Originally posted by Red Walker:
However, I said three things and I'm not sure which one is making you angry.
Huh? Anger? hardly. I do disagree for the most part. You do have a point that governments tend to amass more and more power to themselves as time goes on, which does reduce the freedom of the populace. Which is why a revolution every now and again is hardly a bad thing.
Nah, not angry. I do like discussing these topics, and listening to other views. Even views I disagree with or think are very wrong.
1)Capitalism isn't the ultimate truth of the universe,
2)or even the universally most effective mode of human behavior.
3)Religious sectarians and other freaks are often shockingly effective, even at technical tasks.
Please note that I didn't say religious sectarianism was the ultimate truth of the universe. I just said that outside observers can be shocked by it.
I think it's probably (1) or (2) that's making you mad.
Again, not mad, just disagree. (Unless you mean that in a more psychiactric sense, in which case you will have to discuss that with a shrink.
I will note that I am harmless to myself and others, at least within acceptable parameters as consistent with American concepts of freedom and liberty. )
I also think we may have different definitions of capitalism.
It is possible we are using the same word to note different things. I will agree that China is more socialist than capitalist AT THIS STAGE OF THINGS. But I do see a trend toward more freedom and more capitalism in China, no matter how much the ruling party is hurt by that.
The basic premise in capitalism is that you own what you produce. You may not use, steal, or destroy someone else's property, nor tell them what to do with it, (within the obvious caveats about self defense and respecting the rights of others. I don't care if you own a Howitzer, unless I have indication you mean to shoot me with it. Then I am going to object.)
This leads to the idea if you want what someone else has, you have to avoid coersion to obtain it and must rely on persuasion. And that means respecting the other party's "right" to say no.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Drakon:
Religious sectarians may be more effective as specific tasks, but overall, they suffer from a fundamental weakness. Inability to change in response to changes in their environment.
Is that from Hayek, too? If so, it would be interesting to read the specific book that talks about it. I've read some Rothbard and Mises -- I don't know if I've read Hayek. Certainly I haven't read him lately.</font>[/QUOTE]
Hayek does not deal with this specifically, but then Hayek's time was enbroiled more in the more atheistic ideologies that nearly wrecked Europe twice. Religious fundamentalism and sectarian violence were not part of the European landscape in his time.
But I think the point still holds. Again you have the information problem that Hayek has mentioned, and we can see the same thing going on in Iran today, a country whose leadership is growing more and more out of step with its population's needs, and desires. The ruling party in Iran has a specific way, a "right" way of doing things that 1) don't compete adequetly with more western approaches toward economics, and politics, at providing the desires of its population, and 2) are unwilling, or unable, to change in the face of that growing unrest, because what they are doing is "God's will" To change is to commit blasphemy and therefore a risk to their immortal souls. To not change risks unleashing a revolution and being hung from lamppost. So it is a tough choice they have ahead of themselves.
The fundamental difference in epistemology between religion and science is what dooms religious fundamentalism when the two systems are competing with each other. Because new data cannot be assimulated, because they cannot admit that perhaps they got it wrong, (It would be tantimount to admitting they do not speak for God, which is their sole claim to power), they cannot adapt or change to changing situations. So this adds another layer of fraigility to their system.
If I were to show you a man who makes all his decisions except one, the decision of what to have for dinner, which he leaves up to his wife, would that be a relevant counterexample, or would that be nitpicking and missing the point?
Nitpicking and missing the point.
Was the wife selected for him? Or was it his decision to marry? (Okay his and hers) If the wife refuses, what does he do to retaliate?
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Drakon:
The problem of central planning, (which no matter how you wrap it up, is what socialism, communism and all their variants, is all about) is the information problem.
I don't think religious sectarianism is necessarily centrally planned. Very often it appears to lack a plan of any kind -- centralized, decentralized, etc.</font>[/QUOTE]Not having a plan makes it hard to govern at all, regardless of ideology. Central planning is essential, if you are going to organize anything, from a colony, a busniess, a nation or even a starship crew.
Also I probably should note, is we are talking about religious fundamentalism as a political entity, as a ruling party. If a group has no political power, this discussion is moot.
But too much planning or "micromanagement" is really where things break down. Giving a person guidelines or assignments, and leaving the execution up to the individual has shown to be, in general, more effective than having one guy at the top deciding not only what to be done, but how to do it.
And it is important to note that Heinlein is right. Government is based on the use of force. Regardless of what that law is, obedience is demanded at the point of the gun.
