The Warped Worldview of Ann Coulter

[sjw]

But thuggery is extant in human being and take away the government and the thugs will put up another one.

Ergo anarchism has the opposite effect from the one intended (unless most anarchists are patsies).

Shayne

[Xray]

While the "C&C" cocktail (Christian faith + Capitalism) she serves to the public may not be to your taste, that Coulter is a fervent advocate of capitalism cannot be denied.

Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron. She doesn't even understand what "capitalism" (in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets) is.

Since Coulter is no Objectivist, there is no reason for her to adopt Rand's idea of "capitalism" in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets.

If you look at it that way, then Coulter's status as an "advocate" of "capitalism" turns out to mean that she advocates whatever she advocates and she calls it "capitalism" whether it is or not. I, for example, am an advocate of socialism - not what the Marxists mean by socialism, because I'm not a Marxist; rather what I mean by socialism, which is a system in which everyone has lots of beer. Presto! I'm an "advocate" of "socialism."

Coulter is far from using the term capitalism in a similarly odd way as you describe it with socialism in your above example.

When she exclaimed during the health insurance debate: "What we want is Capitalism!", the basic definition of capitalism covers exactly what she has in mind:

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Do you have any other pointless word games you'd like to waste our time with?

I suggest we go back to what triggered the contoversy, that way one can see at glance what it really is about.

I had written:

Coulter & Co interest me as an object of study; here in Europe, we don't have the type of politicians or other public figures who advocate capitalism in combination with quoting from the Bible. Imo one could call these people "capitalism evangelists".

To which you replied:

Does Coulter believe in a free market in heroin? In "pornography"? Then she does not believe in a free market. And she does not "advocate capitalism."

Believe me, I can understand that a type like Coulter drives you up the wall.

And I think what really goes against your grain is that people like Coulter sit in that capitalist boat as well (impossible to kick her out there), hence your attacks against her as not being an advocate of ['true'] capitalism. [True'] capitalism translated as the anarcho-capitalist version you happen to adhere to.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Xray

[caroljane]

[quote name='Jeff Riggenbach' timestamp='1313624600' post='141

I, for example, am an advocate of socialism - not what the Marxists mean by socialism, because I'm not a Marxist; rather what I mean by socialism, which is a system in which everyone has lots of beer. Presto! I'm an "advocate" of "socialism."

JR

See how easy it is? Just lose the quotation marks and you're on the right path, Brother!

In solidarity,

Comrade Carol. Hic.

Edited August 18, 2011 by daunce lynam

[jriggenbach]

While the "C&C" cocktail (Christian faith + Capitalism) she serves to the public may not be to your taste, that Coulter is a fervent advocate of capitalism cannot be denied.

Yes, it can. I deny it. Ann Coulter is an ignoramus and a moron. She doesn't even understand what "capitalism" (in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets) is.

Since Coulter is no Objectivist, there is no reason for her to adopt Rand's idea of "capitalism" in the Objectivist sense of completely unimpeded markets.

If you look at it that way, then Coulter's status as an "advocate" of "capitalism" turns out to mean that she advocates whatever she advocates and she calls it "capitalism" whether it is or not. I, for example, am an advocate of socialism - not what the Marxists mean by socialism, because I'm not a Marxist; rather what I mean by socialism, which is a system in which everyone has lots of beer. Presto! I'm an "advocate" of "socialism."

Coulter is far from using the term capitalism in a similarly odd way as you describe it with socialism in your above example.

When she exclaimed during the health insurance debate: "What we want is Capitalism!", the basic definition of capitalism covers exactly what she has in mind:

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets." http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Capitalism

What Coulter had in mind was the Republican proposal, which is an example of "capitalism" only in the Marxist sense in which capitalism means what we free marketeers would describe as mercantilism, state capitalism, or simply fascism. Because she is an ignoramus and a simpleton, Coulter doesn't realize that this is not the same as what you've just so helpfully defined. Apparently, you don't realize it either. Why does this not surprise me?

