Hey PDF members: Are You Left Wing or Right Wing? Take the Test

[LeveragedBuyout]

The government doesn't get out of the way in China though. It is very much, in the way. It doesn't get in the way of noodle stands, of course. In African countries, the government does get out of the way and the result is self evident.

If that's true about China, then let me put it this way: at least in China, bribes are effective in moving the process forward.

Based on what I've heard from business people who have worked there (and largely confirmed by Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index), there is a petty administrator with an outstretched hand at every turn in Africa. Since bribery is illegal in most Western states (even if done abroad), that means work proceeds very slowly for Western companies due to this "government" interference. If Africa had minimal government, per your comment, it would have had a different set of problems, but the claim of lack of government is not supported by the experience of Western investors or the Economic Freedom Index.

Perhaps Chinese have a difference perspective since they are not bound by anti-bribery laws, but government is very much an obstacle in Africa.

 

[HAZARA]

No Sense

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

If that's true about China, then let me put it this way: at least in China, bribes are effective in moving the process forward.

Based on what I've heard from business people who have worked there (and largely confirmed by Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index), there is a petty administrator with an outstretched hand at every turn in Africa. Since bribery is illegal in most Western states (even if done abroad), that means work proceeds very slowly for Western companies due to this "government" interference. If Africa had minimal government, per your comment, it would have had a different set of problems, but the claim of lack of government is not supported by the experience of Western investors or the Economic Freedom Index.

The mere presence of state owned enterprises means that the government is already in the way in the form of a direct competitor. In fact, the existence of regulated utilities, public water, power, etc. already means that the government is in the way. A true free market has none of those. Water companies in true free markets simply don't build mains to save cost and instead deliver water through water trucks. Ever seen people gather around a water truck in markets with privatized water? It is a harrowing experience.

The corruptions perceptions index is just that - perceptions. The index is not even comparable year to year, as it admits on its own webpage.

An easy way to think about this is: no matter how bad North Korea is, it is better than Somalia. Extremes of anything is bad, but it indeed is in every way: it has more technical achievements by far, it has longer average lifespan, it has higher GDP per capita, literacy, etc. Somalia has no effective government. In the absence of government, the market (for anything) will work things out, including the market for security services provided by warlords. Libya is another example.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

The mere presence of state owned enterprises means that the government is already in the way in the form of a direct competitor. In fact, the existence of regulated utilities, public water, power, etc. already means that the government is in the way. A true free market has none of those. Water companies in true free markets simply don't build mains to save cost and instead deliver water through water trucks. Ever seen people gather around a water truck in markets with privatized water? It is a harrowing experience.

View attachment 54410

The corruptions perceptions index is just that - perceptions. The index is not even comparable year to year, as it admits on its own webpage.

An easy way to think about this is: no matter how bad North Korea is, it is better than Somalia. Extremes of anything is bad, but it indeed is in every way: it has more technical achievements by far, it has longer average lifespan, it has higher GDP per capita, literacy, etc. Somalia has no effective government. In the absence of government, the market (for anything) will work things out, including the market for security services provided by warlords. Libya is another example.

You got me there. I was thinking more of the Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda side, but overlooked the Somalia, Libya, CAR types. As you say, moderation (even if in relative terms) is the best course, but if one must be extreme, better to be extreme free-market. I can drink to that.

 

[livingdead]

I was slightly left wing during teenage years.. rightwing during uni and after.. now slowly back to left..

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

You got me there. I was thinking more of the Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda side, but overlooked the Somalia, Libya, CAR types. As you say, moderation (even if in relative terms) is the best course, but if one must be extreme, better to be extreme free-market. I can drink to that.

If it comes down to such a bitter choice, it is 100x better to be a North Korean than a Somalian. In North Korea, you fear the government, but at least you have a few things that the Somalian does not:

1. Running water.
2. A hospital, no matter how bad.
3. A school.
4. Don't need to fear anyone other than the government (i.e. don't fear thugs, warlords, etc)
5. A predictable and stable path for social success (i.e. go to school, don't be troublesome, become a member of the government)

I believe in social freedom, but not unlimited economic freedom. That is because unlike social activities, economic activities by definition affect more than one person. Even "voluntary" transactions may not be so voluntary. You might "voluntarily" pay protection fees to a warlord - because the alternative is far worse.

