary preferences go out the door, and now voluntary and peaceful preferences have to be smashed "for the good of society."<br /><br />"I've done no such thing. You've badly misunderstood the mere hypothetical ethical questions that are posed above to try and make you think."<br /><br />You've done no such thing? YOU JUST TOLD ME that if people hold more cash, then the government must squash those voluntary preferences, and print and spend money. You did argue that should be the response!<br /><br />"My position on fractional reserve banking has always been to regulate it, provide deposit insurance forr commercial banks and a lender of last resort in a central bank."<br /><br />Which means you want to curtail voluntary FR contracting!<br /><br />How can you be so against those Austrians who want to curtail it as well?Christofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-78234163564833887682011-12-08T12:43:57.770-08:002011-12-08T12:43:57.770-08:00Lord Keynes:
"(1) let us assume, for the sak...Lord Keynes:<br /><br />"(1) let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you accpet is morality."<br /><br />"(2) in a free market system, unregulated FRB is widespread."<br /><br />"(3) a crisis occurs and bank runs cause financial sector collapse and depression."<br /><br />"Is (3) an argument for banning FRB or curtailing or regulating it?"<br /><br />I would say no, for the same reason that I wouldn't consider banning people holding more money even if that also lead to pretty rough economic times. My ethics leads me to refuse punishing people who did not initiate aggression against others.<br /><br />I mean, if people's voluntary behavior in surfing, lead to more surfing related deaths, then I would not consider banning surfing.<br /><br />My ethics is one where the only time force is justified against people, is if they initiate it against others. Every other use of force is, to me, immoral and unjust.<br /><br />"If so, you reached consequentist ethics."<br /><br />OK, but isn't the debate over FR not the effects of it, so much as the inherent morality of the practise itself?<br /><br />The debate over FR is not so much over the effects, it's more about whether the practise is fraudulent or not.<br /><br />"If you see no argument for banning FRB or curtailing or regulating it, then you're trapped by the severe limitations of natural rights/argumentation ethics."<br /><br />Wait, what? That doesn't follow. I can abstain from calling for it's curtailment, because I haven't decided yet, and still not adhere to natural rights ethics.<br /><br />"Voluntary market processes can have devastating, negative effects, but your ethics gives no justification for interference because it's all voluntary."<br /><br />Woah, that is an extraordinary claim. Define "devastating, negative effects" here please.<br /><br />Suppose that a large place of business, gets bought out by owners who are not very good managers. Suppose they take control of the company of say, 10000 employees, and the company starts producing crap that nobody wants. Suppose then that the voluntary decisions of the consumers is leading to the company's bankruptcy.<br /><br />Question: Since the consumer's voluntary decisions are going to put 10000 people into a temporary state of unemployment, would you consider the consumers acting "immorally", such that consumers should be "punished" for NOT buying the crap from that company, lest there be "devastating, negative effects" for the employees?<br /><br />Do you believe in the government's doctrine of "too big to fail"? That any time the company is teetering on bankruptcy, it should be bailed out at taxpayer's expense? EVEN IF the owners are corrupt banksters?Christofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-74839567006789407092011-12-08T12:38:53.985-08:002011-12-08T12:38:53.985-08:00I mean you just got through giving me a whole spie...<i>I mean you just got through giving me a whole spiel about how fractional reserve banking should not be stopped because people voluntarily enter into it. OK, fair enough. Yet when the context is people holding more money, which is also voluntary just like FR, then all of a sudden, voluntary preferences go out the door, and now voluntary and peaceful preferences have to be smashed "for the good of society."</i><br /><br />I've done no such thing. You've badly misunderstood the mere hypothetical ethical questions that are posed above to try and make you think.<br /><br />My position on fractional reserve banking has always been to regulate it, provide deposit insurance forr commercial banks and a lender of last resort in a central bank.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-5950289047249401142011-12-08T12:35:02.359-08:002011-12-08T12:35:02.359-08:00"So if I choose not to spend my money at your...<i>"So if I choose not to spend my money at your place of business, I am "harming" you? Really? I am committing an "offense" against you that justifies "curtailing" my behavior? I should be forced to reduce my wealth somehow, for your benefit?</i><br /><br />That is just idiocy: I am not referring to trivial exmapels like this, but instances where mass liquidity preference causes significant amounts of idle cash balances, such as banks hoarding reserves and refusing to lend, mass deferred purchasing, mass deleveraging and so on, where these have severe, negative macro effects.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-26146881671471783872011-12-08T12:32:31.369-08:002011-12-08T12:32:31.369-08:00"I am still, at this point, undecided. But my...<i>"I am still, at this point, undecided. But my guess is that there has to be some foundation that can conclusively prove it one way or the other"</i><br /><br />(1) let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you accpet is morality.<br /><br />(2) in a free market system, unregulated FRB is widespread.<br /><br />(3) a crisis occurs and bank runs cause financial sector collapse and depression.<br /><br />Is (3) an argument for banning FRB or curtailing or regulating it?<br /><br />If so, you reached consequentist ethics.<br /><br />If you see no argument for banning FRB or curtailing or regulating it, then you're trapped by the severe limitations of natural rights/argumentation ethics. Voluntary market processes can have devastating, negative effects, but your ethics gives no justification for interference because it's all voluntary.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-13962493071968299112011-12-08T12:30:13.302-08:002011-12-08T12:30:13.302-08:00Lord Keynes:
