Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What the current crisis teaches us about capitalism or Why I'm not a libertarian
How well has that worked out for us so far? The two worst recessions in the history of the U.S. happened on the Fed's watch.
First I must say that I don't believe there can be an absolute quantitative definition of what the 'worst' recession would be. There are too many factors. You could have a long one, a deep one, one that destroys more wealth, one that destroys more jobs, etc. Secondly, the economy before the fed was so intrinsically different from today's economy, it's impossible to even compare them. Besides that, it's impossible to tell how the last 100 years would have played out without the fed.
I fail to understand how libertarianism is compatible with Buddhism. There are many cases where a free market = 0 compassion. Look at what the lightly regulated banks have done with credit cards in the last 15 years. It used to be that if you had even just decent credit, you could get a credit card that had 8-10% interest (only a couple points over prime) and you had more than 10 days to pay after you get your statement. Motivated by greed and monopolies (greed-driven themselves), my credit card rates have been pushed in some cases over 22%, 10-15 days to pay, and nickle and dime fees for every thing they can possibly come up with. This is despite having an excellent credit rating. Under purely free-market capitalism, backed by libertarianism, the banks would push for every last penny they could get away with, showing absolutely no compassion for their customers (as if they did now!) I can only imagine how much my utility bills would go up under a libertarian government, with no more controlled rate structures. I suppose that libertarians are against the estate tax, too...
How well has that worked out for us so far? The two worst recessions in the history of the U.S. happened on the Fed's watch. But if you look at all the recessions in our history, you'll see that they were preceded by inflation, cheap credit, and manipulation of interest rates.
They were also preceded by relatively lax oversight of financial institutions and markets, especially the Great Depression and the current economic downturn. The way I see it, both factors have contributed to market instability. I'm certainly not a big fan of the Fed or its monetary policies, but I don't think the Fed can take all the blame.
The other thing to remember here is that the US had a spectacular 50-year run partly by dint of being the only major power to profit from WWII. That had to end some time.
Exactly. The industrial centres of Europe and Asia were levelled during WWII, and the U.S., whose means of production were relatively untouched, capitalized on that. Unfortunately, we're no longer the manufacturing giant we once were, and places like China are slowing taking our place.
I fail to understand how libertarianism is compatible with Buddhism.
I agree with you to a certain extant. At the very least, I think that Ayn Rand-style of libertarianism isn't very compatible with Buddhism. As I wrote elsewhere:
From my perspective, Ayn Rand's political philosophy can be quite seductive on the surface, but gets problematic on a deeper, more ethical level.
Jeff Walker, a biographer, found this entry in one of her personal journals: "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!" To me, that's the core of Objectivism. Of course, publicly she put it more poetically. In Atlas Shrugged, for example, she writes, "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Same idea, but the latter is far more attractive. Hell, I'd even agree with it if I didn't understand what it actually boiled down to!
I agree with Rand to a certain extent about personal responsibility and the idea that we're responsible for making good decisions and should reap the fruits of our labour. But I also think that, as a society, we have a collective responsibility to one another as well. We should work together in the spirit of social cooperation, helping each other make good decisions along the way in support of the common good.
For what it's worth, I don't see one political ideology as inherently right or wrong, I've simply sided with the one I think is geared more towards taking the needs of society as its primary focus. I used to be more of an individualist, but for whatever reason I found myself unable to not take the needs and suffering of others into consideration. Everyone's mileage may vary, of course.
As a side note, I think Edward Bellamy humourously illustrates the ideological difference between individualism and socialism quite well in his 1887 utopian novel, Looking Backward, when he writes:
A heavy rainstorm came up during the day, and I had concluded that the condition of the streets would be such that my hosts would have to give up the idea of going out to dinner, although the dining-hall I had understood to be quite near. I was much surprised when at the dinner hour the ladies appeared prepared to go out, but without either rubbers or umbrellas.
The mystery was explained when we found ourselves on the street, for a continuous waterproof covering had been let down so as to inclose the sidewalk and turn it into a well lighted and perfectly dry corridor, which was filled with a stream of ladies and gentlemen dressed for dinner. At the comers the entire open space was similarly roofed in. Edith Leete, with whom I walked, seemed much interested in learning what appeared to be entirely new to her, that in the stormy weather the streets of the Boston of my day had been impassable, except to persons protected by umbrellas, boots, and heavy clothing. "Were sidewalk coverings not used at all?" she asked. They were used, I explained, but in a scattered and utterly unsystematic way, being private enterprises. She said to me that at the present time all the streets were provided against inclement weather in the manner I saw, the apparatus being rolled out of the way when it was unnecessary. She intimated that it would be considered an extraordinary imbecility to permit the weather to have any effect on the social movements of the people.
Dr. Leete, who was walking ahead, overhearing something of our talk, turned to say that the difference between the age of individualism and that of concert was well characterized by the fact that, in the nineteenth century, when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.
As we walked on, Edith said, "The private umbrella is father's favorite figure to illustrate the old way when everybody lived for himself and his family. There is a nineteenth century painting at the Art Gallery representing a crowd of people in the rain, each one holding his umbrella over himself and his wife, and giving his neighbors the drippings, which he claims must have been meant by the artist as a satire on his times."
The trouble is, we need collective action to stabilize society, but the power to do that always leads to corruption and abuse. Particularly in a democracy, when the economy starts to inflate it's hard for those who control the currency to maintain the discipline necessary to rein it in. Just look at the political beating Reagan and Volcker took when they decided to fight inflation in the 80s. And approaches which give up control, like the gold standard, have their own problems.
I don't know what the solution to this is. The libertarian solution is certainly simplistic. The only way to avoid this abuse, that I can see, would be for most people to start looking beyond their noses, participating in civil society, and demanding transparency and accountability for the people who are given these powers. I just can't see how that's going to happen in the US, though.
And what would the problems of a gold standard be?
First I must say that I don't believe there can be an absolute quantitative definition of what the 'worst' recession would be. There are too many factors. You could have a long one, a deep one, one that destroys more wealth, one that destroys more jobs, etc. Secondly, the economy before the fed was so intrinsically different from today's economy, it's impossible to even compare them. Besides that, it's impossible to tell how the last 100 years would have played out without the fed.
I fail to understand how libertarianism is compatible with Buddhism. There are many cases where a free market = 0 compassion. Look at what the lightly regulated banks have done with credit cards in the last 15 years. It used to be that if you had even just decent credit, you could get a credit card that had 8-10% interest (only a couple points over prime) and you had more than 10 days to pay after you get your statement. Motivated by greed and monopolies (greed-driven themselves), my credit card rates have been pushed in some cases over 22%, 10-15 days to pay, and nickle and dime fees for every thing they can possibly come up with. This is despite having an excellent credit rating. Under purely free-market capitalism, backed by libertarianism, the banks would push for every last penny they could get away with, showing absolutely no compassion for their customers (as if they did now!) I can only imagine how much my utility bills would go up under a libertarian government, with no more controlled rate structures. I suppose that libertarians are against the estate tax, too...
brian
Buddhism and libertarianism are very compatible. Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression axiom.
The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.
I would say that that is very compatible with Buddhism, because I've never read any Buddhist text that would argue against the non-aggression axiom of libertarianism.
As to your example of credit cards, if the people are being gouged and treated unfairly then they would not use the credit cards, and the credit card companies would be forced to change their practices or go out of business. But we must remember that we don't have a right to use credit cards, that this is a service provided to us by somebody else and that we can freely walk away from it if we choose to.
It should also be pointed out that the free market doesn't create monopolies, the government does.
