Ayn Rand Philosophy, Objectivism, Science, Self-interest

[wufwugy]

Which principles are these exactly?

Science is decentralized and unregulated. There is no rules committee that assigns the rules by which science must be conducted. I believe that if this were proposed, scientists, nearly without exception, would oppose it, because they have first hand experience with how important it is that science be open to all and have no bias. A regulatory bureaucracy that oversees conduction of science would very quickly spell the end of its integrity. Data would become unreliable and discovery would come to a halt.

The free reality of science allows it to exist on the merits instead of by decree. Things that are repeatable are kept and everything else is discarded. Bureaucracies do not have this. They are by nature prohibiting of the kind of openness and merit that science has in peer review and experimentation.

A government certainly needs a way to keep those in power in check, CoccoBillistan would probably be either ruled by a benevolent informed dictator (me), or have much stricter rules on re-elections, oversight ans transparency as current governments.

The bold are mutually exclusive. Who conducts the oversight? Who keeps their power in check?

This dilemma is why even the most theoretically egalitarian government tried -- communism -- resulted in virtual dictatorial bureaucracies at the tippy top. The only way I've found to keep powers in check is the kind constructed in the United States Constitution: explicit prohibition of government intrusion into citizen space. This is where ideals of freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and religion come from. These ideals became a part of civilization through the idea that liberty does not come from government granting it, but that liberty comes from governments prohibiting themselves from infringing upon natural liberties of humans. Today, we take these liberties for granted. I hope that instead we would learn the lesson that since liberties that we today take for granted came from government prohibiting its own intrusion, we should make government further prohibited from intrusion for other things.

The priorities get skewed if there are career politicians more interested in getting re-elected than doing their job, and external influence (campaign finance etc) should be weeded out, for example.

This "external influence" is the people. Take away the ability for people to finance campaigns however they see fit, and you will have created a ruling class of a small number of political insiders. This is because the barrier to entry to politics would be astronomical. This is the type of thing seen in the many communist countries that all failed. Finance from the people was prohibited and the ruling party basically became God.

Take a look at the last few years of elections in America. The narrative that the rich buy elections is dead.

New employees are great for companies because they bring experience and fresh ideas, but that effect is typically exhausted in a few years. After that it's better they find a new job and a fresh recruit replaces him. Same should happen in the government, if representatives and senators served say max 4 years, they might even have an incentive to get shit done.

This is an idea worth thinking about. I can't say one way or another what the ramifications would be. I suspect that it would probably be good since it would probably greatly diminish the ability for government to intrude into peoples' lives.

That's debatable, the Kochs for example probably wield effective power quite similar to top brass in government. Without a government they would be the de facto government.

Are you arguing that the Kochs currently wield similar power to top powers in the government or that if there was no government then the Kochs would start acting like a government? Those are two different things.

The Kochs do not hold power; they only have some ability to lobby. Do you think it would be better if the Kochs had no ability to lobby and those with power had only to answer to those with power? Many have the ability to lobby, many rival the Kochs, and the lobbying done by organizations representing "the people" have even more influence that people like the Kochs. Us having voices is not what's wrong, but the government having the ability to favor one voice over another is. It is still the case that no Koch and no NRA put people in prison, raid homes in search of weed, nor fine people for working without paying licensing fees.

Governments receive revenues from taxes; this is fundamentally different than entities that receive revenues from consumer choice. Governments hold their tax power by legitimacy, i.e., they are viewed legitimate in the eyes of the citizenry at large, so there is little revolt. In the absence of government, the Kochs wouldn't come close to having this. This topic can go a lot of directions, and I don't really want to go into them, but the point I want to make is that the idea that the Kochs would be the de facto government in the absence of government is assuming something that isn't there. If the Kochs did become a government, it would be by way of them and entire regions of people deciding to set their businesses aside and instead become government. It's not the Kochs we'd have to worry about in this scenario; it's large swaths of people who want to take other peoples' stuff and are afraid of their stuff being taken. The Kochs would actually be primary targets. Governments tend to arise from populism, and populism typically targets the rich.

POTUS is probably a fairly big exception, but the POTUS has significantly more relative power than his colleagues in other countries. I'm in no way against individual freedom, quite the contrary, I have fairly libertarian views when it comes to regulating individuals. If someone's actions affect only themselves they should be free to do as they please, but if they affect others, regulations are IMO needed.

