You’re right, save for the conflation of conservatives and libertarians. I understand the close relation of the two in the United States, but they ought to be distinguished.

Conservatives are not unlike progressives in their application of government intervention into the lives of others. Arguably the first welfare state was a conservative invention, for instance, but also militarism, subsidizing, and taxation comes to mind.

One of the arguments in libertarian literature is that conservatives cannot offer an alternative direction to the one that we are heading, that is, to the enlargement of the state and the ever-growing positive encroachments into the lives of others.

See Hayek’s “Why I am not a Consevative” as an example.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

It's difficult to even imagine an entirely--or largely--unregulated large economy. How would an economy even become successfully large without regulation and governance in place at an early stage of development?

As you say, regulation becomes a problem only when it protects consumers from irresponsibility and outright predation.

Trump/Musk's rip-snorting chainsaw attacks on government agencies (USAID, Education, CDC, etc.) are an example of the kind of dis-regulation desired by ideologues. They want to disable services to the undeserving, like third-world people with tiresome diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, AIDS, and so on. In their view, students will conform to the locally run school or be damned. They find the third word of Center for Disease CONTROL offensive.

The way in which AIDS and other diseases came to the first world from the third world is a warning about how dis-regulation is a really stupid blunder. Disabling the IRS at least makes ideological sense -- the fewer agents available to audit the returns of wealthy tax evaders,, the better.

In all, the ideological urge against regulation is cynical. it's like the attacks on universities masquerading as a suppression of antisemitism. It's bullshit.

the conflation of conservatives and libertarians...

...See Hayek’s “Why I am not a Consevative” — NOS4A2

I read the first five pages of the article you linked and then skimmed the rest. I liked the way Hayek clarified the liberal/conservative/radical/socialist/libertarian mixups, although I don't share his obvious disdain for socialism. As I said in the OP, what really matters to me is the impact of government actions on the people who live within a society. In that regard, this jumped out at me:

...the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about. It is, indeed, part of the liberal attitude to assume that, especially in the economic field, the self-regulating forces of the market will somehow bring about the required adjustments to new conditions, although no one can foretell how they will do this in a particular instance. There is perhaps no single factor contributing so much to people's frequent reluctance to let the market work as their inability to conceive how some necessary balance, between demand and supply, between exports and imports, or the like, will be brought about without deliberate control. — Why I Am Not a Conservative

I've bolded the parts that I found most significant. There is no mention of the impacts of change on the people who will be most affected by it. If misery is the result, it seems like that's ok as long as there is the proper balance "between demand and supply, between exports and imports."

It's difficult to even imagine an entirely--or largely--unregulated large economy. How would an economy even become successfully large without regulation and governance in place at an early stage of development? — BC

Agreed. It seems obvious, but looking at the justifications libertarians/liberals give for their positions, they look a lot like anarchists. Somehow the world will self-organize if we just don't mess with the market.

In all, the ideological urge against regulation is cynical. — BC

I'm not sure about that. For a lot of them I think it's sincere - a case of ideology overcoming self-interest.

In a free market, where demand is not great enough no supply will be, uh... supplied.

One of the foundations of conservative and libertarian political ideology is that the less regulation of commerce the better. On the other hand, the great majority of government regulation is put in place to benefit business and property owners. Large scale businesses such as banking, finance, communications, agriculture, and publishing could not exist without the Federal Reserve, SEC, FCC, FDA, and Copyright Office. And this doesn't include the most fundamental of all government regulations - property rights.

Regulation only seems to be a problem when it benefits the people who actually use the products and services of these industries and who have to face the consequences of their ineptitude, negligence, and malfeasance. Worker safety, environmental, and consumer protection regulations cost money and reduce profits so they are considered unreasonable, too restrictive. — T Clark

Large businesses have always used their lobbying power to gain special privileges, which is one of the primary mechanisms through which market regulation tends to favor them.

This is why market regulation often misses its mark: the big businesses it is meant to target have ways to circumvent, bend and change the rules, while the small businesses that are instrumental in counteracting the power of large businesses are disadvantaged.

Not only is this why regulation generally fails to curb the power of big businesses, but one of the reasons why big businesses themselves may promote market regulation; to heighten the bar for new competition.

Without fault, you will find the areas of the market with the most regulations to be the most monopolistic, and most broken.