And yes, we would oppose the estate tax on the basis that it violates property rights. Why does the state automatically get a claim to the property of somebody else just because they've died? It makes no sense.
I agree with you to a certain extant. At the very least, I think that Ayn Rand-style of libertarianism isn't very compatible with Buddhism. As I wrote elsewhere:
From my perspective, Ayn Rand's political philosophy can be quite seductive on the surface, but gets problematic on a deeper, more ethical level.
Jeff Walker, a biographer, found this entry in one of her personal journals: "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!" To me, that's the core of Objectivism. Of course, publicly she put it more poetically. In Atlas Shrugged, for example, she writes, "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Same idea, but the latter is far more attractive. Hell, I'd even agree with it if I didn't understanding what it actually boiled down to!
I agree with Rand to a certain extent about personal responsibility and the idea that we're responsible for making good decisions and should reap the fruits of our labour. But I also think that, as a society, we have a collective responsibility to one another as well. We should work together in the spirit of social cooperation, helping each other make good decisions along the way in support of the common good.
For what it's worth, I don't see one political ideology as inherently right or wrong, I've simply sided with the one I think is geared more towards taking the needs of society as its primary focus. I used to be more of an individualist, but for whatever reason I found myself unable to not take the needs and suffering of others into consideration. Everyone's mileage may vary, of course.
As a side note, I think Edward Bellamy humourously illustrates the ideological difference between individualism and socialism quite well in his 1887 utopian novel, Looking Backward, when he writes:
A heavy rainstorm came up during the day, and I had concluded that the condition of the streets would be such that my hosts would have to give up the idea of going out to dinner, although the dining-hall I had understood to be quite near. I was much surprised when at the dinner hour the ladies appeared prepared to go out, but without either rubbers or umbrellas.
The mystery was explained when we found ourselves on the street, for a continuous waterproof covering had been let down so as to inclose the sidewalk and turn it into a well lighted and perfectly dry corridor, which was filled with a stream of ladies and gentlemen dressed for dinner. At the comers the entire open space was similarly roofed in. Edith Leete, with whom I walked, seemed much interested in learning what appeared to be entirely new to her, that in the stormy weather the streets of the Boston of my day had been impassable, except to persons protected by umbrellas, boots, and heavy clothing. "Were sidewalk coverings not used at all?" she asked. They were used, I explained, but in a scattered and utterly unsystematic way, being private enterprises. She said to me that at the present time all the streets were provided against inclement weather in the manner I saw, the apparatus being rolled out of the way when it was unnecessary. She intimated that it would be considered an extraordinary imbecility to permit the weather to have any effect on the social movements of the people.
Dr. Leete, who was walking ahead, overhearing something of our talk, turned to say that the difference between the age of individualism and that of concert was well characterized by the fact that, in the nineteenth century, when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.
As we walked on, Edith said, "The private umbrella is father's favorite figure to illustrate the old way when everybody lived for himself and his family. There is a nineteenth century painting at the Art Gallery representing a crowd of people in the rain, each one holding his umbrella over himself and his wife, and giving his neighbors the drippings, which he claims must have been meant by the artist as a satire on his times."
Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, and hated libertarians. She was an objectivist, a philosophy of her own creation. Now it's true that there are objectivist libertarians, but Ayn Rand personally hated libertarianism and wanted nothing to do with it.
Buddhism and libertarianism are very compatible. Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression axiom.
Having one aspect in common with Buddhism does not make it compatible. The current system (non-libertarianism I'm sure you would agree...) regulates water and sewer and electricity prices so the poor can afford basic services. (it's compassionate to allow poor people to drink water, heat their dwelling, and poop, right?) The opposite would not be compassionate, correct? Us working folk pay taxes to subsidize (though not enough in the US, IMO) education so that anyone who desires a higher education can get one. A 'welfare state' that feeds the homeless, subsidizes food and rent for the poor, or one that gives you health care just for asking, sounds like it would be compassionate and greatly reduce suffering. I believe libertarians are against such welfare principles. A free for all. No thanks.
Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, and hated libertarians. She was an objectivist, a philosophy of her own creation. Now it's true that there are objectivist libertarians, but Ayn Rand personally hated libertarianism and wanted nothing to do with it.
I never said that Ayn Rand was a libertarian; I simply said that I think "Ayn Rand-style of libertarianism" isn't very compatible with Buddhism. I understand that not all Objectivists are libertarians, but many of them are or at least hold to similar principles, such as the non-aggression principle. Additionally, individualism, while not a defining aspect of libertarianism per se, is also popular among many libertarians.
Having one aspect in common with Buddhism does not make it compatible. The current system (non-libertarianism I'm sure you would agree...) regulates water and sewer and electricity prices so the poor can afford basic services. (it's compassionate to allow poor people to drink water, heat their dwelling, and poop, right?) The opposite would not be compassionate, correct? Us working folk pay taxes to subsidize (though not enough in the US, IMO) education so that anyone who desires a higher education can get one. A 'welfare state' that feeds the homeless, subsidizes food and rent for the poor, or one that gives you health care just for asking, sounds like it would be compassionate and greatly reduce suffering. I believe libertarians are against such welfare principles. A free for all. No thanks.
brian
I would argue the opposite in your analogy. Having money taken from one group of people for the benefit of another is not compassion, it's theft. Compassion is giving of yourself freely to someone in need, not using the government to take from others and giving to someone in need. And of course it breaks the non-aggression axiom.
I never said that Ayn Rand was a libertarian; I simply said that I think "Ayn Rand-style of libertarianism" isn't very compatible with Buddhism. I understand that not all Objectivists are libertarians, but many of them are or at least hold to similar principles, such as the non-aggression principle. Additionally, individualism, while not a defining aspect of libertarianism per se, is also popular among many libertarians.
My problem with that is that there really is no Ayn Rand-style of libertarianism, because Ayn Rand was not a libertarian and did not subscribe to libertarianism in the least. But that's mostly semantics and I see what you're trying to say.
I would argue the opposite in your analogy. Having money taken from one group of people for the benefit of another is not compassion, it's theft. Compassion is giving of yourself freely to someone in need, not using the government to take from others and giving to someone in need. And of course it breaks the non-aggression axiom.
Thanks.
I pretty much consider myself a libertarian - and a Buddhist. I believe in personal liberty and support a free-market society. Buddhism is not about trying to create a "regulated"/socialist utopia. (and I find it strange that the same people to call for staunch "regulation" usually have a disdain for the police etc..)
I do not put my trust in an authoritarian USA government. The gov is corrupt, self-serving and of course woefully inefficient. The bigger and more powerful the government, the bigger the opportunity for oppression.
To me the most compassionate action is to enable society to have services and goods as inexpensive as possible - with the least amount of government coercion, theft, and threat of imprisonment possible.
Buddhism is not about trying to create a "regulated"/socialist utopia.
Nobody said it was.
I do not put my trust in an authoritarian USA government. The gov is corrupt, self-serving and of course woefully inefficient. The bigger and more powerful the government, the bigger the opportunity for oppression.
It's true that the state has been skewed in favour of the ruling class from the very beginning, but how is the government any more corrupt or self-serving than a large multinational corporation?
Let's take Goldman Sachs, for example. Do you think that Goldman Sachs is any less corrupt of self-serving? Not only did they help fuel our own economic crisis with their [ab]use of unregulated derivatives like credit default swaps, but they may very well have helped fuel Europe's crisis as well.
To me the most compassionate action is to enable society to have services and goods as inexpensive as possible - with the least amount of government coercion, theft, and threat of imprisonment possible.
Sounds nice, but what about the people who can't afford all the goods and services they need?