I'm glad you said this. Do you think it is reasonable that those who should have regulatory power should also have familiarity with the topics at hand? If so, does this suggest that only those affected by decisions should have say in decisions?

[a500lbgorilla]

Science is decentralized and unregulated. There is no rules committee that assigns the rules by which science must be conducted. I believe that if this were proposed, scientists, nearly without exception, would oppose it, because they have first hand experience with how important it is that science be open to all and have no bias. A regulatory bureaucracy that oversees conduction of science would very quickly spell the end of its integrity. Data would become unreliable and discovery would come to a halt.

The free reality of science allows it to exist on the merits instead of by decree. Things that are repeatable are kept and everything else is discarded. Bureaucracies do not have this. They are by nature prohibiting of the kind of openness and merit that science has in peer review and experimentation.

Pure nonsense.

There are regulatory bureaucracies AND rules committees, or something that nearly approaches them in the peer-review process and, you know, ethics.

Maybe study science before talking about its structure and nature.

[wufwugy]

Pure nonsense.

There are regulatory bureaucracies AND rules committees, or something that nearly approaches them in the peer-review process and, you know, ethics.

Maybe study science before talking about its structure and nature.

Why so hostile?

I'm not talking about ethics. About peer review, show me how it is only valid when done by certain people, in certain places, and using certain techniques.

Calling something decentralized and unregulated does not mean it is a mess and without structure or standards. But that stuff is different than market regulation.

[a500lbgorilla]

My b, the Pens got crushed last night and I'm still tasting the tang.

[a500lbgorilla]

About peer review, show me how it is only valid when done by certain people, in certain places, and using certain techniques.

Well, the people and places don't matter, but the technique certainly does.

Everyone recommends the Scientific Method. Why not try it yourself?

[wufwugy]

Well, the people and places don't matter, but the technique certainly does.

Everyone recommends the Scientific Method. Why not try it yourself?

What techniques do you mean? Like double blinds and such? Those matter because scientists consider them important for evaluating studies. They don't exist by decree. There is no bureaucracy ruling over the entire scientific community that has a law saying that all studies must be double blind or else they're invalid.

[a500lbgorilla]

What techniques do you mean? Like double blinds and such? Those matter because scientists consider them important for evaluating studies. They don't exist by decree. There is no bureaucracy ruling over the entire scientific community that has a law saying that all studies must be double blind or else they're invalid.

The idea of 'exists by decree' is baloney to me. Nothing of science exists by decree. It exists.

[wufwugy]

The idea of 'exists by decree' is baloney to me. Nothing of science exists by decree. It exists.

That was my point. Regulation, at least its meaning in a political context, is existence by decree.

[CoccoBill]

Science is decentralized and unregulated.

Rilla already covered this bit, but aspects of science are both centralized and regulated. Also, decentralization and unregulation are not principles of free markets.

The bold are mutually exclusive. Who conducts the oversight? Who keeps their power in check?

The party tasked with oversight duties. It's much better to have limited oversight than no oversight.

This dilemma is why even the most theoretically egalitarian government tried -- communism

I've said this a few times before, there was nothing egalitarian about communism. It was pure oligarchical tyranny masquerading as socialism.

The only way I've found to keep powers in check is the kind constructed in the United States Constitution: explicit prohibition of government intrusion into citizen space. This is where ideals of freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and religion come from. These ideals became a part of civilization through the idea that liberty does not come from government granting it, but that liberty comes from governments prohibiting themselves from infringing upon natural liberties of humans. Today, we take these liberties for granted. I hope that instead we would learn the lesson that since liberties that we today take for granted came from government prohibiting its own intrusion, we should make government further prohibited from intrusion for other things.

A society will always have its elite, those with more power than others. Human greed and self-preservation will take care of that. Wealth tends to concentrate through oligarchy, meritocracy and plutocracy. If a society does not have an elected government, one will be provided for them by the powerful. The only known solution that even tries to ensure the "government" acts in the best interest of it's members, is a democratically elected government. To guarantee the government does not step into the territory you describe above, it needs to have some sort of collectively agreed contract to not do so.

