Is is sad to debate the merits of, say, Norway versus the U.S.? Sehon defines socialism such that it includes anything significantly more egalitarian, and/or with significantly more collective economic control, than the U.S.
I don't think Norway has significantly more collective economic control than the US. I also don't think calling a regulated capitalist economy socialist because there is more taxation or redistribution is correct. At that point you're not debating socialism versus capitalism. You're debating the costs and benefits of various redistribution or fiscal policies.
Ok, then using that definition the debate is socialism vs socialism? You just said one response ago that the US was capitalist but Norway was socialist. Now you're saying anything besides anarcho-capitalistim is socialism. What point are you trying to make?
I said that the US has fascist controls. And,of course, the US also has socialism, as you can know by simply looking out your window at socialist streets and sidewalks. 60% of US med is socialist-funded. The Fed is a socialist counterfeiter. Most schools, charity and land are socialist. The FDIC is a socialist insurer of banks. NPR is socialist. Etc,etc. The US and Europe have mixed economies.
I completely lost track of who I was talking to. My bad. I thought you were the first person who responded and said the US was capitalist and Norway was socialist.
Both the US Left and US Right have decreased US capitalism so much that US controls are about equal to Europe and, in some contexts, eg, antitrust, greater. Socialism is govt ownership of production, not equality, altho equality results from socialism. You evade fascism, ie, controls, that is widespread in Europe and the US.
US government spending as a % of GDP is low 40s. So equal to Britain, Japan, Australia, etc. Greater than Switzerland, HK, Singapore, etc.
But the US has "employer group health insurance". Which in my mind is a government program in all but name. If you include that as a government expenditure it's at 50%, which makes it equal to Germany, Sweden, etc.
Only truly dysfunctional states like France, etc are worse.
The big albatross is healthcare. There is nothing noble about the US spending 18% of GDP on a highly inefficient and unpopular hybrid mess. Even a "more socialist" outcome night be superior. Singapore spends low single digits, Switzerland, Japan, and Sweden high single digits. I've never heard people complain about healthcare quality in those countries.
All of these countries trend towards "whatever level of spending the government can do without causing an immediate fiscal crisis." Either they do it relatively well or relatively poorly, but they all have about the same amount of "government".
I honestly just flat out don't believe it when people they just mean a bigger welfare state like Sweden or Norway when they say 'socialism.' I think they're being disingenuous. That's not what socialism has been understood to mean historically. Other less controversial terms - like social democracy - are widely used to describe what they say they mean. If someone says they're a fascist but insists that just means they want to reduce illegal immigration or something, one should be incredulous. Usually one should take people at their word, but I would bet good money that the 'by socialism I just mean higher taxes' crowd genuinely wants actual socialism and is just saying that because it's what they want *at the margin* and it's more palatable than advocating for nationalization of private industries. They're just trying to boil the proverbial frog slowly. There's no other good reason for why they would call themselves socialists rather than social democrats (if I'd expect anything, socialists to pretend to be social democrats rather than vice versa).
Yeah, I hear you. But I know Scott Sehon personally and I assure you he's not being disingenuous. He's not trying to boil the frog slowly.
He just sincerely, and with no ulterior motive, defines the term "socialism" such that it refers to anything significantly more egalitarian and/or with more collective economic control than the U.S.
The tension with the Nazi socialism piece is straightforward. The Nazis had more collective economic control than the US, so why weren't they socialist?
The relevance of the anti-anti-Communist piece is that it reveals much lingering sympathy for totalitarian socialism.
Hi Bryan: My name is Dan Garretson and I run the Bastiat Society chapter in Dallas. I'll try to join the dinner event at Lucille's. Do you mind if I promote your events to my members and participants? Also, it looks like you have a busy schedule when you're here, but I'd love to explore having you speak to my group at some point. I typically do either luncheon events or casual, pizza and beer get-togethers with a talk. Thanks! -Dan
For whom, for what, by what standard? If you want to destroy man, socialism is better. "Better" applies only to life, because it can cease. Matter changes form but one material form cannot be better or worse than another. Is a cube better than sphere for matter? Ideas are perception-based hierarchies.
The content of the unfocused mind is bizarre. God alone knows what you mean by well-being and rights. Oh,wait, youre discussing the Garden Of Eden where all of mans desires are instantly granted. Sorry for doubting your good intentions.
I apologize for not providing a comprehensive theory of well-being and rights in a substack comment in which I'm rehearsing someone else's core argument. :)
I suggest reading Sehon's book when it comes out. I'm sure you'll disagree with it, but it's very clear and tries to be charitable to the pro-capitalist side.