Lets take healthcare, for example. Under our current system, if an individual doesn't get insurance through their employer and can't afford a policy on their own, they're shit out of luck. I think more socialized healthcare systems that cover everyone are more compassionate than what the market currently provides, and they have proven to be quite efficient and reliable.
It's true that the state has been skewed in favour of the ruling class from the very beginning, but how is the government any more corrupt or self-serving than a large multinational corporation?
Let's take Goldman Sachs, for example. Do you think that Goldman Sachs is any less corrupt of self-serving? Not only did they help fuel our own economic crisis with their [ab]use of unregulated derivatives like credit default swaps, but they may very well have helped fuel Europe's crisis as well.
Sounds nice, but what about the people who can't afford all the goods and services they need?
Lets take healthcare, for example. Under our current system, if an individual doesn't get insurance through their employer and can't afford a policy on their own, they're shit out of luck. I think more socialized healthcare systems that cover everyone are more compassionate than what the market currently provides, and they have proven to be quite efficient and reliable.
Governments are more corrupt because they have the ability to tax the people and kill or imprison them if they resist. Corporations must survive on the profit and loss system, unless of course the government uses its power to tax to subsidize those corporations which is, of course, not a free market.
Socialized healthcare is not efficient or reliable. When something becomes "free" it inevitably gets overused and then there's not enough to go around. That's where rationing of healthcare comes in, and that's where the idea of a "death panel" comes from.
Socialized healthcare is not efficient or reliable. When something becomes "free" it inevitably gets overused and then there's not enough to go around. That's where rationing of healthcare comes in, and that's where the idea of a "death panel" comes from.
Yes, the most common argument against "socialized medicine" is that the allocation of resources needed in such a socialized system will inevitably lead to the rationing of medical care, the complete denial of medical care to those who need it, and even worse, the dreaded "death panels."
However, the allocation of resources is an inherent part of any system, and insurance company bureaucrats routinely deny coverage and "ration" care now! That's how insurance companies make their profit, after all. The real question is, who do we want to be in charge of approving medical care, an insurance company bureaucrat or a government bureaucrat? Each has its own pros and cons, but the more "socialized" healthcare systems that cover everyone have proven to be quite efficient and reliable.
According to the <a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?France-Has-the-Best-Healthcare-System-in-the-World&id=2643603">World Health Organization</a>, for example, France has the best overall health care system in the world, excelling in 4 areas: (1) universal coverage, (2) responsive health care providers, (3) freedom of choice and (4) overall health and longevity of the population.
In 2005, France spent $3,926 per capita on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Canadian_health_care_in_comparison">healthcare</a>, and of that, approximately 80% was government expenditure. The U.S., in comparison, spent $6,347, and of that, approximately 45% was government expenditure. Yet France has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. (Although, to be fair, I've heard it mentioned that the U.S. counts premature births whereas France doesn't, and these differences can't be attributed to the differences between the two systems alone as there are undoubtedly other factors involved, e.g., eating habits, stress levels, etc.)
Or how about <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112014770">Spain's healthcare system</a>? Spain's constitution guarantees the right to universal healthcare and requires the state to provide it, it's ranked 7th best by the WHO, and according to one study published last year in the U.S. journal <i>Health Affairs</i>, there are a third fewer deaths caused by delayed access to health care than in the U.S.
And then there is Canada's healthcare system, which was quite similar to ours before they adopted a single-payer system. It's not only ranked higher than the U.S. system by the WHO (30th v. 37th out of 191 nations), but like France, Canada has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. (Again, these differences can't be attributed to the differences between the two systems alone, but I think it at least goes to show that Canadians seem to be doing OK with the system they've got.)
In addition, a <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/canadastudy/CanadaUSStudy.pdf">2006 peer-reviewed study</a> of healthcare access in Canada and the U.S. done by the <i>American Journal of Public Health</i> concluded that "U.S. residents are one third less likely to have a regular medical doctor, one fourth more likely to have unmet health care needs, and are more than twice as likely to forgo needed medicines." Of course, every system has its problems, and Canada's isn't perfect, but I'd still say that Canada's system is pretty damn good considering it covers everyone <i>and</i> costs less per person than ours.
With all of the wealth, resources and technology at our disposal, I don't understand why we can't create a universal healthcare system of our own that's ever better and more efficient than any of those listed above.
With all of the wealth, resources and technology at our disposal, I don't understand why we can't create a universal healthcare system of our own that's ever better and more efficient than any of those listed above.
Whose wealth? Why cant the government just give everyone a universal everything? (food, homes, cars, medicine, books, internet access, cell phones, etc etc?). Don't even get me started on the government dictating/enforcing lifestyles in the name of the greater good. Some already want the Girl Scouts to stop selling cookies because of the drain on tax-funded health care.
It's late, I don't have time to respond to it all but I will leave you with C.S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Exactly. The industrial centres of Europe and Asia were levelled during WWII, and the U.S., whose means of production were relatively untouched, capitalized on that. Unfortunately, we're no longer the manufacturing giant we once were, and places like China are slowing taking our place.
Yeah, China. Produces (I think) 80% of the household objects and clothing around the globe. In other words, is something that China can't produce ? Sooner or later they'll start mass producing God himself .:D:lol
It will become increasingly evident that the whole government in almost all countries need a revolution. Throughout history, the old passes away and the new arises. Our systems of government are to old to deal with our 21st century lives. I think we will invent a whole new constitution in the next 50 years. What we need to address is the unfair accumulation of wealth by the few. Policies that are earth friendly. Education of our world for free through higher learning. Health care for all for free. A standard of living that is simple and not selfish. People doing the work they are suited for not just to make "money". No racism or gender bias. And many more.... add some more if you like. But that is the way we need to start reforming our government. Make them accountable to these principles, nothing less. Until we do, we will be trying to put new wine into old wine skins ( and they will burst ).
It will become increasingly evident that the whole government in almost all countries need a revolution. Throughout history, the old passes away and the new arises. Our systems of government are to old to deal with our 21st century lives. I think we will invent a whole new constitution in the next 50 years. What we need to address is the unfair accumulation of wealth by the few. Policies that are earth friendly. Education of our world for free through higher learning. Health care for all for free. A standard of living that is simple and not selfish. People doing the work they are suited for not just to make "money". No racism or gender bias. And many more.... add some more if you like. But that is the way we need to start reforming our government. Make them accountable to these principles, nothing less. Until we do, we will be trying to put new wine into old wine skins ( and they will burst ).
I'm hoping this post is a joke but just in case....
Nothing is free, even if you don't pay for it somebody else does. I'm not sure why 21st century lives are different than 20th century lives... You are going to force small business to pay a "livable" wage (whatever that is)? How will they afford employees? Can you have a religious bias? Would you be allowed to exclude Nazis from your temple for example? Could I still make money as a math tutor or would that be unlawful? What will the punishment be for policy non-compliance of your great, new, glorious society?
So many opinions in your post, i do not know where to begin. There seems to be a movement of anti-Obama politics. In this dualistic society one side always abuses the other. It is nothing new. The right said these same terrible things after the depression and during the sixties. They are like witch hunts. If this forum is about the practice of Buddhism, then none of this argumentation would occur. The Dali-Lama has said he is a Marxist and that capitalistic societies tend to abuse people. Why can't people give up their "religious bias"? Isn't it because of conditioning? I thought as Buddhists we were interested in giving up our a prior's. There will be no force when we all wake up to what is needed for the human species to continue to survive. We all will know that money and private property is a form of selfish control.