Do note that it takes a powerful government to hold any power worth lobbying for in the first place.

Large businesses have always used their lobbying power to gain special privileges, which is one of the primary mechanisms through which market regulation tends to favor them.

This is why market regulation often misses its mark: the big businesses it is meant to target have ways to circumvent, bend and change the rules, while the small businesses that are instrumental in counteracting the power of large businesses are disadvantaged. — Tzeentch

I agree with everything you've written, but what's the alternative? I would be more sympathetic to the libertarian view if there were any acknowledgement of a societal obligation to create a society where people can live decent, secure lives. Fact is, I don't think it ever crossed most of their minds. They don't really care. Do you?

Yes, most government regulation benefits the property owner, business, corporations. What institution other than government can protect regular people living and working in the society from business, corporations, oligarchs, and, yes, government itself? Worker safety and environmental regulations have made a vast difference in the quality of life of most of us. Social Security reduced the poverty rate of people over 65 from about 50% to about 10%. Who else but government can fill this role. The libertarian answer is charity, voluntary associations, and the courts. Even they know that's baloney.

Without fault, you will find the areas of the market with the most regulations to be the most monopolistic, and most broken. — Tzeentch

Do you have some representative examples of heavily regulated industries that are monopolistic and lightly regulated industries that are not?

Regulation only seems to be a problem when it benefits the people who actually use the products and services of these industries and who have to face the consequences of their ineptitude, negligence, and malfeasance. Worker safety, environmental, and consumer protection regulations cost money and reduce profits so they are considered unreasonable, too restrictive. — T Clark

Government protection and services for the average - non-rich - citizen cost public money and therefore rely on taxation.

But the rich don't like paying taxes and can finds ways to avoid paying them. The non-rich can't. Owners can jack up rents and prices, cut salaries or the work force to keep profits up; the unrich have no recourse without government intervention. Corporations can move their industries and/or head offices to countries with less overhead and oversight - the workers and customers can't follow. They can finance political campaigns and lobbies to turn legislatures in their own favour - the have-nots can't, unless very large numbers of them agree on enough policy points. And since there is greater diversity of interest among the millions of ordinary citizens than among the handful of billionnaires, the pro-business party will always have more money for elections and more mass media support than their opponents.

Also, of course, governments are in control of major infrastructure, law enforcement, the mint, transportation, foreign trade, diplomacy and defence, all of which are needed by business, commerce and the financial sector. All of these things cost public money, which has to be collected in the form of taxes and user fees. Whereas the ultra rich are able to evade the bulk of taxation, the middle class is burdened with it - but the owner class benefits directly in the form of lucrative government contracts, while the salaries of executives and shop foremen, tradesmen and researchers are not raised along with the profits.

Without adequate regulation, more and more wealth gravitates upward to the least productive members of society, who increasingly grow richer through venture capital and speculation rather than through customer service and quality product. This imbalance continues to keep tipping in the same direction, until the whole edifice collapses in a depression. At this point, the conservative factions withdraw from the political arena to begin healing, while the liberal ones are left to repair the damage. This latter being a long and difficult endeavour commensurate with the extent of the damage, it gives the conservative faction sufficient time to recruit new allies: nationalists, religious blocs, interest groups that have some axe to grind against some portion of their fellow citizens.

Once the owner class is firmly back in the saddle, they begin deregulating industry, dismantling measures that protect the consumer, knocking over trade unions, militarizing police forces, giving themselves subsidies and tax breaks....

In a free market, where demand is not great enough no supply will be, uh... supplied. — praxis

Where is this much-vaunted "free market"?
Demand can be artificially created. See junk food + diet programs, carcinogenic consumer goods + opioids, planned obsolescence + home appliances, addictive products + false scientific reporting.

I agree with everything you've written, but what's the alternative? I would be more sympathetic to the libertarian view if there were any acknowledgement of a societal obligation to create a society where people can live decent, secure lives. Fact is, I don't think it ever crossed most of their minds. They don't really care. Do you?

The alternative is to do it ourselves. Even the most limited, night-watchman state, does not preclude our obligations to our fellow man and to our communities.