Are you arguing that the Kochs currently wield similar power to top powers in the government or that if there was no government then the Kochs would start acting like a government? Those are two different things.

Both.

The Kochs do not hold power; they only have some ability to lobby. Do you think it would be better if the Kochs had no ability to lobby and those with power had only to answer to those with power? Many have the ability to lobby, many rival the Kochs, and the lobbying done by organizations representing "the people" have even more influence that people like the Kochs. Us having voices is not what's wrong, but the government having the ability to favor one voice over another is. It is still the case that no Koch and no NRA put people in prison, raid homes in search of weed, nor fine people for working without paying licensing fees.

A citizen's way to affect the government is by voting, each person has one vote. On top of that the Kochs of the world can throw millions into lobbying. I'm sure you would agree that's hell of a lot more powerful than one vote? I would call that much more direct power than a single senator or congressman has, since it can swing several votes.

Fortunately money equals speech only in the US and some other rampantly corrupt societies. Optimally voting should be the way to affect the government, not bribery.

Governments receive revenues from taxes; this is fundamentally different than entities that receive revenues from consumer choice. Governments hold their tax power by legitimacy, i.e., they are viewed legitimate in the eyes of the citizenry at large, so there is little revolt. In the absence of government, the Kochs wouldn't come close to having this. This topic can go a lot of directions, and I don't really want to go into them, but the point I want to make is that the idea that the Kochs would be the de facto government in the absence of government is assuming something that isn't there. If the Kochs did become a government, it would be by way of them and entire regions of people deciding to set their businesses aside and instead become government. It's not the Kochs we'd have to worry about in this scenario; it's large swaths of people who want to take other peoples' stuff and are afraid of their stuff being taken. The Kochs would actually be primary targets. Governments tend to arise from populism, and populism typically targets the rich.

Money (or what ever currency there would be without governments) can buy favors, goods, violence etc. The person with the most currency will have the most power. Without a government maybe Kochs would have less than now, I don't know, but someone would have more than others, with no government to keep them in check.

Do you think it is reasonable that those who should have regulatory power should also have familiarity with the topics at hand?

Yes, obviously. Currently the way to do this is by using government advisors, who research and prepare materials for the decisionmakers.

If so, does this suggest that only those affected by decisions should have say in decisions?

Absolutely not. Decisions should be based on objective scientific data.

[wufwugy]

Also, decentralization and unregulation are not principles of free markets.

They are, which suggests you're defining them differently. In political contexts, when we say regulation and centralization, we mean things that arise from outside forces, meaning laws are passed and the market is changed regardless of the goings on in that market. Structures and standards are natural in markets.

The party tasked with oversight duties. It's much better to have limited oversight than no oversight.

Continue with this logic. When you wish to put a check on power, how is this accomplished by using a more powerful power with no checks?

I've said this a few times before, there was nothing egalitarian about communism. It was pure oligarchical tyranny masquerading as socialism.

Note that I said "theoretically egalitarian." Part of the theory behind communism was that it would empower the masses by using strict regulatory oversight. The results showed that the theory was wrong.

It's hard to find theoretical distinctions between communism and socialism. Marx noted that fully enacted socialism would be communism.

A society will always have its elite, those with more power than others. Human greed and self-preservation will take care of that.

A lesson of economics that people don't wanna hear is that greed is good. Greed is why society has food abundance, central heating, cars, smart phones, you name it. It is when greed has government power that it is not good. I can further explain if you don't see the connection.

Wealth tends to concentrate through oligarchy, meritocracy and plutocracy. If a society does not have an elected government, one will be provided for them by the powerful. The only known solution that even tries to ensure the "government" acts in the best interest of it's members, is a democratically elected government. To guarantee the government does not step into the territory you describe above, it needs to have some sort of collectively agreed contract to not do so. A citizen's way to affect the government is by voting, each person has one vote.

Is your vote more powerful when it's vague and provided once every two years or when it's specific and provided many times daily? Claiming democracy is a good is not a rebuttal to my argument since I'm miles beyond that point already by promoting democracy on steroids.

On top of that the Kochs of the world can throw millions into lobbying. I'm sure you would agree that's hell of a lot more powerful than one vote? I would call that much more direct power than a single senator or congressman has, since it can swing several votes.