The American Indians used a great "policy" when someone "rebelled" against their ways. So did the Chinese of ancient time. They would simply remove the person from their tribe. They no longer were accepted as a member. It happens naturally not by law. The spirit of love is what will guide an enlightened society, not what is most profitable for the individual. And it is not MY "great, new, glorious society." There hundreds of thousands of people who are moving in this direction. If someone is not they are going to be left behind. Staying with the old methods of politics is a sure fire way to become excluded. We need co-operation not more division.
Seems like I've heard this song and dance before. Do you really think you can cure the problems of samsara using samsaric means? I don't think so! It's just a pipe dream that doesn't take into account human nature and greed. The very same mistake the Communists made and every other pie-in-the-sky movement.
We need more freedom and independence, not mob-mentality. How many refugees from communist countries has the USA taken in over the years? I don't a single thing to do with your glorious commie revolution, thank you. You couldnt "leave me behind" soon enough.
There will be no enlightened society. They never has been, there never will be. Get over your delusions. Marxism is not the path to end suffering. Trying to mold society to your ideal by force is evil.
That i agree with completely. But if one were practicing empty mind, open heart then what follows is no personal property. It just goes with the territory. You can not be practicing Buddhism and love and cherish your personal views or possessions. You acquire a Bodhisattva's mind and work tirelessly for the end of suffering for those who are without food, without shelter, sand you live in harmony with nature, cooperating with others rather than espousing "samsaric" means. It is not based on politics, it is based on practicing openness. I do not understand how this is a point of disagreement with practicing Buddhists?
anti-obama politics have arisen because he has given in to far left sentiment and it scares anyone not that far left themselves. I'm not saying change isn't needed, but trading one extreme for another doesn't work. that is why I call myself a Buddhist, because I"m all about the middle path.
I do not see the far left being very satisfied with the Obama administration. He has continued many of the policies that Bush put into place, such as the "Patriot Act" and invasive spying on American citizens, He has escalated the war in Afghanistan, now he is advocating off shore drilling. So the left is unhappy with what he promised and what he has delivered. The right wing is trying to smear him to death, as not being a real citizen and an avowed Marxist, trying to implement a "One World Government". If there is middle ground, politically, i sure would like to know what it is. I think it has disappeared and i do not think it will be revived in any form that will resemble the good old post WW's 50's. I can only see, in the far future, the middle class being the most prominent class by a true socialist democracy with voted regulations on the accumulation of wealth by individuals and corporations. Voted universal health care, free college education....and probably an equally balanced government with women and men, hopefully more women than men.
Once upon a time the paper we carried around in our purses and wallets represented gold, silver and copper that was held in the Federal Reserve and guarneteed so that the paper we consider so valuble was backed by something that insured this was indeed the case. But the paper we call "money" only has value because we say it does...ultimately money is meaningless ink on paper that has "no value but the name" quoth the Bard.
I agree. Can someone PLEASE explain to me though, how GOLD has any value. WHY is a shiny piece of metal worth more to some than a living being. I can die in four days without water and have tons of gold...what would be more valuable in reality?
I don't get the concept of value. It's so subjective...and it can get people to do the nastiest of things. Imagine if the "rich" were no longer considered to be "powerful" because we all no longer sought after what they had?
I can see a virtual end to war and suffering overnight.
I know, I know, I'm naive....I know....but I can dream can't I?
We need more freedom and independence, not mob-mentality. How many refugees from communist countries has the USA taken in over the years? I don't a single thing to do with your glorious commie revolution, thank you. You couldnt "leave me behind" soon enough.
There will be no enlightened society. They never has been, there never will be. Get over your delusions. Marxism is not the path to end suffering. Trying to mold society to your ideal by force is evil.
I have to say I disagree with you. Communism is a dirty word to Capitalists because it is about the PEOPLE. Communism in its true form is Utopia...but then those pesky humans with their personal ambitions for enriching self with power and wealth come in and screw it all up. The reason Communism didn't work for Russia, or anywhere else for that matter is that the State failed to provide for the common folk and kept the riches for themselves, using force to shut up the protesters. This is not truly Communism, but a form of fascism or tyranny.
People began to see that working harder didn't mean more for them and they became apathetic eroding the system.
Capitalism dangles promises of wealth and power in front of the poor, promising a "fair deal" and a fair playing field. In reality, everyone in a Capitalistic society does NOT have the same chance at success. I have heard it said before, and find it to be true that, where you end up depends upon where you start from.
I have to say I disagree with you. Communism is a dirty word to Capitalists because it is about the PEOPLE. Communism in its true form is Utopia...but then those pesky humans with their personal ambitions for enriching self with power and wealth come in and screw it all up. The reason Communism didn't work for Russia, or anywhere else for that matter is that the State failed to provide for the common folk and kept the riches for themselves, using force to shut up the protesters. This is not truly Communism, but a form of fascism or tyranny.
People began to see that working harder didn't mean more for them and they became apathetic eroding the system.
Capitalism dangles promises of wealth and power in front of the poor, promising a "fair deal" and a fair playing field. In reality, everyone in a Capitalistic society does NOT have the same chance at success. I have heard it said before, and find it to be true that, where you end up depends upon where you start from.
Freedom is about the people, not communism. The state will always lead to failure, do not trust it.
Of course everyone doesn't have the same "chance" at anything. That's karma. I dont have the same chance of being an NBA player as Yao Ming. I'm not going to blame capitalism.
Free market gets a bad rep but much of it come from ignorance and illusion.
(the illusion is that it look bad but do better than any other alternative in most cases)
more often than not it is simply the most efficient way of doing things (including helping the third world countries)
here is Milton Friedman series that are very interesting to watch and very informative.
I love the impartial debates at the end of each episodes, i wish today's television would go back to these times where intelligent and mature debates could happen. http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/
Today, even the government itself cannot have a hint of these exchanges of ideas and point of views. It's a shame. In the united states only Obama has made and is still making a stand against the overwhelming idyocracy (watched this movie?) (see Bush retarded pleas that actually worked so many times) that is happening there.
patbb, all this would be correct if this was a true democracy. unfortunately, it's more of a plutocracy.
Free market policies can work under communism or even dictatorship, it doesn't really matter what kind of government you have...
Actually, a traditional democracy might not be the optimal choice for rational governance and efficiency...
Most of the people voting do not even begin to understand the issues they are voting for or against.
I don't believe private ownership of the means of production is a good idea at all. It inevitably leads to exploitation of the majority by the privileged minority who has the means of production in hand. What happened during the recent economic crisis. The companies took measures to protect their income, fired workers, took measures of cost cutting and some even removed the coffee machines. Capitalist system is a failure in itself.
Free market policies can work under communism or even dictatorship, it doesn't really matter what kind of government you have...
Except that governments of every kind, from the most liberal of democracies to the most totalitarian dictatorships, generally make policies regarding economic issues. The "free market" is a theoretical concept that has never existed (much like a large scale socialist economy). The only way to prevent a government from making economic policies is to take political power in order to remove government influence from the marketplace.
The way I see it, libertarians and socialists have the same problem: current governments aren't going to just give up their power without a fight, and both libertarians and socialists are a small percentage of the electorate.
And now that each has taken an economico-political stance, how does it fit with your Buddhist belief and practice?
I do not take any firm stance, only expressing my understanding of how things work. But since my knowledge is limited, so is my understanding.
So i listen to people disagreeing with my ideas and try to figuring out how things really are.
Anyhow i see the free market as the law of nature.
People want to control the markets, because they see the greed of other people, or are jealous of other people, or feel bad for other people etc...
Control is the opposite of freedom.
And control just never work, and is never as efficient.
Imagine the forest.
This is the free market.
If there is much food for the rabbit, the wolf population will grow and eat more rabbits.
