Oh, so you've actually *been* to Nirvana? Tell me Max, when and where has social democracy been (even) approximated on this planet? How can you leap to *is* when *could* has never been tested?
>> >not nearly as obvious as it seems. Constituencies
>> >who benefit from "dirty" industries and consumption
>> >habits -- workers and consumers -- are likely
>> >to oppose regulation just as they do now. ...
>>
>> How do you know this? . . .
>> ownership). In short, you seem to assume that all or most humans are
>> interested in nothing more than material gain for themselves;
>
>For my premise to hold, your extreme version is not
>necessary -- only that most are usually interested in
>material self-interest. Any generalization is going to
>be reductionist to some extent. The question is whether
>it is too much so.
For your premise to hold we need to actually experience a democratic society to determine whether or not other values besides greed will flourish. Your assumption to the contrary is merely presumptuous hot air.
>> This is absurd. You travel from the mush of the first sentence to the
>> firm conclusion in the last one. If I've learned anything from
>> reading the idiot (and I mean that in the way Hobsbawm says Marx did)
>> Krugman, it is the limited utility of logic when based on distorted
>> assumptions. Yes, given your constrained notion of democracy, it is
>> logical, but that shows absolutely nothing; the more important
>> question is, what is the *likely* outcome under democracy, or better,
>> what is the best we can hope for under democracy.
>
>At the risk of summoning up legions of metaphysicians,
>I'd say the logical is the likely, and the "best we can
>hope for" is less likely.
Logic is a mere transportation device which takes us from assumptions to conclusions. Your assumptions are mere guesswork, hence your logical destination is no more likely than any other idealist version. And by the way, it is not metaphysicians that you summon, but the very same criminal minds that tell us we cannot afford to spend public money on the poor because their pristine logic says we can't.
>> >Another canard is that control of corporations frees up
>> >a cornucopia of resources. ...
>>
>> Nonsense. The immense costs of controlling labor would be freed up,
>> among other things. John Stuart Mill lamented "how great a proportion
>
>Collective discipline of labor would still be required.
You mean we would still need to work together? Self-discipline would be required? I'm game.
>Once again, you presume some kind of fit of solidarism
>will infect the population.
Not at all. I presume that the shackles that now bind us, once broken, might uncover a potential for cooperation that is now --- and has been for centuries --- actively suppressed with great expenditure of time, money, and effort. I also don't happen to believe that superhuman altruism is necessary for social democracy to flourish.
>> of all the efforts and talents in the world are employed in merely
>> neutralizing one another." Michael Perelman has a new book coming out
>> which details the immense waste of the market, but I'll let him finish
>> it and get it on the shelves before I spill all the beans therein. I
>> should also point out that Robin Hahnel has done some great work
>> showing that markets tend to be inefficient simply because they
>> grossly over-provide private consumption goods, due to endogenous
>> preference feedback.
>
>There is some waste inherent in markets, as
>well as some benefits, and conversely for
>non-market provision. You are counterposing
>an ideal state to really existing economies.
No, I'm countering your presumptuous attacks on the possible. You are the one to have started this by making claims about what is possible, not me.
> ... in
>the structure of a business firm ...
> ... there is less
>slack inherent in private ownership of capital
>than is apparent. ...
Really. "In the structure", you say. "Less slack", you say. What, pray tell, does this possibly mean? You mean the legions of managers at, say, General Motors, are actually --- unbeknownst to every thinking observer --- clandestinely producing something else than a bureaucratic quagmire in which workers and their entire production process founder? The overpaid CEOs who willingly cut tens of thousands of people from their jobs and who at the flick of the wrist lay waste to entire communities are presumably part of the "structure of a business firm" are they not? The hordes of business flacks who populate our media and fill every possible moment with inane chatter and doublespeak are not slackful? Our political system, which by design and practice is sodden and bloated with the private lucre of business, is something other than slack incarnate? All seems pretty slackish to me...
>It is more interesting when you try to refute
>something, rather than simply assert that it is
>wrong. If you avoided the latter, you would
>waste fewer words.
You begin this whole exchange with a baseless attack on democratic potential, ignoring the vicious and long-lived assault waged against it (ever heard of the US Constitution?), which might, just might, have a little bit to do with the self-centeredness of current societies, and you have the gall to twit me about assertions and refutations?
Bill