"(2) Unlike you I suspect who w...Lord Keynes:<br /><br />"(2) Unlike you I suspect who would appeal to natural rights ethics to defend your positions"<br /><br />Huh? Unlike me? I do not adhere to natural rights. I adhere to individual freedom.<br /><br />"I adhere to variety of consequentialist ethics: even if certian peopel wish to do something and do so voluntraily if it has very bad effects on many other people, there is a moral argument against it and even interventions to curtail certain behaviour, e.g., drink driving, owning guns and carrying them around in public, large scale holding of idle money balances owing to uncertainty about the future causing depression."<br /><br />So if I choose not to spend my money at your place of business, I am "harming" you? Really? I am committing an "offense" against you that justifies "curtailing" my behavior? I should be forced to reduce my wealth somehow, for your benefit?<br /><br />What the heck kind of ethics is that? I'm glad I'm not a consequentialist like you. Look where it leads you!<br /><br />How in the world is me attempting to earn more money, and owning more money, in free trade, "harming" you? Since I am not government, I need to produce something of value in order to increase my cash balance. How am I harming you by not buying your stuff? You're not entitled to people's money simply because you're selling shit. <br /><br />What if I consider your goods and services not very good, or good, but not good now and instead good in the future, such that I find your goods and services to be worth less to me than holding my money for future use, because I have determined that I need the money for an uncertain future? <br /><br />Why should you be rewarded, at my expense, which overrules my values, with your own values? What makes your values so good that you consider them not only good for you, but so good in fact that they should be forced upon me too, using government force?<br /><br />Your response regarding people holding more money, is interesting to say the least. I mean you just got through giving me a whole spiel about how fractional reserve banking should not be stopped because people voluntarily enter into it. OK, fair enough. Yet when the context is people holding more money, which is also voluntary just like FR, then all of a sudden, voluntary preferences go out the door, and now voluntary and peaceful preferences have to be smashed "for the good of society."<br /><br />You're contradicting yourself. Again. You seem to be making a habit out of this.<br /><br />OK, well, suppose I argued that FR is to me, the way holding more cash is to you. Peaceful and voluntary, but nevertheless has destructive economic effects. Why are you so high and mighty for advocating for a curbing people's behavior when it comes to peaceful accumulating of money, but someone else (not saying me because I am on the fence right now) is a social deviant for advocating for a curbing of people's behavior when it comes to FR?<br /><br />I mean, surely you must agree that FR makes banks very shaky and more prone to collapse, compared to non-FR right?Christofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-84631018478673047982011-12-08T12:27:09.443-08:002011-12-08T12:27:09.443-08:00"Hmmm, fractional reserve banking is somethin...<i>"Hmmm, fractional reserve banking is something that scholars far more intelligent than me, and more than likely you as well, are arguing both sides."</i><br /><br />No, isn't: opposition to FRB is largely confined to Austrian anarcho-capitalist cultists who follow Rothbard, Block or Hoppe.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-40189887768049552922011-12-08T12:23:51.461-08:002011-12-08T12:23:51.461-08:00Lord Keynes:
I'll try to answer your off topi...Lord Keynes:<br /><br />I'll try to answer your off topic question the best I can, but this is something I'd rather not do, since FR is kind of a different topic altogether than the one I wanted to talk about. Maybe the next time you do a post on FR, we can talk about it some more.<br /><br />"If consumers and banks want to freely and voluntarily engage in fractional reserve (FR) banking, where it is understood by all parties that FR transactions/demand accounts are mere mutuum loans and debt instruments, because all parties wish to benefit from FRB, then why should anyone go against these preferences? They would necessarily be attacking people's values, and imposing their own values on them."<br /><br />"(1) Do you accept this argument. If not, why not?"<br /><br />Hmmm, fractional reserve banking is something that scholars far more intelligent than me, and more than likely you as well, are arguing both sides. I am kind of sort of tilting towards no fraud, but that is only if individuals are not forced to accept the bank notes as legal tender. Since we are forced to accept them through legal tender however, I can't help but notice many banks lending out their client's money without their knowledge. In a world of freedom, I would have said that if they take those risks, it's their responsibility, but when they are forced to accept them as legal tender, and many clients don't in fact know that the bank is lending out their money, then in our society, I tilt towards considering it fraud.