Now the population of rabbit have shrink so the wolf have nothing to eat. So the wolf population shrink.
Eventually, there is a balance to be found.
When you mess around with this free market/rule of nature, things get real complicated real soon.
you decide that the extra population of this year rabbits (after they had a very good season and they had much to eat) should be allowed to prosper and live.
So first thing you must find food for them, since the population is bigger than usual, you must find them other source of food.
so you develop some fields that you will harvest for the rabbits.
(In the mean time you have to re localize the animals who were living in these fields...)
So you feed the rabbits with this artificial source of food, so next year there will be more rabbits requiring more food etc...
then you got to control the population of wolf as well...
etc...
Same thing with free market.
Free market basically mean where there is resources, this is where prosperity will go.
But then, when people run out of resources, people feel bad for them and start to harvest fields to feed them (pay them, free programs...).
Just like the poor people living in the African desert.
There are no resources there, but people feel bad for them and send them food and money.
Now they live on this artificial resource and prosper (relatively)...
Now they have more kids but still no ressources, so they must recieve more and more artificial ressources to survive which mean supporting them in this manner created more suffering because now there are 20 times more people...
Everything change constantly but we cling on things to stay the way they were at one choosen point in time (usually when things were at their best), which create much suffering...
That's an interesting question, Simon. My political-economic views were influenced a great deal by my Buddhist beliefs and practices. Before I became interested in Buddhism, I had no political-economic views. I was completely uninterested in political economy whatsoever. After years of studying and practicing Buddhism, however, I began to take more of an interest. This was partially due to cultivating compassion.
It became clear to me that the world was imperfect, that there is and always has been suffering in the world. I also realized that it can't be "fixed," but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to do what we can to make things better.
Buddhism itself is compatible with pretty much any political-economic system (e.g., see Are Capitalism and Buddhism incompatible?), but the way Buddhism has affected me has lead to adopt more socialist-leaning views. As Einstein put it, "the real purpose of socialism is... to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development" (Why Socialism?), and I have a hard time not getting involved when I see what I perceive to be people being preyed upon by greed, hatred and delusion.
yes, survival of the better adapted is how things are in nature.
How nature find a balance.
I see messing with this balance, and shifted it so much as the reason why men have invaded every corner of this planet, and destroyed much of it.
more and more resources needed, unbalanced and unsustainable.
You may notice that I said 'the strongest', not the fittest. After all 'fittest' is such a debatable term, implying fitness for something. Perhaps, of course, you may believe that strength and fitness to survive are synonymous but I would disagree.
I particularly disagree when it comes to the human race, particularly as illuminated by the Dharma.
Anyhow i see the free market as the law of nature.
Which is a dangerous thing to do, in my opinion. When you try to take a human construct and turn it into a "natural law," things tend to get messy. Look at what happened when people saw eugenics as a "natural law"; it gave them justification to forcibly sterilize and even euthanize people who were deemed "harmful" to the species.
People want to control the markets, because they see the greed of other people, or are jealous of other people, or feel bad for other people etc...
Control is the opposite of freedom.
And control just never work, and is never as efficient.
Never works? Are you saying, for example, that the U.S. Armed Forces shouldn't be tightly controlled? That freedom among the ranks, military exercises and supply chains would be more efficient than a strict chain of command?
Or maybe you're suggesting that companies shouldn't be monitored by outside agencies because they won't throw their waste into local rivers and lakes, even though in many cases it's more efficient and more profitable than disposing of it properly?
Imagine the forest.
This is the free market.
If there is much food for the rabbit, the wolf population will grow and eat more rabbits.
Now the population of rabbit have shrink so the wolf have nothing to eat. So the wolf population shrink.
Eventually, there is a balance to be found.
When you mess around with this free market/rule of nature, things get real complicated real soon.
you decide that the extra population of this year rabbits (after they had a very good season and they had much to eat) should be allowed to prosper and live.
So first thing you must find food for them, since the population is bigger than usual, you must find them other source of food.
so you develop some fields that you will harvest for the rabbits.
(In the mean time you have to re localize the animals who were living in these fields...)
So you feed the rabbits with this artificial source of food, so next year there will be more rabbits requiring more food etc...
then you got to control the population of wolf as well...
etc...
Same thing with free market.
So we shouldn't
The problem is, since we change and shape our environment, we're forced to control things anyway, things like animal populations, societal Infrastructures, pollution, etc.
Left alone, rabbits and wolves may maintain a type of natural balance, but since we've turned their habitat into farms or cities, we've altered the natural order. Since farmers take away rabbit habitat and kill them as pests, the wolves not only lose their habitat but their source of food too. The rabbits may even be able to adapt and survive in suburban areas, but wolves aren't so lucky. We have no choice but to interfere in order to preserve the wolves, otherwise they'll eventually go extinct. In other words, human beings shape their environment as much as they are shaped by the act of shaping it.
As for our modern economic systems, they are anything but "natural"; they are systems of production and distribution we've created out of a combination of things like ideology, convenience and necessity. The question is, convenience and necessity for whom?
Free market basically mean where there is resources, this is where prosperity will go.
But then, when people run out of resources, people feel bad for them and start to harvest fields to feed them (pay them, free programs...).
Just like the poor people living in the African desert.
There are no resources there, but people feel bad for them and send them food and money.
Now they live on this artificial resource and prosper (relatively)...
Now they have more kids but still no ressources, so they must recieve more and more artificial ressources to survive which mean supporting them in this manner created more suffering because now there are 20 times more people...
You may notice that I said 'the strongest', not the fittest.
you may notice that i used the term "better adapted"
Because i believe it is the closest concept to describe how things are.
Everything constantly change, the ones who can adapt to this change survive and prosper.
When we crave and hang on to things the way they were in the past, (we used to have job here in the tiny city of middle of nowhere, please give us money so we can stay here) we are not adapting but artificially changing the game, shifting the balance a little more.
there are more than one way of supporting. An action that you label as "supporting" if it create more suffering is not really supporting nor is it desirable don't you think?
Which is a dangerous thing to do, in my opinion. When you try to take a human construct and turn it into a "natural law," things tend to get messy. Look at what happened when people saw eugenics as a "natural law"; it gave them justification to forcibly sterilize and even euthanize people who were deemed "harmful" to the species.
many Buddhist principles have been used and interpreted in ways to create much suffering.
Anything can.
I believe you know this very well...
Or maybe you're suggesting that companies shouldn't be monitored by outside agencies because they won't throw their waste into local rivers and lakes, even though in many cases it's more efficient and more profitable than disposing of it properly?
I already stressed the importance of the government when it comes to the environment...
The problem is, since we change and shape our environment, we're forced to control things anyway,
yes. for now.
But assuming regaining a balanced world would be our goal, small steps in the right direction would seem to be the appropriate measure and not a drastic change overnight.
As for our modern economic systems, they are anything but "natural"; they are systems of production and distribution we've created out of a combination of things like ideology, convenience and necessity. The question is, convenience and necessity for whom?
You may notice that I said 'the strongest', not the fittest. After all 'fittest' is such a debatable term, implying fitness for something. Perhaps, of course, you may believe that strength and fitness to survive are synonymous but I would disagree.
I particularly disagree when it comes to the human race, particularly as illuminated by the Dharma.
From an evolutionary standpoint, I'd argue that it's our ability to cooperate as a species, as well as our capacity to feel compassion and kinship, that have allowed us to be as successful as we are, therefore those who are the most caring, compassionate and cooperative are the "fittest."
there are more than one way of supporting. An action that you label as "supporting" if it create more suffering is not really supporting nor is it desirable don't you think?