Why does this mean that the solution must be to make those with power less influenced by those without power? Kochs having lobbying power does not show a problem with them; it shows a problem with the government. Citizens should be able to influence their situation with their capital. You do it, I do it, it's about as normal as it gets. Us doing this, especially when rich people do it, is integral to societal prosperity. It's when the government steps in and gives special favors that this stops being the case.

Fortunately money equals speech only in the US and some other rampantly corrupt societies.

What are these other societies where money is speech?

Optimally voting should be the way to affect the government, not bribery.

First off, lobbying and bribery are two totally different things. Lobbying is an incredibly good thing; the problem is when government has power over things it shouldn't. The solution isn't to take away the lobbying.

There's too much double standard going on. Average citizens have tremendous lobbying power. A member of the NRA pays a tiny fraction of his income for a lobbying juggernaut.

Money (or what ever currency there would be without governments) can buy favors, goods, violence etc. The person with the most currency will have the most power. Without a government maybe Kochs would have less than now, I don't know, but someone would have more than others, with no government to keep them in check.

So, you're afraid of the Kochs having too much power so you wish to create an entity with tremendously greater power? Why? Because you get the vote? But you had a much more effective vote back before you constructed the tremendously greater power in the first place. Color me confused.

Absolutely not. Decisions should be based on objective scientific data.

Most of the time, this is not available. Which means that typically the most familiar with an issue are those most affected by it. This is not always the case, but this reality is why economics teaches it.

[CoccoBill]

They are, which suggests you're defining them differently. In political contexts, when we say regulation and centralization, we mean things that arise from outside forces, meaning laws are passed and the market is changed regardless of the goings on in that market. Structures and standards are natural in markets.

Citation needed, I can't find them.

http://freemarketprinciples.com/principles.php

I digress, but I find your use of "we" here a bit amusing. "We", as in us the economists, who get it. A bit ad verecundiam, don't you think?

Continue with this logic. When you wish to put a check on power, how is this accomplished by using a more powerful power with no checks?

It doesn't have to be more powerful, it just needs to be independent. This actually works quite well in practice, similarly to corporations. Think of the internal audit function. Works much much better than no oversight at all.

Note that I said "theoretically egalitarian." Part of the theory behind communism was that it would empower the masses by using strict regulatory oversight. The results showed that the theory was wrong.

It's hard to find theoretical distinctions between communism and socialism. Marx noted that fully enacted socialism would be communism.

The Soviet Union was as much socialist as Russia is democratic.

A lesson of economics that people don't wanna hear is that greed is good. Greed is why society has food abundance, central heating, cars, smart phones, you name it. It is when greed has government power that it is not good. I can further explain if you don't see the connection.

Greed is also a big reason why societies have crime. Things aren't just good or evil. You're trying to paint the world black and white.

Is your vote more powerful when it's vague and provided once every two years or when it's specific and provided many times daily? Claiming democracy is a good is not a rebuttal to my argument since I'm miles beyond that point already by promoting democracy on steroids.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point.

Why does this mean that the solution must be to make those with power less influenced by those without power? Kochs having lobbying power does not show a problem with them; it shows a problem with the government. Citizens should be able to influence their situation with their capital. You do it, I do it, it's about as normal as it gets. Us doing this, especially when rich people do it, is integral to societal prosperity. It's when the government steps in and gives special favors that this stops being the case.

You jumped over my whole point of there always being those who are more powerful than others. A government is simply a way to keep them in check, to ensure they don't get too much power and influence over others. Lobbying undermines that. And I don't care if there would be even more stuff if free market.

What are these other societies where money is speech?

I first typed only the US, but then changed it since the situation is pretty similar in countries with high corruption.

First off, lobbying and bribery are two totally different things.

Do you find any irony comparing this to tax vs theft or abortion vs murder?

Lobbying is an incredibly good thing; the problem is when government has power over things it shouldn't. The solution isn't to take away the lobbying.

Now you just lost me completely. It's good that those with wealth have a disproportionate influence over others?

There's too much double standard going on. Average citizens have tremendous lobbying power. A member of the NRA pays a tiny fraction of his income for a lobbying juggernaut.