I think what really goes against your grain is that people like Coulter sit in that capitalist boat as well (impossible to kick her out there), hence your attacks against her as not being an advocate of ['true'] capitalism. [True'] capitalism translated as the anarcho-capitalist version you happen to adhere to.

Anarchism, and, hence, "anarcho-capitalism" has nothing to do with this. You could have a completely free market, true capitalism, under the sort of government Ayn Rand advocated, one that had no power to tax. That government would not interfere in the market, which is to say, it would not interfere with people's economic activities. Yet it would not be what you half-comprehendingly describe as "anarcho-capitalism." Ludwig von Mises, no anarcho-capitalist by any standard, also advocated a completely free market under an extremely limited government, which would not interfere in market processes. Ann Coulter wants a government that interferes more or less constantly in market processes, mostly to benefit "businessmen" who would rather use the power of the State to enrich themselves than do it "the old-fashioned way" - by competing for their riches in the marketplace.

JR

[jriggenbach]

This is not an introductory course in Anarchism 101. Go and read the obvious sources - Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, Rothbard's For a New Liberty and Power & Market, the Tannehill's Market for Liberty, Ghs's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market." For some fictional examples of how such a system might work, see Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. If you have questions about what you read, come back and ask them. If I'm not around, maybe Ghs or one of the other anarchists around here will step in and help out.

Which sources would you recommend for the strongest arguments against anarchism? Who, in your opinion, offers the best criticisms of the ideas of Friedman, Rothbard and Smith, which I might use to supplement my studies in Anarchism 101?

J

I've never seen any arguments against anarchism that I regarded as other than inept. Almost all of them are directed at straw men.

JR

[sjw]

I've never seen any arguments against anarchism that I regarded as other than inept. Almost all of them are directed at straw men.

JR

In my refutation of anarchism, I openly redefine the term, providing the argument for why my conceptual divisions are more logical than the anarchist ones. To this, anarchists illogically chant in unison "Strawman!" None so far has ever dared tread into a discussion of the conceptual divisions themselves. They just stamp their feet and protest that I don't swallow their terminology on their say-so, which is very ironic given how they pretend to not be authoritarians. In fact, I think anarchists are generally (with some noteworthy exceptions) just as authoritarian as any religious people are, perhaps even more so.

What is truly inept JR is a man who can't conceive of a reality that exists beyond the boundaries of his own arbitrary terminology. As I pointed out in my essay, an anarchist is really just a disillusioned statist. He still has the basic conceptual apparatus of the statist, he just reverses a few things here and there. He hasn't actually made the radical shift in thinking that he thinks he did, just as your average atheist who often hasn't changed the way he thinks just because he stopped believing in god.

Shayne

[anthony]

I've never seen any arguments against anarchism that I regarded as other than inept. Almost all of them are directed at straw men.

JR

In my refutation of anarchism, I openly redefine the term, providing the argument for why my conceptual divisions are more logical than the anarchist ones. To this, anarchists illogically chant in unison "Strawman!" None so far has ever dared tread into a discussion of the conceptual divisions themselves. They just stamp their feet and protest that I don't swallow their terminology on their say-so, which is very ironic given how they pretend to not be authoritarians. In fact, I think anarchists are generally (with some noteworthy exceptions) just as authoritarian as any religious people are, perhaps even more so.

What is truly inept JR is a man who can't conceive of a reality that exists beyond the boundaries of his own arbitrary terminology. As I pointed out in my essay, an anarchist is really just a disillusioned statist. He still has the basic conceptual apparatus of the statist, he just reverses a few things here and there. He hasn't actually made the radical shift in thinking that he thinks he did, just as your average atheist who often hasn't changed the way he thinks just because he stopped believing in god.

Shayne

Innocently entering here where angels would chicken out, but all I can see is that 1. governments can be fatal to their citizens, but, 2. man needs to be protected from other men.