Rights: I like Michael Huemer's account, according to which "You have a right to something when other people are obligated to give you that thing (in the case of a positive right) or not to interfere with your having that thing (in the case of a negative right). This obligation is understood deontologically: people have to respect your rights even if…better consequences [but how much better?] would follow in a particular case from violating your right.”
Huemer has an intellectual habit of dropping context. See his "Defending Liberty" and the identification of his invalid method in the folllowing, "Egoism" by H. Binswanger, in _Foundations Of A Free Society_ by G. Salmieri. In your quote, he discusses obligation, right and deontology out of context. I'm assuming that you quoted in context. His missing context is life and mind. Huemer, a mainstream philosopher, is basically concerned with the content of the unfocused mind. Then, after selecting something from the unfocused mind, he associates it with concrete experience. Marx valued economic intuitions, Hitler had his "racial" intuitions, Jesus claimed "supernatural" intuitions, all basically different from the farmer who focuses his mind, plants a seed and plans for a harvest.
A nice companion piece to the Goldhagen thesis is A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth by Norman Finkelstein.
I'd like to RSVP for the breakfast meetup in Fort Worth! (This is Sam Arnold, by the way.)
Bryan your a very generous man with your time! All great idea's. Wish I could attend all events and meet ups. 👏👏👏💯
I'd like to RSVP for the Debate at SMU
Also the breakfast meetup the next morning
Great, but note that the breakfast meet-up is the morning OF the debate, not after!
I noted that as I made my second comment. See you there!
I somehow missed the dinner meetup the night before, but I'd like to rsvp for that as well.
Hi Dr. Caplan. I live in the Fort Worth area and am RSVP’ing for every event in the Dallas area. Looking forward to meeting you.
The fact that capitalism versus socialism is still a debate is very sad.
Is is sad to debate the merits of, say, Norway versus the U.S.? Sehon defines socialism such that it includes anything significantly more egalitarian, and/or with significantly more collective economic control, than the U.S.
I don't think Norway has significantly more collective economic control than the US. I also don't think calling a regulated capitalist economy socialist because there is more taxation or redistribution is correct. At that point you're not debating socialism versus capitalism. You're debating the costs and benefits of various redistribution or fiscal policies.
Sure, but given that 99.9999% of the world is a mixed market economy, its a debate worth having.
> regulated capitalist
There are no contradictions in reality. Capitalism is individual rights, inc/property rights.
Ok, then using that definition the debate is socialism vs socialism? You just said one response ago that the US was capitalist but Norway was socialist. Now you're saying anything besides anarcho-capitalistim is socialism. What point are you trying to make?
I said that the US has fascist controls. And,of course, the US also has socialism, as you can know by simply looking out your window at socialist streets and sidewalks. 60% of US med is socialist-funded. The Fed is a socialist counterfeiter. Most schools, charity and land are socialist. The FDIC is a socialist insurer of banks. NPR is socialist. Etc,etc. The US and Europe have mixed economies.
I completely lost track of who I was talking to. My bad. I thought you were the first person who responded and said the US was capitalist and Norway was socialist.
Both the US Left and US Right have decreased US capitalism so much that US controls are about equal to Europe and, in some contexts, eg, antitrust, greater. Socialism is govt ownership of production, not equality, altho equality results from socialism. You evade fascism, ie, controls, that is widespread in Europe and the US.
US government spending as a % of GDP is low 40s. So equal to Britain, Japan, Australia, etc. Greater than Switzerland, HK, Singapore, etc.
But the US has "employer group health insurance". Which in my mind is a government program in all but name. If you include that as a government expenditure it's at 50%, which makes it equal to Germany, Sweden, etc.
Only truly dysfunctional states like France, etc are worse.
The big albatross is healthcare. There is nothing noble about the US spending 18% of GDP on a highly inefficient and unpopular hybrid mess. Even a "more socialist" outcome night be superior. Singapore spends low single digits, Switzerland, Japan, and Sweden high single digits. I've never heard people complain about healthcare quality in those countries.
All of these countries trend towards "whatever level of spending the government can do without causing an immediate fiscal crisis." Either they do it relatively well or relatively poorly, but they all have about the same amount of "government".