Of course, but the problem is, what would you propose? If people are starving, but they live in a land that's bereft of natural resources and have nowhere else to go, what can be done by the "free market"? I suppose Nike could decide to build a sweatshop there to capitalize on the cheap labour, and the poor Africans will at least buy their bread and water while making Phil Knight even richer, but I'm not sure I'd consider that a win-win scenario either.
I already stressed the importance of the government when it comes to the environment...
Hold on a minute. If you're in favour of government regulations when it comes to the environment, then you're not really in favour of a free market. A free market is a market free from government intervention and regulation.
what can be done by the "free market"? I suppose Nike could decide to build a sweatshop there to capitalize on the cheap labour, and the poor Africans will at least buy their bread and water while making Phil Knight even richer, but I'm not sure I'd consider that a win-win scenario either.
the free market would do just that, which is not as bad as it appear.
The sweet shops were once the engine behind the USA.
The sweet shops in China were greatly responsible for about 700 millions people to go from a state of deplorable poverty to being able to have disposable income.
Sweet shop are often only a stage, a period, often necessary for allowing a civilization like ours to exist (if this is a good thing or bad thing is your opinion).
Of course this does not mean that the human rights chart should not be observed and enforced.
but you just cannot go from having nothing to having everything, at least not in large scales, and not in a way that would be as efficient and fast as the free market, so if helping people out of their misery is the goal, i suggest you reconsider your opinion of sweet shops.
what can be done by the "free market"? I suppose Nike could decide to build a sweatshop there to capitalize on the cheap labour, and the poor Africans will at least buy their bread and water while making Phil Knight even richer, but I'm not sure I'd consider that a win-win scenario either.
Nature is not a win-win situation either.
Rabbits get eaten.
This is the balance. Win-win, in this case, leads to an unbalanced world that is unsustainable.
Hold on a minute. If you're in favour of government regulations when it comes to the environment, then you're not really in favour of a free market. A free market is a market free from government intervention and regulation.
Comments
First I must say that I don't believe there can be an absolute quantitative definition of what the 'worst' recession would be. There are too many factors. You could have a long one, a deep one, one that destroys more wealth, one that destroys more jobs, etc. Secondly, the economy before the fed was so intrinsically different from today's economy, it's impossible to even compare them. Besides that, it's impossible to tell how the last 100 years would have played out without the fed.
I fail to understand how libertarianism is compatible with Buddhism. There are many cases where a free market = 0 compassion. Look at what the lightly regulated banks have done with credit cards in the last 15 years. It used to be that if you had even just decent credit, you could get a credit card that had 8-10% interest (only a couple points over prime) and you had more than 10 days to pay after you get your statement. Motivated by greed and monopolies (greed-driven themselves), my credit card rates have been pushed in some cases over 22%, 10-15 days to pay, and nickle and dime fees for every thing they can possibly come up with. This is despite having an excellent credit rating. Under purely free-market capitalism, backed by libertarianism, the banks would push for every last penny they could get away with, showing absolutely no compassion for their customers (as if they did now!) I can only imagine how much my utility bills would go up under a libertarian government, with no more controlled rate structures. I suppose that libertarians are against the estate tax, too...
brian
They were also preceded by relatively lax oversight of financial institutions and markets, especially the Great Depression and the current economic downturn. The way I see it, both factors have contributed to market instability. I'm certainly not a big fan of the Fed or its monetary policies, but I don't think the Fed can take all the blame.
Exactly. The industrial centres of Europe and Asia were levelled during WWII, and the U.S., whose means of production were relatively untouched, capitalized on that. Unfortunately, we're no longer the manufacturing giant we once were, and places like China are slowing taking our place.
I agree with you to a certain extant. At the very least, I think that Ayn Rand-style of libertarianism isn't very compatible with Buddhism. As I wrote elsewhere:
Jeff Walker, a biographer, found this entry in one of her personal journals: "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!" To me, that's the core of Objectivism. Of course, publicly she put it more poetically. In Atlas Shrugged, for example, she writes, "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Same idea, but the latter is far more attractive. Hell, I'd even agree with it if I didn't understand what it actually boiled down to!
I agree with Rand to a certain extent about personal responsibility and the idea that we're responsible for making good decisions and should reap the fruits of our labour. But I also think that, as a society, we have a collective responsibility to one another as well. We should work together in the spirit of social cooperation, helping each other make good decisions along the way in support of the common good.
For what it's worth, I don't see one political ideology as inherently right or wrong, I've simply sided with the one I think is geared more towards taking the needs of society as its primary focus. I used to be more of an individualist, but for whatever reason I found myself unable to not take the needs and suffering of others into consideration. Everyone's mileage may vary, of course.
As a side note, I think Edward Bellamy humourously illustrates the ideological difference between individualism and socialism quite well in his 1887 utopian novel, Looking Backward, when he writes:
The mystery was explained when we found ourselves on the street, for a continuous waterproof covering had been let down so as to inclose the sidewalk and turn it into a well lighted and perfectly dry corridor, which was filled with a stream of ladies and gentlemen dressed for dinner. At the comers the entire open space was similarly roofed in. Edith Leete, with whom I walked, seemed much interested in learning what appeared to be entirely new to her, that in the stormy weather the streets of the Boston of my day had been impassable, except to persons protected by umbrellas, boots, and heavy clothing. "Were sidewalk coverings not used at all?" she asked. They were used, I explained, but in a scattered and utterly unsystematic way, being private enterprises. She said to me that at the present time all the streets were provided against inclement weather in the manner I saw, the apparatus being rolled out of the way when it was unnecessary. She intimated that it would be considered an extraordinary imbecility to permit the weather to have any effect on the social movements of the people.
Dr. Leete, who was walking ahead, overhearing something of our talk, turned to say that the difference between the age of individualism and that of concert was well characterized by the fact that, in the nineteenth century, when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.
As we walked on, Edith said, "The private umbrella is father's favorite figure to illustrate the old way when everybody lived for himself and his family. There is a nineteenth century painting at the Art Gallery representing a crowd of people in the rain, each one holding his umbrella over himself and his wife, and giving his neighbors the drippings, which he claims must have been meant by the artist as a satire on his times."
And what would the problems of a gold standard be?
Buddhism and libertarianism are very compatible. Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression axiom.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
I would say that that is very compatible with Buddhism, because I've never read any Buddhist text that would argue against the non-aggression axiom of libertarianism.
As to your example of credit cards, if the people are being gouged and treated unfairly then they would not use the credit cards, and the credit card companies would be forced to change their practices or go out of business. But we must remember that we don't have a right to use credit cards, that this is a service provided to us by somebody else and that we can freely walk away from it if we choose to.
It should also be pointed out that the free market doesn't create monopolies, the government does.
And yes, we would oppose the estate tax on the basis that it violates property rights. Why does the state automatically get a claim to the property of somebody else just because they've died? It makes no sense.
Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, and hated libertarians. She was an objectivist, a philosophy of her own creation. Now it's true that there are objectivist libertarians, but Ayn Rand personally hated libertarianism and wanted nothing to do with it.
brian
I never said that Ayn Rand was a libertarian; I simply said that I think "Ayn Rand-style of libertarianism" isn't very compatible with Buddhism. I understand that not all Objectivists are libertarians, but many of them are or at least hold to similar principles, such as the non-aggression principle. Additionally, individualism, while not a defining aspect of libertarianism per se, is also popular among many libertarians.
I would argue the opposite in your analogy. Having money taken from one group of people for the benefit of another is not compassion, it's theft. Compassion is giving of yourself freely to someone in need, not using the government to take from others and giving to someone in need. And of course it breaks the non-aggression axiom.