So, compromise time: the dilemma can only be solved by having *some* government to protect rights, and no bigger.

As for competing governments/private agencies - now that's scary.

Tony

[Selene]

Innocently entering here where angels would chicken out, but all I can see is that 1. governments can be fatal to their citizens, but, 2. man needs to be protected from other men.

So, compromise time: the dilemma can only be solved by having *some* government to protect rights, and no bigger.

As for competing governments/private agencies - now that's scary.

Tony

Tony:

Compromise - the place where Objectivists go to die?

"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal." “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?”

The Virtue of Selfishness, 93

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

“‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing,”

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 182.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . . When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil.

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 216; paper back 173

This issue has always been a real problem for Objectivists.

Adam

[sjw]

As for competing governments/private agencies - now that's scary.

Tony

Point of fact: we already have competing governments. And yes, world wars and the other disasters they wreak are scary.

Shayne

[studiodekadent]

And I think what really goes against your grain is that people like Coulter sit in that capitalist boat as well (impossible to kick her out there)

Only if you use the Marxist definition of Capitalism (any economy where workers who don't own the means of production are paid wages to operate the means of production on behalf of someone else who owns the means of production).

As both myself and Jeff have repeatedly stated, we reject the Marxist definition of Capitalism.

When Objectivists, Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists use the term "Capitalism" we mean Classical Liberal Free Market Economics. The definition of "Free Market Economics" has already been outlined repeatedly.

Coulter is not in the same boat Jeff and I am. Jeff and I both support Free Market Economics. Coulter, as Jeff has stated repeatedly, supports pro-Big-Business Corporatism, which is closer to Mussolini than it is to myself, Jeff, or any libertarian/market anarchist/Objectivist.

Additionally, you haven't addressed my criticisms of your earlier argument, which I outlined in my immediately previous post on this thread:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11043&view=findpost&p=141619

Edited August 19, 2011 by studiodekadent

[Xray]

Additionally, you haven't addressed my criticisms of your earlier argument, which I outlined in my immediately previous post on this thread:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11043&view=findpost&p=141619

I don't reply to all criticisms stante pede, especially to those which are fairly complex from an epistemological point of view (as as yours is). You'll get a detailed reply ASAP.

But I'd like to deal with JR's posts first, which are far less complex in this respect.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

This is not an introductory course in Anarchism 101. Go and read the obvious sources - Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, Rothbard's For a New Liberty and Power & Market, the Tannehill's Market for Liberty, Ghs's "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market." For some fictional examples of how such a system might work, see Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. If you have questions about what you read, come back and ask them. If I'm not around, maybe Ghs or one of the other anarchists around here will step in and help out.

Which sources would you recommend for the strongest arguments against anarchism? Who, in your opinion, offers the best criticisms of the ideas of Friedman, Rothbard and Smith, which I might use to supplement my studies in Anarchism 101?

J

I've never seen any arguments against anarchism that I regarded as other than inept. Almost all of them are directed at straw men.

JR

JR,

Notice how close that is to ideologists arguing that all criticism of their ideology is 'inept'?

So unless you elaborate on alleged ineptness and on the alleged strawman argumentation involved, your reply can be regarded as simple evasion.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

For some fictional examples of how such a system might work, see Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

Fictional examples are just that: pure fiction. It's like recommennding to read certain Grimm's Fairy Tales to show how nice altruism works.

Ludwig von Mises, no anarcho-capitalist by any standard, also advocated a completely free market under an extremely limited government, which would not interfere in market processes.

But the discussion was not about Mises' take on the matter.

It was about what you wrote:

Does Coulter believe in a free market in heroin? In "pornography"? Then she does not believe in a free market. And she does not "advocate capitalism."

JR

So, going by your premise, anyone who does not believe in a free market in heroin and "pornography", does not advocate capitalism?

Question to all advocates of capitalism here: Do you share JR's view on that?

If yes why?

If not, why not?