How is this a good thing? Because USA has the highest gun violence stats in the world? I'd go about differently trying to solve overpopulation.

So, you're afraid of the Kochs having too much power so you wish to create an entity with tremendously greater power? Why? Because you get the vote? But you had a much more effective vote back before you constructed the tremendously greater power in the first place. Color me confused.

I only had a tremendously greater power in the first place if I happened to be wealthy.

Most of the time, this is not available. Which means that typically the most familiar with an issue are those most affected by it. This is not always the case, but this reality is why economics teaches it.

If the data is not available, there shouldn't be regulations regarding it.

[wufwugy]

Citation needed, I can't find them.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/...ted-market.asp

http://freemarketprinciples.com/principles.php

Quality page. This is largely political liberty stuff, which has a lot of crossover.

I digress, but I find your use of "we" here a bit amusing. "We", as in us the economists, who get it. A bit ad verecundiam, don't you think?

Don't read too much into it. "We" is a commonly used pronoun when discussing norms. I'll rephrase: the meanings of regulation and centralization in political contexts are effects from government intervention.

It doesn't have to be more powerful, it just needs to be independent. This actually works quite well in practice, similarly to corporations. Think of the internal audit function. Works much much better than no oversight at all.

If it's not more powerful, then it's not effective oversight; if it's independent, then it's not done with government influence.

The analogy of the internal audit function applied to government assumes the angels I referenced earlier. That governing body will still have total and unchecked power. Who are the angels you trust to not abuse this?

The Soviet Union was as much socialist as Russia is democratic.

The revisionist history is astounding. The USSR was the greatest socialist experiment of all time. If you would like to discuss why this is the case, we can.

Greed is also a big reason why societies have crime. Things aren't just good or evil. You're trying to paint the world black and white.

I'm trying to provide insight learned from economics. The lesson often gets shortened to "greed is good." The lesson is that abundance and novelty arise from competition of peoples' greed in a free market.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point.

You extolled the virtues of voting and democracy as a contrast to my point. I pointed out that my position involves so much more selection by the people of their environments that it could be described as voting/democracy on steroids.

You jumped over my whole point of there always being those who are more powerful than others. A government is simply a way to keep them in check, to ensure they don't get too much power and influence over others.

The government is the too much power. Square this circle for me: on the one hand you acknowledge that some have more power than others, but on the other hand you declare that the solution is to give absolute power to somebody else.

If the things you have said previously are any indication, you think the answer is democracy. But that has been demonstrably as well as theoretically inadequate. How many bureaucrats have you voted for? None. How many times a decade do you vote? Possibly a few. What level of influence have you had on the laws passed? Virtually none.

Religion isn't the only opiate of the masses; democracy is too.

And I don't care if there would be even more stuff if free market.

Isn't that like saying "I don't care if you're right; you're still wrong"?

I first typed only the US, but then changed it since the situation is pretty similar in countries with high corruption.

They're not remotely similar. You have equated political power derived from having the biggest armies with the liberty of people to express a point.

Do you find any irony comparing this to tax vs theft or abortion vs murder?

Bribery and lobbying are not the same thing. There is a measure of overlap, which is where lobbying shows its problems. But they are by nature two entirely different things. One is a gift exchange and the other is education.

A government without lobbying would be a lolbad disaster because the policies would not reflect reality that much. Politicians don't have enough money (and even if they did, it would be wrong for them to do so) to hire experts on every issue they legislate on. Lobbying is where they get it from. Lobbying is a significantly important attribute that gives the people (read: you) access to influence your government. That some people have greater influence is a problem, but that arises not from the existence of lobbying, but the existence of government power in that market.

Now you just lost me completely. It's good that those with wealth have a disproportionate influence over others?

In general terms, yes. This is an integral element of the construction of prosperity. Hierarchy based on capital is awash in the natural world.

How is this a good thing? Because USA has the highest gun violence stats in the world? I'd go about differently trying to solve overpopulation.

Average citizens probably get more bang for their buck from lobbying than the rich do.

Look at it this way: special treatment does exist and it's a problem, but it is also not the norm. That's not to say that it's not a serious systemic issue, just to say that people misdiagnose the problems in this area. The Kochs, for example, don't lobby for special treatment. Their agenda has always been to get government out of the lives of the people. Yet they have been demonized more than any other family in the western world in the last decade because multitudes of people get the wrong information.