My problem with that is that there really is no Ayn Rand-style of libertarianism, because Ayn Rand was not a libertarian and did not subscribe to libertarianism in the least. But that's mostly semantics and I see what you're trying to say.
Thanks.
I pretty much consider myself a libertarian - and a Buddhist. I believe in personal liberty and support a free-market society. Buddhism is not about trying to create a "regulated"/socialist utopia. (and I find it strange that the same people to call for staunch "regulation" usually have a disdain for the police etc..)
I do not put my trust in an authoritarian USA government. The gov is corrupt, self-serving and of course woefully inefficient. The bigger and more powerful the government, the bigger the opportunity for oppression.
To me the most compassionate action is to enable society to have services and goods as inexpensive as possible - with the least amount of government coercion, theft, and threat of imprisonment possible.
Nobody said it was.
It's true that the state has been skewed in favour of the ruling class from the very beginning, but how is the government any more corrupt or self-serving than a large multinational corporation?
Let's take Goldman Sachs, for example. Do you think that Goldman Sachs is any less corrupt of self-serving? Not only did they help fuel our own economic crisis with their [ab]use of unregulated derivatives like credit default swaps, but they may very well have helped fuel Europe's crisis as well.
Sounds nice, but what about the people who can't afford all the goods and services they need?
Lets take healthcare, for example. Under our current system, if an individual doesn't get insurance through their employer and can't afford a policy on their own, they're shit out of luck. I think more socialized healthcare systems that cover everyone are more compassionate than what the market currently provides, and they have proven to be quite efficient and reliable.
Governments are more corrupt because they have the ability to tax the people and kill or imprison them if they resist. Corporations must survive on the profit and loss system, unless of course the government uses its power to tax to subsidize those corporations which is, of course, not a free market.
Socialized healthcare is not efficient or reliable. When something becomes "free" it inevitably gets overused and then there's not enough to go around. That's where rationing of healthcare comes in, and that's where the idea of a "death panel" comes from.
Yes, the most common argument against "socialized medicine" is that the allocation of resources needed in such a socialized system will inevitably lead to the rationing of medical care, the complete denial of medical care to those who need it, and even worse, the dreaded "death panels."
However, the allocation of resources is an inherent part of any system, and insurance company bureaucrats routinely deny coverage and "ration" care now! That's how insurance companies make their profit, after all. The real question is, who do we want to be in charge of approving medical care, an insurance company bureaucrat or a government bureaucrat? Each has its own pros and cons, but the more "socialized" healthcare systems that cover everyone have proven to be quite efficient and reliable.
According to the <a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?France-Has-the-Best-Healthcare-System-in-the-World&id=2643603">World Health Organization</a>, for example, France has the best overall health care system in the world, excelling in 4 areas: (1) universal coverage, (2) responsive health care providers, (3) freedom of choice and (4) overall health and longevity of the population.
In 2005, France spent $3,926 per capita on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Canadian_health_care_in_comparison">healthcare</a>, and of that, approximately 80% was government expenditure. The U.S., in comparison, spent $6,347, and of that, approximately 45% was government expenditure. Yet France has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. (Although, to be fair, I've heard it mentioned that the U.S. counts premature births whereas France doesn't, and these differences can't be attributed to the differences between the two systems alone as there are undoubtedly other factors involved, e.g., eating habits, stress levels, etc.)
Or how about <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112014770">Spain's healthcare system</a>? Spain's constitution guarantees the right to universal healthcare and requires the state to provide it, it's ranked 7th best by the WHO, and according to one study published last year in the U.S. journal <i>Health Affairs</i>, there are a third fewer deaths caused by delayed access to health care than in the U.S.
And then there is Canada's healthcare system, which was quite similar to ours before they adopted a single-payer system. It's not only ranked higher than the U.S. system by the WHO (30th v. 37th out of 191 nations), but like France, Canada has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. (Again, these differences can't be attributed to the differences between the two systems alone, but I think it at least goes to show that Canadians seem to be doing OK with the system they've got.)
In addition, a <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/canadastudy/CanadaUSStudy.pdf">2006 peer-reviewed study</a> of healthcare access in Canada and the U.S. done by the <i>American Journal of Public Health</i> concluded that "U.S. residents are one third less likely to have a regular medical doctor, one fourth more likely to have unmet health care needs, and are more than twice as likely to forgo needed medicines." Of course, every system has its problems, and Canada's isn't perfect, but I'd still say that Canada's system is pretty damn good considering it covers everyone <i>and</i> costs less per person than ours.
With all of the wealth, resources and technology at our disposal, I don't understand why we can't create a universal healthcare system of our own that's ever better and more efficient than any of those listed above.
Whose wealth? Why cant the government just give everyone a universal everything? (food, homes, cars, medicine, books, internet access, cell phones, etc etc?). Don't even get me started on the government dictating/enforcing lifestyles in the name of the greater good. Some already want the Girl Scouts to stop selling cookies because of the drain on tax-funded health care.
It's late, I don't have time to respond to it all but I will leave you with C.S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
I'm hoping this post is a joke but just in case....
Nothing is free, even if you don't pay for it somebody else does. I'm not sure why 21st century lives are different than 20th century lives... You are going to force small business to pay a "livable" wage (whatever that is)? How will they afford employees? Can you have a religious bias? Would you be allowed to exclude Nazis from your temple for example? Could I still make money as a math tutor or would that be unlawful? What will the punishment be for policy non-compliance of your great, new, glorious society?
The American Indians used a great "policy" when someone "rebelled" against their ways. So did the Chinese of ancient time. They would simply remove the person from their tribe. They no longer were accepted as a member. It happens naturally not by law. The spirit of love is what will guide an enlightened society, not what is most profitable for the individual. And it is not MY "great, new, glorious society." There hundreds of thousands of people who are moving in this direction. If someone is not they are going to be left behind. Staying with the old methods of politics is a sure fire way to become excluded. We need co-operation not more division.
Palzang
There will be no enlightened society. They never has been, there never will be. Get over your delusions. Marxism is not the path to end suffering. Trying to mold society to your ideal by force is evil.
I agree. Can someone PLEASE explain to me though, how GOLD has any value. WHY is a shiny piece of metal worth more to some than a living being. I can die in four days without water and have tons of gold...what would be more valuable in reality?
I don't get the concept of value. It's so subjective...and it can get people to do the nastiest of things. Imagine if the "rich" were no longer considered to be "powerful" because we all no longer sought after what they had?
I can see a virtual end to war and suffering overnight.
I know, I know, I'm naive....I know....but I can dream can't I?
:rolleyes:
I have to say I disagree with you. Communism is a dirty word to Capitalists because it is about the PEOPLE. Communism in its true form is Utopia...but then those pesky humans with their personal ambitions for enriching self with power and wealth come in and screw it all up. The reason Communism didn't work for Russia, or anywhere else for that matter is that the State failed to provide for the common folk and kept the riches for themselves, using force to shut up the protesters. This is not truly Communism, but a form of fascism or tyranny.
People began to see that working harder didn't mean more for them and they became apathetic eroding the system.
Capitalism dangles promises of wealth and power in front of the poor, promising a "fair deal" and a fair playing field. In reality, everyone in a Capitalistic society does NOT have the same chance at success. I have heard it said before, and find it to be true that, where you end up depends upon where you start from.
Freedom is about the people, not communism. The state will always lead to failure, do not trust it.
Of course everyone doesn't have the same "chance" at anything. That's karma. I dont have the same chance of being an NBA player as Yao Ming. I'm not going to blame capitalism.