Edited August 19, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

Does Coulter believe in a free market in heroin? In "pornography"? Then she does not believe in a free market. And she does not "advocate capitalism."

JR

So, going by your premise, anyone who does not believe in a free market in heroin and "pornography", does not advocate capitalism?

Question to all advocates of capitalism here: Do you share JR's view on that?

If yes why?

If not, why not?

Angela,

The premises are simple: the 'progressive' demands more laws; the individualist/capitalist demands the fewest laws feasible.

Question - which society understands and values freedom (the most)?

Question - which person has the most benevolent view of the rationality of others, and the most confidence in his own morality and responsibility?

These red herring issues of pornography and drugs have their solutions in morality, and individual rights - and must be resolved that way, not by a majority consensus.

Nor, by State decree.

Tony

[Dennis Hardin]

Re: the “stupid ignoramus” Ann Coulter--

The new book by Ann Coulter—Demonic—appears to have a theme that is very similar to a taped lecture presentation by Dr. John Ridpath.

The description of Ridpath’s lecture at the Ayn Rand Bookstore:

Ideas and Revolution (Audio)

By John Ridpath

The 18th-century saw two great social revolutions. One—the American Revolution—was the outcome of Enlightenment ideas, and was fueled, in particular, by the ideas of John Locke. The other—the French Revolution—was the result of anti-Enlightenment ideas, and was fueled, in particular, by the ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau.

These two lectures offer a case study in the power—for good or evil—of philosophical ideas. By contrasting Locke and Rousseau, Dr. Ridpath explains the diametrically opposite products of their respective philosophies.

Book review of Demonic:

In her new book "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America," Ann Coulter says liberals and ultra bloody regime changes like the French Revolution and its Terror -- the origin of the word "terror" -- have much in common.

Coulter traces the history of the liberal mob to the French Revolution and Robespierre’s revolutionaries -- as contrasted with the carefully drawn legal brief-like Declaration of Independence from America’s founding fathers -- who simply proclaimed that they were exercising the “general will” before slaughtering their fellow citizens “for the good of mankind.”

Coulter says liberal mobs, from student radicals like Bill Ayers and his privileged suburban wife Bernardine Dorhn to "white-trash racists to anti-war and pro-ObamaCare fanatics today," have consistently used violence to implement their idea of the “general will."

Coulter attibutes the long-term success of the American revolution to the influence of another Enlightenment thinker, John Locke.

Locke was concerned with private property rights. His idea was that the government should allow men to protect their property in courts of law. . .Rousseau saw the government as the vessel to implement the ‘general will’. . .Through the limitless power of the state, the government would ‘force men to be free’.. .

Demonic, p. 130

Such a stupid, ignorant, clueless woman. No insight to offer at all.

[Brant Gaede]

For some fictional examples of how such a system might work, see Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

Fictional examples are just that: pure fiction. It's like recommennding to read certain Grimm's Fairy Tales to show how nice altruism works.

Ludwig von Mises, no anarcho-capitalist by any standard, also advocated a completely free market under an extremely limited government, which would not interfere in market processes.

But the discussion was not about Mises' take on the matter.

It was about what you wrote:

Does Coulter believe in a free market in heroin? In "pornography"? Then she does not believe in a free market. And she does not "advocate capitalism."

JR

So, going by your premise, anyone who does not believe in a free market in heroin and "pornography", does not advocate capitalism?

Question to all advocates of capitalism here: Do you share JR's view on that?

If yes why?

If not, why not?

JR is right. And I assure you that people who do not advocate these things don't advocate a lot of other things respecting free trade. These people run this country. I sure do wish we had a free market in heroin and all these other contemned recreational drugs. People keep eating the cake of freedom wondering where all the cake went.

Nothing wrong with fiction to dress out your ideas. Rand, Hugo, and Dosty did that. And many others. You probably think you're reading the truth when you read your newspaper or watch the "news."