I would argue that delegating those duties and responsibilities to a bureaucracy or voting for a political party is the very least one could do in that regard, so much so that’s it’s tantamount to doing nothing, save that it allows us to signal our bonafides and allegiances. I don’t think that any of this crosses the statist mind.

There's a lot of truth in what you've written, although it's a bit of a caricature. You've also broadened it beyond the scope of my OP, which is fine with me. I look at it from the point of view of the regulations I have dealt with personally and think are especially important - occupational safety and health, environmental protection, consumer protection. These agencies are intended to protect the most vulnerable people in our society and they make a big difference.

The alternative is to do it ourselves. Even the most limited, night-watchman state, does not preclude our obligations to our fellow man and to our communities.

I would argue that delegating those duties and responsibilities to a bureaucracy or voting for a political party is the very least one could do in that regard, so much so that’s it’s tantamount to doing nothing, save that it allows us to signal our bonafides and allegiances. I don’t think that any of this crosses the statist mind. — NOS4A2

In my experience, libertarians don't really have much interest in "our obligations to our fellow man and to our communities." Take environmental protection - a typical libertarian recommendation of what to do when Dupont dumps tetraethyldeath in the river where I get my drinking water is to take them to court. If you don't see how laughable that is, there's not much more I can say.

Most libertarians are not interested in the welfare of their fellow citizens. Many of them see themselves as rugged individualists who deserve all the credit for what they have accomplished. They don't recognize what has been given to them just by living in our society.

Libertarianism is just another name for anarchy. I'm not using that as an insult. I mean it as a description. This from the web - Anarchy - the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government. And it won't work, can't work, for any large modern society. It's pie in the sky.

These agencies are intended to protect the most vulnerable people in our society and they make a big difference. — T Clark

They have done, and it was very good. The current state of American 'conservative' politics is far beyond caricature; it's a grotesque tragedy. The British, French and Canadian versions are about two decades behind - but only because we have not yet produced an extreme figurehead. Too many safeguards are still in place. But each consecutive 'conservative' administration knocks over a few more.

I have no quarrel with honest conservatism: the desire to preserve positive aspects of tradition and caution in the face of rapid technological and cultural change. Unfortunately, its influences were overwhelmingly European Christian, which simply doesn't work for an ethnically diverse modern society. What calls itself conservative now is not interested in conserving anything; it's openly regressive and predatory. The Conservative leader running in our present election wants to bring back single-use plastic. That's not a traditional value; that's catering to the oil industry and damn everybody and everything else.

I was referring to instances where the free market fails to provide basic services to rural communities where demand isn’t great enough to make a profit. In these instances the government has needed to step in to ensure that essential services like electricity, telecommunications, healthcare, and infrastructure are accessible to all citizens, regardless of location or economic viability.

I realize this has most likely already been covered or isn’t relevant to regulations. I haven’t read much of the topic.

I would be more sympathetic to the libertarian view if there were any acknowledgement of a societal obligation to create a society where people can live decent, secure lives. Fact is, I don't think it ever crossed most of their minds. They don't really care. Do you? — T Clark

This is a very uncharitable view, and I think it is also false.

In my experience, libertarians and classical liberals (I consider myself the latter) care just as much about their fellow man as anyone else. They simply disagree on how that care should be expressed.

Turning charity and humanism into a state-mandated process is objectionable for various reasons. The most obvious one being that states are flawed institutions that simply aren't able to provide the solutions they promise. The other is that it replaces the personal process and turns it into an anonymous one - the giver no longer feels like they did a good thing, and the recipient no longer feels they were given anything other than what they were entitled to in the first place. If you force people to do 'the right thing', then they no longer get to choose out of their own volition and thus the moral act is devalued if there is any moral act left to speak of at all.

What institution other than government can protect regular people living and working in the society from business, corporations, oligarchs, and, yes, government itself? — T Clark

The (extended) family has fulfilled this role throughout the ages, and I believe it should have a much bigger role in modern society.

In general, I believe people should be encouraged to create and maintain social networks that they can fall back on. Social bonds between people cannot be replaced by a government surrogate.

Do you have some representative examples of heavily regulated industries that are monopolistic and lightly regulated industries that are not? — T Clark

I doubt you'll find a lightly-regulated industry that can in any way be said to be monopolistic.
As for heavily-regulated ones that are either monopolistic or completely broken: housing, energy, pharmaceuticals, airflight, insurance, foodstuffs, etc.