I have strong opinions about this because I personally understand that running water, hospitals, school, not having to fear everyone and predictable paths for success are pretty important. With these, society at least has hope of bettering itself. Without it, there is not even a mechanism for bettering society.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Liberal Nationalist, who supports Global Harmony but with keeping Strict focus on Self-awareness.

 

[Hyde]

Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.41

 

[EasyNow]

You and I share a very similar outlook on life! We are the most perfectly balanced people on PDF!

 

[William Hung]

LeveragedBuyout, I will give you a proper reply to your last post later when I have more time. For now, I'll let you and FairandUnbiased go about it now. So far, I agree with what he said.

I'll just quickly make 2 points though:

1. My fundamental reason why I lean economically left is my pessimistic view of human nature. It can be clearly seen during the colonial periods where the strong takes advantage of the weak. Even during our modern period, people will do selfish things for their advantage (e. g. bankers during the global financial crisis). I will argue later that a certain form of Authoritarian social structure makes the most sense in light of this. My previous analogy of the family unit as portraying an ideal form of Authoritarian rule is apt. It is compatible with both the Confucian and certain western Christian worldview.

2. I get the impression that most economic right wingers seems to have double standard. Most right wingers agree and concede that a certain form of Authoritarianism is required for social stability, security and flourishing. For example, they would agree that a justice system regulated by the government is necessary, that a government-backed law enforcement organ is required, that health and safety regulations should be enforced in workplaces, etc.

But when it comes to the economic sector, they suddenly argue that government authority and regulation should be minimized. My personal perception is that when it benefits you, you simply want the least government intervention. For western businesses, less govt regulation would be the most beneficial I guess.

For big crime organisations, like the Mexican mafia, I guess they would also want the govt-backed law enforcement and justice system to dissappear altogether.

Not saying businesses are like mafia, far from it. I'm pointing out that what's good for you, might not be good for others. Most economic right wingers seem to argue from a narrow western point of view.

OK I'll let Leveragedbuyout and FairandUnbiased carry on. I'll give my proper inputs later.

 

[bolo]

The mere presence of state owned enterprises means that the government is already in the way in the form of a direct competitor. In fact, the existence of regulated utilities, public water, power, etc. already means that the government is in the way. A true free market has none of those. Water companies in true free markets simply don't build mains to save cost and instead deliver water through water trucks. Ever seen people gather around a water truck in markets with privatized water? It is a harrowing experience.

View attachment 54410

The corruptions perceptions index is just that - perceptions. The index is not even comparable year to year, as it admits on its own webpage.

An easy way to think about this is: no matter how bad North Korea is, it is better than Somalia. Extremes of anything is bad, but it indeed is in every way: it has more technical achievements by far, it has longer average lifespan, it has higher GDP per capita, literacy, etc. Somalia has no effective government. In the absence of government, the market (for anything) will work things out, including the market for security services provided by warlords. Libya is another example.

government intervention is needed, good points. Don't think for one second a free running capital system is good for society in general. Without government intervention guiding China, you would not have progress as far as you have now. Hail the Chinese leadership.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

LeveragedBuyout, I will give you a proper reply to your last post later when I have more time. For now, I'll let you and FairandUnbiased go about it now. So far, I agree with what he said.

I'll just quickly make 2 points though:

1. My fundamental reason why I lean economically left is my pessimistic view of human nature. It can be clearly seen during the colonial periods where the strong takes advantage of the weak. Even during our modern period, people will do selfish things for their advantage (e. g. bankers during the global financial crisis). I will argue later that a certain form of Authoritarian social structure makes the most sense in light of this. My previous analogy of the family unit as portraying an ideal form of Authoritarian rule is apt. It is compatible with both the Confucian and certain western Christian worldview.

I am also pessimistic about human nature, but whereas authoritarianism attempts to suppress this negativity, capitalism seeks to harness it. If everyone is seeking to maximize their profit, then the market in aggregate will eliminate inefficiencies and increase productivity. While authoritarianism has worked for some societies (China), it has abjectly failed for others (USSR, North Korea). Libertarian capitalism worked well in the United States, so it's natural that I should be biased in favor of it.

2. I get the impression that most economic right wingers seems to have double standard. Most right wingers agree and concede that a certain form of Authoritarianism is required for social stability, security and flourishing. For example, they would agree that a justice system regulated by the government is necessary, that a government-backed law enforcement organ is required, that health and safety regulations should be enforced in workplaces, etc.