You do realize, of course, that you aren't teaching your students how to think critically because you really can't yourself. You seem unable to connect principles to facts and keep breaking everything down into little pieces of supposedly relevant empiricism.

--Brant

[jriggenbach]

Re: the "stupid ignoramus" Ann Coulter--

The new book by Ann Coulter—Demonic—appears to have a theme that is very similar to a taped lecture presentation by Dr. John Ridpath.

The description of Ridpath's lecture at the Ayn Rand Bookstore:

Ideas and Revolution (Audio)

By John Ridpath

The 18th-century saw two great social revolutions. One—the American Revolution—was the outcome of Enlightenment ideas, and was fueled, in particular, by the ideas of John Locke. The other—the French Revolution—was the result of anti-Enlightenment ideas, and was fueled, in particular, by the ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau.

These two lectures offer a case study in the power—for good or evil—of philosophical ideas. By contrasting Locke and Rousseau, Dr. Ridpath explains the diametrically opposite products of their respective philosophies.

Book review of Demonic:

In her new book "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America," Ann Coulter says liberals and ultra bloody regime changes like the French Revolution and its Terror -- the origin of the word "terror" -- have much in common.

Coulter traces the history of the liberal mob to the French Revolution and Robespierre's revolutionaries -- as contrasted with the carefully drawn legal brief-like Declaration of Independence from America's founding fathers -- who simply proclaimed that they were exercising the "general will" before slaughtering their fellow citizens "for the good of mankind."

Coulter says liberal mobs, from student radicals like Bill Ayers and his privileged suburban wife Bernardine Dorhn to "white-trash racists to anti-war and pro-ObamaCare fanatics today," have consistently used violence to implement their idea of the "general will."

Coulter attibutes the long-term success of the American revolution to the influence of another Enlightenment thinker, John Locke.

Locke was concerned with private property rights. His idea was that the government should allow men to protect their property in courts of law. . .Rousseau saw the government as the vessel to implement the 'general will'. . .Through the limitless power of the state, the government would 'force men to be free'.. .

Demonic, p. 130

Such a stupid, ignorant, clueless woman. No insight to offer at all.

True. None whatever. Glad you've seen the light on this bimbo, Dennis. Her absurdly oversimplified view of the revolutions of the late 18th Century is comical, though, you have to admit.

JR

[studiodekadent]

Re: the “stupid ignoramus” Ann Coulter--

The new book by Ann Coulter—Demonic—appears to have a theme that is very similar to a taped lecture presentation by Dr. John Ridpath.

The description of Ridpath’s lecture at the Ayn Rand Bookstore:

Ideas and Revolution (Audio)

By John Ridpath

The 18th-century saw two great social revolutions. One—the American Revolution—was the outcome of Enlightenment ideas, and was fueled, in particular, by the ideas of John Locke. The other—the French Revolution—was the result of anti-Enlightenment ideas, and was fueled, in particular, by the ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau.

These two lectures offer a case study in the power—for good or evil—of philosophical ideas. By contrasting Locke and Rousseau, Dr. Ridpath explains the diametrically opposite products of their respective philosophies.

Book review of Demonic:

In her new book "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America," Ann Coulter says liberals and ultra bloody regime changes like the French Revolution and its Terror -- the origin of the word "terror" -- have much in common.

Coulter traces the history of the liberal mob to the French Revolution and Robespierre’s revolutionaries -- as contrasted with the carefully drawn legal brief-like Declaration of Independence from America’s founding fathers -- who simply proclaimed that they were exercising the “general will” before slaughtering their fellow citizens “for the good of mankind.”

Coulter says liberal mobs, from student radicals like Bill Ayers and his privileged suburban wife Bernardine Dorhn to "white-trash racists to anti-war and pro-ObamaCare fanatics today," have consistently used violence to implement their idea of the “general will."

Coulter attibutes the long-term success of the American revolution to the influence of another Enlightenment thinker, John Locke.