I only had a tremendously greater power in the first place if I happened to be wealthy.

Another lesson of economics is that this is not the case. There is no known mechanism that has provided anywhere close to the level of power and prosperity for the poor than free markets. This is not something economists disagree on. I suspect this should be right up your alley since you care deeply about engagement of the knowledge and understanding of science and expertise.

If the data is not available, there shouldn't be regulations regarding it.

There shouldn't be, and yet there are. Why do you think there are?

[CoccoBill]

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulated-market.asp

Can't find anywhere a statement saying that decentralization and unregulation are principles of free markets.

If it's not more powerful, then it's not effective oversight; if it's independent, then it's not done with government influence.

The analogy of the internal audit function applied to government assumes the angels I referenced earlier. That governing body will still have total and unchecked power. Who are the angels you trust to not abuse this?

In case you're not familiar with internal audits, it's just an independent body within the organization that audit the processes and practices of the company, and reports to the board. They actually have zero power within the organization, they just report what's happening based on predetermined criteria and metrics. That's oversight. No angels needed.

The revisionist history is astounding. The USSR was the greatest socialist experiment of all time. If you would like to discuss why this is the case, we can.

Even if something may be the "greatest" it doesn't make it great, or even half-assed.

https://chomsky.info/1986____/

I'm trying to provide insight learned from economics. The lesson often gets shortened to "greed is good." The lesson is that abundance and novelty arise from competition of peoples' greed in a free market.

I don't know, but I would wager that no economist argues that greed is universally good, just that it has beneficial properties within certain strictly defined economic scenarios. You seem to be ignoring all of the other scenarios and think greed is always and only positive.

You extolled the virtues of voting and democracy as a contrast to my point. I pointed out that my position involves so much more selection by the people of their environments that it could be described as voting/democracy on steroids.

I didn't say anything about the virtues of voting, I stated that the de facto way to have influence in a democracy, and lobbying is skewing that in favor of the wealthy. What you wrote was irrelevant to that.

The government is the too much power. Square this circle for me: on the one hand you acknowledge that some have more power than others, but on the other hand you declare that the solution is to give absolute power to somebody else.

If the things you have said previously are any indication, you think the answer is democracy. But that has been demonstrably as well as theoretically inadequate. How many bureaucrats have you voted for? None. How many times a decade do you vote? Possibly a few. What level of influence have you had on the laws passed? Virtually none.

The wealthy are gonna have more power than the others no matter what. I'd much rather have some checks and balances on what they can do, than not.

Isn't that like saying "I don't care if you're right; you're still wrong"?

Only in a world where more stuff is the only meaningful metric. I don't live in one.

They're not remotely similar. You have equated political power derived from having the biggest armies with the liberty of people to express a point.

Bribery and lobbying are not the same thing. There is a measure of overlap, which is where lobbying shows its problems. But they are by nature two entirely different things. One is a gift exchange and the other is education.

What do armies have to do with lobbying or corruption? In both cases political favors can be bought with money, only difference being in the USA it's legal. Like I said earlier, I'm using lobbying as an umbrella term for campaign finance, gifts to politicians, cronyism.

A government without lobbying would be a lolbad disaster because the policies would not reflect reality that much.

Sounds legit.

Politicians don't have enough money (and even if they did, it would be wrong for them to do so) to hire experts on every issue they legislate on. Lobbying is where they get it from. Lobbying is a significantly important attribute that gives the people (read: you) access to influence your government. That some people have greater influence is a problem, but that arises not from the existence of lobbying, but the existence of government power in that market.

Sounds peculiar. Over here at least politicians certainly don't hire experts, they are government officials that work for them. Of course some also use paid advisors. We don't have major problems with campaign financing and politicians at least most of the time work, not just raise funds and filibuster. I've told you many times before over the years, your notion of a governments may be badly skewed because of the one you have.

In general terms, yes. This is an integral element of the construction of prosperity. Hierarchy based on capital is awash in the natural world.

I said disproportionate.

Average citizens probably get more bang for their buck from lobbying than the rich do.

Average citizens don't have Super PACs.