(the illusion is that it look bad but do better than any other alternative in most cases)
more often than not it is simply the most efficient way of doing things (including helping the third world countries)
here is Milton Friedman series that are very interesting to watch and very informative.
I love the impartial debates at the end of each episodes, i wish today's television would go back to these times where intelligent and mature debates could happen.
http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/
Today, even the government itself cannot have a hint of these exchanges of ideas and point of views. It's a shame. In the united states only Obama has made and is still making a stand against the overwhelming idyocracy (watched this movie?) (see Bush retarded pleas that actually worked so many times) that is happening there.
Actually, a traditional democracy might not be the optimal choice for rational governance and efficiency...
Most of the people voting do not even begin to understand the issues they are voting for or against.
yes but this can change very fast for the better or the worse.
But things like Obama lobbying reform help lower the corruption level of the US.
communism is wonderful in theory...
Except that governments of every kind, from the most liberal of democracies to the most totalitarian dictatorships, generally make policies regarding economic issues. The "free market" is a theoretical concept that has never existed (much like a large scale socialist economy). The only way to prevent a government from making economic policies is to take political power in order to remove government influence from the marketplace.
The way I see it, libertarians and socialists have the same problem: current governments aren't going to just give up their power without a fight, and both libertarians and socialists are a small percentage of the electorate.
So i listen to people disagreeing with my ideas and try to figuring out how things really are.
Anyhow i see the free market as the law of nature.
People want to control the markets, because they see the greed of other people, or are jealous of other people, or feel bad for other people etc...
Control is the opposite of freedom.
And control just never work, and is never as efficient.
Imagine the forest.
This is the free market.
If there is much food for the rabbit, the wolf population will grow and eat more rabbits.
Now the population of rabbit have shrink so the wolf have nothing to eat. So the wolf population shrink.
Eventually, there is a balance to be found.
When you mess around with this free market/rule of nature, things get real complicated real soon.
you decide that the extra population of this year rabbits (after they had a very good season and they had much to eat) should be allowed to prosper and live.
So first thing you must find food for them, since the population is bigger than usual, you must find them other source of food.
so you develop some fields that you will harvest for the rabbits.
(In the mean time you have to re localize the animals who were living in these fields...)
So you feed the rabbits with this artificial source of food, so next year there will be more rabbits requiring more food etc...
then you got to control the population of wolf as well...
etc...
Same thing with free market.
Free market basically mean where there is resources, this is where prosperity will go.
But then, when people run out of resources, people feel bad for them and start to harvest fields to feed them (pay them, free programs...).
Just like the poor people living in the African desert.
There are no resources there, but people feel bad for them and send them food and money.
Now they live on this artificial resource and prosper (relatively)...
Now they have more kids but still no ressources, so they must recieve more and more artificial ressources to survive which mean supporting them in this manner created more suffering because now there are 20 times more people...
Everything change constantly but we cling on things to stay the way they were at one choosen point in time (usually when things were at their best), which create much suffering...
It became clear to me that the world was imperfect, that there is and always has been suffering in the world. I also realized that it can't be "fixed," but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to do what we can to make things better.
Buddhism itself is compatible with pretty much any political-economic system (e.g., see Are Capitalism and Buddhism incompatible?), but the way Buddhism has affected me has lead to adopt more socialist-leaning views. As Einstein put it, "the real purpose of socialism is... to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development" (Why Socialism?), and I have a hard time not getting involved when I see what I perceive to be people being preyed upon by greed, hatred and delusion.
I would suggest that the so-called 'free market' is as subject to impermanence and non-self as all other arising phenomena.
And how do you see the forest as an image of this 'free market'. Surely, it is an example of the survival of the strongest, both animal and vegetable.
How nature find a balance.
I see messing with this balance, and shifted it so much as the reason why men have invaded every corner of this planet, and destroyed much of it.
more and more resources needed, unbalanced and unsustainable.
You may notice that I said 'the strongest', not the fittest. After all 'fittest' is such a debatable term, implying fitness for something. Perhaps, of course, you may believe that strength and fitness to survive are synonymous but I would disagree.
I particularly disagree when it comes to the human race, particularly as illuminated by the Dharma.
Which is a dangerous thing to do, in my opinion. When you try to take a human construct and turn it into a "natural law," things tend to get messy. Look at what happened when people saw eugenics as a "natural law"; it gave them justification to forcibly sterilize and even euthanize people who were deemed "harmful" to the species.
Never works? Are you saying, for example, that the U.S. Armed Forces shouldn't be tightly controlled? That freedom among the ranks, military exercises and supply chains would be more efficient than a strict chain of command?
Or maybe you're suggesting that companies shouldn't be monitored by outside agencies because they won't throw their waste into local rivers and lakes, even though in many cases it's more efficient and more profitable than disposing of it properly?
The problem is, since we change and shape our environment, we're forced to control things anyway, things like animal populations, societal Infrastructures, pollution, etc.
Left alone, rabbits and wolves may maintain a type of natural balance, but since we've turned their habitat into farms or cities, we've altered the natural order. Since farmers take away rabbit habitat and kill them as pests, the wolves not only lose their habitat but their source of food too. The rabbits may even be able to adapt and survive in suburban areas, but wolves aren't so lucky. We have no choice but to interfere in order to preserve the wolves, otherwise they'll eventually go extinct. In other words, human beings shape their environment as much as they are shaped by the act of shaping it.
As for our modern economic systems, they are anything but "natural"; they are systems of production and distribution we've created out of a combination of things like ideology, convenience and necessity. The question is, convenience and necessity for whom?
So you're solution is to just let them starve?
Because i believe it is the closest concept to describe how things are.
Everything constantly change, the ones who can adapt to this change survive and prosper.
When we crave and hang on to things the way they were in the past, (we used to have job here in the tiny city of middle of nowhere, please give us money so we can stay here) we are not adapting but artificially changing the game, shifting the balance a little more.
Anything can.
I believe you know this very well...
I'm questioning your good faith
I already stressed the importance of the government when it comes to the environment...
yes. for now.
But assuming regaining a balanced world would be our goal, small steps in the right direction would seem to be the appropriate measure and not a drastic change overnight.
of course
From an evolutionary standpoint, I'd argue that it's our ability to cooperate as a species, as well as our capacity to feel compassion and kinship, that have allowed us to be as successful as we are, therefore those who are the most caring, compassionate and cooperative are the "fittest."
Of course, but the problem is, what would you propose? If people are starving, but they live in a land that's bereft of natural resources and have nowhere else to go, what can be done by the "free market"? I suppose Nike could decide to build a sweatshop there to capitalize on the cheap labour, and the poor Africans will at least buy their bread and water while making Phil Knight even richer, but I'm not sure I'd consider that a win-win scenario either.
Hold on a minute. If you're in favour of government regulations when it comes to the environment, then you're not really in favour of a free market. A free market is a market free from government intervention and regulation.
About moving these people to somewhere else?
the free market would do just that, which is not as bad as it appear.
The sweet shops were once the engine behind the USA.
The sweet shops in China were greatly responsible for about 700 millions people to go from a state of deplorable poverty to being able to have disposable income.
Sweet shop are often only a stage, a period, often necessary for allowing a civilization like ours to exist (if this is a good thing or bad thing is your opinion).
Of course this does not mean that the human rights chart should not be observed and enforced.
but you just cannot go from having nothing to having everything, at least not in large scales, and not in a way that would be as efficient and fast as the free market, so if helping people out of their misery is the goal, i suggest you reconsider your opinion of sweet shops.
Nature is not a win-win situation either.
Rabbits get eaten.
This is the balance. Win-win, in this case, leads to an unbalanced world that is unsustainable.
unless everyone gets enlighten all of a sudden.