Locke was concerned with private property rights. His idea was that the government should allow men to protect their property in courts of law. . .Rousseau saw the government as the vessel to implement the ‘general will’. . .Through the limitless power of the state, the government would ‘force men to be free’.. .

Demonic, p. 130

Such a stupid, ignorant, clueless woman. No insight to offer at all.

This isn't exactly a novel conclusion... you learn it in first year Political Science 101.

The French Revolution was indeed inspired partly by Rousseau and as such you get ideas like sovereignty-resting-in-the-nation-state and amorphous concepts like the "general will" and thus the danger of mob-rule-democracy and/or dictators claiming some special knowledge of the general will. Rousseau was also a romantic, and romantic nationalism was clearly one of the ideas that motivated World War 1 and World War 2 (probably the most influential of the relevant ideas).

But yes, Coulter oversimplifies. The French Revolution wasn't pure Rousseau; there was plenty of classical liberalism within it.

But is Coulter really a Lockean? For one, whilst Locke was a Christian, he argued for a secular state and his philosophical argumentation was not faith-based. He didn't claim he had a revelation from God commandeth-ing him to formulate Classical Liberalism. For two, Locke's notion of private property included ownership of the self, or self-sovereignty, which logically necessitates all those property rights that Coulter rails against, like right to use heroin, right to have consensual-adult buttsex in the privacy of one's home, right to listen to music about the glories of Satan, etc (even if he himself was unlikely to have considered those issues).

Now lets commence the tu quoque. "Demanding an unlimited State to implement the General Will" is not unique to Rousseau; Coulter does the same thing and replaces "general will" with "god's will." In both cases, individual rights are subject to approval by some higher power; the pack or the priests. Romantic nationalism is rife on the American right with political peans to the virtues of rural people that haven't been corrupted by the evil cities with their queers, junkies and liberals (i.e. they turn hicks into the Noble Savages)... this precise argument about the superior morality of these 'close to the land and rooted in the soil' farmers has been used repeatedly to justify farm subsidies (!). And of course, country and western folk music about staying in the country with one's 'roots' and the glories of repeating the traditions of one's fore-fore-fore-fathers (such as child-beating, cousin-screwing and lynching black people) (yes, I'm deliberately being a touch uncharitable here) is pure romantic nationalism with the accompanying Sense Of Life.

Coulter is trying to hijack the secular, empiricist Enlightenment in the name of her religionist, romantic-nationalist adgenda.

Oh, and she goes on that today's anti-war protestors are being Rousseau-ist... most of them sound to me like they're following the Lockean Founding Fathers' foreign policy advice rather than Rousseau-ism. Locke wasn't a warmonger either.

Edited August 20, 2011 by studiodekadent

[Xray]

You could have a completely free market, true capitalism, under the sort of government Ayn Rand advocated, one that had no power to tax.

How realistic is the version of a government that has no power to tax? As for voluntary taxes - frankly, who would pay any taxes if it were voluntary?

As for Rand's suggestion to finance the minarchist state with money from the lottery - doesn't this go against the Objectivist principle that rationality guide our actions? For the chances to win big are so irrationally small that state lotteries have also been called "Steuer für Dumme" ('tax for fools').

When she exclaimed during the health insurance debate: "What we want is Capitalism!", the basic definition of capitalism covers exactly what she has in mind:

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets." http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Capitalism

What Coulter had in mind was the Republican proposal, which is an example of "capitalism" only in the Marxist sense in which capitalism means what we free marketeers would describe as mercantilism, state capitalism, or simply fascism. Because she is an ignoramus and a simpleton, Coulter doesn't realize that this is not the same as what you've just so helpfully defined.

As for you using the term "state capitalism" (I assume you mean 'stamocap'), you concede that variants of capitalism exist that do not match your personal ideal.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm getting tickled about this thing of calling Ann Coulter a fascist.

I wonder if Jeff sees no difference between Ann Coulter and Benito Mussolini.