I honestly just flat out don't believe it when people they just mean a bigger welfare state like Sweden or Norway when they say 'socialism.' I think they're being disingenuous. That's not what socialism has been understood to mean historically. Other less controversial terms - like social democracy - are widely used to describe what they say they mean. If someone says they're a fascist but insists that just means they want to reduce illegal immigration or something, one should be incredulous. Usually one should take people at their word, but I would bet good money that the 'by socialism I just mean higher taxes' crowd genuinely wants actual socialism and is just saying that because it's what they want *at the margin* and it's more palatable than advocating for nationalization of private industries. They're just trying to boil the proverbial frog slowly. There's no other good reason for why they would call themselves socialists rather than social democrats (if I'd expect anything, socialists to pretend to be social democrats rather than vice versa).
Yeah, I hear you. But I know Scott Sehon personally and I assure you he's not being disingenuous. He's not trying to boil the frog slowly.
He just sincerely, and with no ulterior motive, defines the term "socialism" such that it refers to anything significantly more egalitarian and/or with more collective economic control than the U.S.
Where does he offer his definition?
In a forthcoming book with OUP called "Socialism: A Logical Introduction". I'm sure he'd be happy to share it with you. I'll ask him.
What then should we think of this? https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-communism-stance
Or this? https://jacobin.com/2020/10/nazi-socialism-rand-paul-strasser-hitler
Bryan, I don't see the tension between this piece and the above definition.
This Aeon piece argues that one can critique dumb anti-communist arguments without thereby being a Stalin fanboy.
Can't one make that argument while also defining socialism as Sehon does above? Maybe I'm missing something.
The tension with the Nazi socialism piece is straightforward. The Nazis had more collective economic control than the US, so why weren't they socialist?
The relevance of the anti-anti-Communist piece is that it reveals much lingering sympathy for totalitarian socialism.
Hi Bryan: My name is Dan Garretson and I run the Bastiat Society chapter in Dallas. I'll try to join the dinner event at Lucille's. Do you mind if I promote your events to my members and participants? Also, it looks like you have a busy schedule when you're here, but I'd love to explore having you speak to my group at some point. I typically do either luncheon events or casual, pizza and beer get-togethers with a talk. Thanks! -Dan
Feel free to promote. Just let me know how many extra guests to expect.
I'll be there for the dinner on the 15th!
Will this debate be livestreamed or uploaded on video?
I think so. You'll know more when I do.
Bryan would be great if we had a Ancap Institute, do you know of any in the world beside places like Mises and Rand which would not qualify.
>Which Is Better: Capitalism or Socialism?”
For whom, for what, by what standard? If you want to destroy man, socialism is better. "Better" applies only to life, because it can cease. Matter changes form but one material form cannot be better or worse than another. Is a cube better than sphere for matter? Ideas are perception-based hierarchies.
1) We should implement the economic system that, of the available alternatives, a) maximizes wellbeing without b) violating rights.
2) Socialism maximizes well-being.
3) Socialism does not violate rights.
4) Therefore, we should implement socialism.
That's Sehon's basic argument for socialism. You can read it in his forthcoming book with OUP!
The content of the unfocused mind is bizarre. God alone knows what you mean by well-being and rights. Oh,wait, youre discussing the Garden Of Eden where all of mans desires are instantly granted. Sorry for doubting your good intentions.
I apologize for not providing a comprehensive theory of well-being and rights in a substack comment in which I'm rehearsing someone else's core argument. :)
I suggest reading Sehon's book when it comes out. I'm sure you'll disagree with it, but it's very clear and tries to be charitable to the pro-capitalist side.
> I apologize for not providing a comprehensive theory of well-being and rights
That is a rationalization for evading a brief definition. Ayn Rand calls it complexity-worship (to evade the mind's need of principles).
Wellbeing: happiness
Rights: I like Michael Huemer's account, according to which "You have a right to something when other people are obligated to give you that thing (in the case of a positive right) or not to interfere with your having that thing (in the case of a negative right). This obligation is understood deontologically: people have to respect your rights even if…better consequences [but how much better?] would follow in a particular case from violating your right.”
Huemer has an intellectual habit of dropping context. See his "Defending Liberty" and the identification of his invalid method in the folllowing, "Egoism" by H. Binswanger, in _Foundations Of A Free Society_ by G. Salmieri. In your quote, he discusses obligation, right and deontology out of context. I'm assuming that you quoted in context. His missing context is life and mind. Huemer, a mainstream philosopher, is basically concerned with the content of the unfocused mind. Then, after selecting something from the unfocused mind, he associates it with concrete experience. Marx valued economic intuitions, Hitler had his "racial" intuitions, Jesus claimed "supernatural" intuitions, all basically different from the farmer who focuses his mind, plants a seed and plans for a harvest.
Bryan,
We here at TCU are really looking forward to your visit.
But do note that TCU is in Fort Worth, not Dallas. :)
Signed, Horned Frog Nation
Thanks for the correction.