Look at it this way: special treatment does exist and it's a problem, but it is also not the norm. That's not to say that it's not a serious systemic issue, just to say that people misdiagnose the problems in this area. The Kochs, for example, don't lobby for special treatment. Their agenda has always been to get government out of the lives of the people. Yet they have been demonized more than any other family in the western world in the last decade because multitudes of people get the wrong information.

I don't personally know what the Kochs ultimate goals are, and it doesn't matter. They shouldn't have the level of power they do no matter what they support.

Another lesson of economics is that this is not the case. There is no known mechanism that has provided anywhere close to the level of power and prosperity for the poor than free markets. This is not something economists disagree on. I suspect this should be right up your alley since you care deeply about engagement of the knowledge and understanding of science and expertise.

You said: "But you had a much more effective vote back before you constructed the tremendously greater power in the first place. Color me confused."
I said: "I only had a tremendously greater power in the first place if I happened to be wealthy."

I again don't see how what you said now is relevant to what we were talking about.

There shouldn't be, and yet there are. Why do you think there are?

I'm not arguing for the US government, I'm arguing for "a" government. We've only ever briefly touched on what I actually support. I've talked about outcomes, and I'm still not at all convinced free market is the silver bullet to everything, no matter how effectively it produces stuff.

We seem to be just going around in circles in the monster posts, and I don't feel you've provided any new info to me this time. I'll bail out.

[wufwugy]

Even if something may be the "greatest" it doesn't make it great, or even half-assed.

https://chomsky.info/1986____/

Don't feel like you have to respond to this. It's just something I wanted to address, so I'll do it now, because I believe two of the most important misconceptions in the modern world are (1) the USSR was not socialist and (2) capitalism does not empower the poor while socialism empowers the poor.

Briefly, about the second point, the consensus among economists is that free markets empower the poor. Even the most left, pro-socialist economists in the West believe this. Economists of every variety are intense advocates of free markets. It's only on certain hot political issues, like healthcare, where hard left economists, who extol the virtues of free markets for most things, say that markets shouldn't be free.

Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.

The quote is describing an effect, not a policy. Socialism is not an effect, but a policy. A policy that enforces social ownership does not equal the effect of social power. If Chomsky were to have a problem with my use of the word "enforces," he would unwittingly be agreeing with free markets, because the voluntary act of social ownership is a derivation of free markets.

As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, “this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,” but can only be “realized by the workers themselves being master over production.”

The bold is insufficient in terms because it accounts for only production. It's missing consumption and distribution. It's missing the concept of capital. It doesn't account for division of labor, economies of scale, and virtually every element integral to the scientific understanding of economics. Pannenkoek's description is humorism level wrong/debunked/outdated/unscientific.

Even so, if we dissect the statement as if it's meaningful, it begins to look remarkably like free market capitalism. Production is an effect of and dependent upon worker capital. Free market capitalism is the consensus structure that optimizes worker capital. If we were to change "production" in the quote to what it should be, "production, consumption, and capital," then the statement remarkably reflects free market capitalism.

But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.

The statement is necessarily free market capitalism because of the bold. Chomsky is describing voluntary agency. This necessarily means he is describing a free market.

Worker owned companies are 100% legal in free markets. Millions of them exist. There are a variety of reasons why economists believe not all companies are worker owned in a developed free market economy, and "exploitation" isn't on the list.

A historian sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, E.H. Carr, writes that “the spontaneous inclination of the workers to organize factory committees and to intervene in the management of the factories was inevitably encouraged by a revolution which led the workers to believe that the productive machinery of the country belonged to them and could be operated by them at their own discretion and to their own advantage”

The bold is why the USSR system is socialism, and why Marx himself said that true socialism is communism. When you have a system where social ownership by workers is the law, a bureaucracy to enforce this is required. Some today reimagine socialism to meaning only social ownership of a company by its workers, but this was not the view of Marx and it was not the view of socialists during the Cold War. The logic is pretty straightforward: the "worker" is a class. When the philosophy is for the worker to have social ownership, it is not enough to look at individual workers and individual companies, but to view them as a whole. This necessarily means that all workers should have social ownership of all companies. How is it possible to achieve this? Central command and a stripping away of voluntarism. Ironic, I know.