Anyway, the argument of saying she does not promote capitalism reminds be A LOT of a person in one Christian denomination saying another denomination is not really Christian.

I guess, fundamentally, it depends on which church you go to and not much else...

Michael

[Xray]

Anyway, the argument of saying she does not promote capitalism reminds be A LOT of a person in one Christian denomination saying another denomination is not really Christian.

I guess, fundamentally, it depends on which church you go to and not much else...

Michael

I was just going to comment that debates about "true" capitalism remind me of debates about which is the "true" religion when I read your post, the gist of which is the same.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Xray

[studiodekadent]

As for Rand's suggestion to finance the minarchist state with money from the lottery - doesn't this go against the Objectivist principle that rationality guide our actions? For the chances to win big are so irrationally small that state lotteries have also been called "Steuer für Dumme" ('tax for fools').

You're right that lotteries have massively large house margins.

But I play blackjack frequently. That game has a house margin (admittedly a very small one). Does that mean blackjack is irrational?

Gambling is not automatically irrational. The price of any form of gambling is ((minimum stake)*(house margin))-(value of any comps). Now, then the question becomes is the entertainment worth the price? And also remember that some things provide different levels of entertainment to different people.

So no, I don't think that Objectivist principles prevent governments being funded by state lotteries.

As for you using the term "state capitalism" (I assume you mean 'stamocap'), you concede that variants of capitalism exist that do not match your personal ideal.

Jeff's conceded nothing.

As stated repeatedly, when Objectivists or libertarians or anarcho-capitalists or the like say "Capitalism" they typically mean "Free Market Economics." They are not using the Marxist definition.

An advocate of "pro-Big Business Corporatism" is not the same thing as an advocate of "Free Market Economics." The two ideologies are separate.

[studiodekadent]

I was just going to comment that debates about "true" capitalism remind me of debates about which is the "true" religion when I read your post, the gist of which is the same.

Arguments like these are why I no longer use the word "capitalism" to describe my ideal economy.

Really, you're stubbornly sticking to the Marxist definition of "capitalism" even when both Jeff and I have made it perfectly clear we are advocating something else.

[Xray]

Innocently entering here where angels would chicken out, but all I can see is that 1. governments can be fatal to their citizens, but, 2. man needs to be protected from other men.

So, compromise time: the dilemma can only be solved by having *some* government to protect rights, and no bigger.

Imo this is a very realistic, rational assessment.

The world as it is is the strongest argument against anarchism. The world as it should be is the strongest argument for anarchism. The problem with the latter is spinning castles in the air.

One could call this the problem of armchair anarchism: that the theory has not been subjected to the litmus test of reality by testing it out.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

As for Rand's suggestion to finance the minarchist state with money from the lottery - doesn't this go against the Objectivist principle that rationality guide our actions? For the chances to win big are so irrationally small that state lotteries have also been called "Steuer für Dumme" ('tax for fools').

You're right that lotteries have massively large house margins.

But I play blackjack frequently. That game has a house margin (admittedly a very small one). Does that mean blackjack is irrational?

Gambling is not automatically irrational. The price of any form of gambling is ((minimum stake)*(house margin))-(value of any comps). Now, then the question becomes is the entertainment worth the price? And also remember that some things provide different levels of entertainment to different people.

So no, I don't think that Objectivist principles prevent governments being funded by state lotteries.

It depends on the perspective from which you look at it. From the government's perspective, no doubt installing a state lottery is a very rational decision because this will yield substantial monetary profit.

That the source of the monetary gain are the irrational expectations of the lottery customers is another story.

Imo questions like the following have not been covered enough in Objectivism: "Can a decision by a person be called rational if it uses the irrationality of the other party to achieve the goal?"

Now, then the question becomes is the entertainment worth the price? And also remember that some things provide different levels of entertainment to different people.

This addresses the issue of one's personal hierarchy of values, and those hierarchies can of course vary substantially among individuals.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Xray