But when it comes to the economic sector, they suddenly argue that government authority and regulation should be minimized. My personal perception is that when it benefits you, you simply want the least government intervention. For western businesses, less govt regulation would be the most beneficial I guess.

For big crime organisations, like the Mexican mafia, I guess they would also want the govt-backed law enforcement and justice system to dissappear altogether.

Not saying businesses are like mafia, far from it. I'm pointing out that what's good for you, might not be good for others. Most economic right wingers seem to argue from a narrow western point of view.

OK I'll let Leveragedbuyout and FairandUnbiased carry on. I'll give my proper inputs later.

Free-market capitalism without a minimum level of government enforcement (courts, police, transparency) is indistinguishable from anarchy, which I have never advocated. It's a bit of a straw man to claim that I am hypocritical about the role of government, because I have never called for the elimination of government. Let's examine this from the opposite end, for a supporter of authoritarianism. If you deviate even slightly from a total command economy, in that you may allow businesses to make their own pricing and investment decisions, are you a hypocrite? After all, a supporter of authoritarianism must support total authoritarianism, all the way to government control of every business decision, right?

It's clear that's not a valid argument. Political beliefs are arrayed on a spectrum, not completely independent of the adjacent ideologies. I just happen to lean more towards the capitalist/non-interventionist side, but I'm no extremist.

Regarding FairAndUnbiased's assertions about North Korea vs. Somalia, certainly I would agree in that specific example, but I don't agree in general. That said, to argue my case, I would have to divert the conversation into culture and value systems, which I am not comfortable doing in this forum. Therefore, I will simply concede the point to FairAndUnbiased and move on to other topics.

 

[Sher Malang]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.79

 

[William Hung]

I am also pessimistic about human nature, but whereas authoritarianism attempts to suppress this negativity, capitalism seeks to harness it. If everyone is seeking to maximize their profit, then the market in aggregate will eliminate inefficiencies and increase productivity. While authoritarianism has worked for some societies (China), it has abjectly failed for others (USSR, North Korea). Libertarian capitalism worked well in the United States, so it's natural that I should be biased in favor of it.

This is where our views diverge. I'm guessing you are a Utilitarian when it comes to ethics and politics.

I'm a virtue ethicist when it comes to politics and ethics. This makes a big difference on how we approach the problem of our innate "evil" human nature.

This utilitarian/virtue distinction will lead to a bigger debate in which I can discuss later when I have more time. For now, you should know that most modern chinese ethicists interpret Confucianism/neo-confucianism as a form of virtue ethics, not Utilitarianism.

If you don't agree with chinese virtue ethics, there are also western virtue ethicists. Alastair Macintyre work on ethics and politics are excellent and he also discusses the cultural and values system of a society. His work is even translated into chinese. I think he gives convincing arguments against the Utilitarian, neo-liberal perspective of the West.

Free-market capitalism without a minimum level of government enforcement (courts, police, transparency) is indistinguishable from anarchy, which I have never advocated. It's a bit of a straw man to claim that I am hypocritical about the role of government, because I have never called for the elimination of government. Let's examine this from the opposite end, for a supporter of authoritarianism. If you deviate even slightly from a total command economy, in that you may allow businesses to make their own pricing and investment decisions, are you a hypocrite? After all, a supporter of authoritarianism must support total authoritarianism, all the way to government control of every business decision, right?

It's clear that's not a valid argument. Political beliefs are arrayed on a spectrum, not completely independent of the adjacent ideologies. I just happen to lean more towards the capitalist/non-interventionist side, but I'm no extremist.

Yes, I agree various political beliefs falls into a wide and complicated spectrum. It was an extreme caricature given by me. But I still believe that most right wingers (not necessarily you though) posses some form of a double standard in that they tend to be more Authoritarian when it comes to social issue but far less so when it comes to economic issue (hence it is rare to see anyone, even on PDF, to be Libertarian-right in the purple box).

By the way, my answer to your analogy about extreme Authoritarianism in regards to small businesses will surprise you. But you can only understand it if you know the virtue ethics perspective.

I'll discuss more later when I have more time.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

We are the most perfectly balanced people on PDF!

Not balance, this is sign of confused people....