<br /><br />I am still, at this point, undecided. But my guess is that there has to be some foundation that can conclusively prove it one way or the other. For me, proof ultimately rests on objective reality. So if you can provide a case that voluntary FR contracts have some underlying objective reality foundation, where no contradictions are being made, where we aren't playing word games or shitting on the meanings and definitions of the terms used, I am sure that we can come to an agreement on this.Christofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-34806441253763456942011-12-08T12:19:12.930-08:002011-12-08T12:19:12.930-08:00"Do you have an answer for my actual question...<i>"Do you have an answer for my actual question?</i><br /><br />You actual question is:<br /><br /><i>why should anyone go against these preferences?</i><br /><br />I've already answered it in the response: because it has severe negative effects on the economy, effecting many other people.<br /><br />A consequentialist ethical theory provides the justification for why it is morally acceptable just as stopping people from drink driving even though might "want" to do so is justified, or stopping people from driving cars which are potetially dangerous to other people on the roads, etc etc etc.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-1403534193607667252011-12-08T12:09:51.308-08:002011-12-08T12:09:51.308-08:00"But demand was skyrocketing on account of go...<i>"But demand was skyrocketing on account of government inflation and spending. Do you mean civilian based demand?"</i><br /><br />Civilian demand for consumer goods was severely contracted from 1942.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-7483567783479768852011-12-08T12:08:59.420-08:002011-12-08T12:08:59.420-08:00The issue then becomes just a debate for philosoph...The issue then becomes just a debate for philosophy of ethics.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-46124915079435573662011-12-08T12:08:17.002-08:002011-12-08T12:08:17.002-08:00"What I meant to say was why should I be forc...<i>"What I meant to say was why should I be forced to PAY for universal healthcare, despite my desire to send myself and my family to private healthcare providers only?"</i><br /><br />Why should I be forced to pay for roads, bridges, schools, highways, police etc. etc?<br /><br />Because it can be justified by various ethical theroies, and the defence of whatever ethical theory you adhere to as valid and justified is the ultimate foundation for it.<br /><br />There are a large number of ethical theories that easily provide ethical justification for interventions and progressive taxtation even if coercion is involved:<br /><br />Categorical Imperative ethics (Kantian ethics)<br />Human rights objectivism (Rawls)<br />Utilitarian Kantian Principle of James Cornman <br />preference rule consequentialism (John Harsanyi)<br />ideal consequentialism/utilitarianism (G.E. Moore; Hastings Rashdall)<br />preference consequentialism/utilitarianism (R. M. Hare; Peter Singer)<br />two-level preference consequentialism/utilitarianism (R. M. Hare)<br /> Negative consequentialism (Popper, Christoph Fehige and Clark Wolf)<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/06/ethical-theories-classification.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-23554610596640625232011-12-08T12:07:30.088-08:002011-12-08T12:07:30.088-08:00Lord Keynes:
"If consumers want to instead b...Lord Keynes:<br /><br />"If consumers want to instead build up their cash balances, because they know the future to be more uncertain, and spend less money on consumption and investment, then why should anyone go against these preferences? They would necessarily be attacking people's values, and imposing their own values on them."<br /><br />"If consumers and banks want to freely and voluntarily engage in fractional reserve (FR) banking, where it is understood by all parties that FR transactions/demand accounts are mere mutuum loans and debt instruments, because all parties wish to benefit from FRB, then why should anyone go against these preferences?"<br /><br />Um, I was actually asking about holding more cash by reducing one's nominal spending and/or investing. I have no idea what this FR stuff is about.<br /><br />Do you have an answer for my actual question?<br /><br />"In the latter case, government stimulus reduces uncertainty and allows recovery from depression/recession."<br /><br />It reduces certainty? How is that? Government stimulus raises prices above where they otherwise would have been, which nullifies the increased certainty that would have been had by people increasing their cash balances which reduces prices.<br /><br />How can reducing certainty end up increasing uncertainty? I don't get it.Christofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-34760766967577676952011-12-08T12:02:53.236-08:002011-12-08T12:02:53.236-08:00"In any social democratic society with univer..."In any social democratic society with universal healthcare YOU ARE NOT FORCED to go the government for healthcare: universal systems exist alongside private insurance/private hospitals, pay for service clinics etc."<br /><br />Sorry, I totally bonked my argument, and I apologize. What I meant to say was why should I be forced to PAY for universal healthcare, despite my desire to send myself and my family to private healthcare providers only?<br /><br />The reason why I said "forced to go to government healthcare" is that by universal healthcare, I thought you meant a society where only the government offers healthcare.<br /><br />"This argument has no force."<br /><br />You're right, I goofed.<br /><br />But my point about being forced to pay still stands. <br /><br />I mean, if you personally want to pay for universal healthcare, then I will say no problem, you want it, you should be free to pursue it. But what if I then said that you should be forced to pay private healthcare providers anyway, to benefit myself and my family?<br /><br />If you say that I am not justified in calling for you to be forced to pay for private healthcare, because you want to pay for universal healthcare and that is your choice, then by that same reasoning, isn't it the case that it is also not justified for the government to force me to pay for universal healthcare, because I want to pay for private healthcare and that is my choice?Christofnoreply@blogger.com