I could probably think of a couple more, but since I'm speaking from the perspective of my country (the Netherlands) and you of yours, I'm not sure how productive this will be for our discussion.

So first off this is just a beautiful post. For me personally, it's the genuine nature of it as if we were having an in-person conversation coupled with the almost fatherly level of insight.

The most obvious one being that states are flawed institutions that simply aren't able to provide the solutions they promise. — Tzeentch

Not to derail, but what, if there is such a thing, is an example of a perfect institution? Who is it instituted by? Who or what ensures its perfection? Are they truly not able or is there rational, moral, and legal aspects that contribute to it's inherently or otherwise unavoidably flawed nature?

If you force people to do 'the right thing', then they no longer get to choose out of their own volition and thus the moral act is devalued if there is any moral act left to speak of at all. — Tzeentch

Take safety for example. As a shopkeeper, I don't have to ensure there's a wet floor sign present after an employee has recently mopped the floor leaving it ready for an unsuspecting person to slip and fall. Now, in most countries this would open myself up to lawsuits so of course I would act to avoid such possibility. But that aside, sometimes "forcing someone to do the right thing" is a matter of social survival. Not a great point or angle but expanding some, many places do have laws that somewhat "force people to do the right thing" not for "rightness" sake but because without it, problems would occur, be they financial, emotional, moral, etc. This is probably a bit aside from your point but, sure you can't force someone who is wealthy who walks by a beggar who would, for all you know, might possibly die if you don't give him a bit of your change, change that as a wealthy man is beyond superfluous. But, we have social... shall we say "laws that aren't laws" norms, which would encourage you to do so. Perhaps a less fortunate person who witnesses you walk by without even a passing glance and verbally condemning you as "cheap" or "heartless". It's not that serious, but it does exist. And many people do abide. No one's forced, per se, at the barrel of a gun or end of a sword, but in a way, it's certainly coerced in some sense, is it not? :smile:

I was referring to instances where the free market fails to provide basic services to rural communities where demand isn’t great enough to make a profit. In these instances the government has needed to step in to ensure that essential services like electricity, telecommunications, healthcare, and infrastructure are accessible to all citizens, regardless of location or economic viability. — praxis

Those things are all true, and part of the reason government exists. But those services to rural communities are not really provided by the government, are they? They're provided by private enterprise subsidized by government out of tax revenues, so there is still a profit. There is more profit again in the arrival of raw materials and foodstuffs from those remote rural areas to the city manufacturers and distributors on government-financed roads built by private companies and subsidized railways, operated by private companies.
My basic objection was to the phrase 'free market'. It's a myth. The profit market isn't, and never was; it's always been propped up by government.

In my experience, libertarians don't really have much interest in "our obligations to our fellow man and to our communities." Take environmental protection - a typical libertarian recommendation of what to do when Dupont dumps tetraethyldeath in the river where I get my drinking water is to take them to court. If you don't see how laughable that is, there's not much more I can say.

Most libertarians are not interested in the welfare of their fellow citizens. Many of them see themselves as rugged individualists who deserve all the credit for what they have accomplished. They don't recognize what has been given to them just by living in our society.

Libertarianism is just another name for anarchy. I'm not using that as an insult. I mean it as a description. This from the web - Anarchy - the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government. And it won't work, can't work, for any large modern society. It's pie in the sky.

There is plenty anarchist and libertarian literature showing that the opposite is the case. I’ll accept your experience in good faith but I’m going to defer to my own experience.

They just have a little more faith in human nature and their fellow man, that if the government disappears tomorrow not everyone will go to war with one another. They believe people will largely cooperate, as they do already.

But most of all they are taking a moral stance. They refuse to rely on an instrument of exploitation and coercion to achieve cooperation with others. To do so, to me, is a sign of moral poverty. At any rate, it’s a sign that one doesn’t have much else to offer but his fealty to some class of politicians.

Speaking of pie in the sky, the vain hope that we can elect a bunch of angels to run the government is an absurd one. But, I guess we’ll keep trying anyways.

But most of all they are taking a moral stance. They refuse to rely on an instrument of exploitation and coercion to achieve cooperation with others. To do so, to me, is a sign of moral poverty. At any rate, it’s a sign that one doesn’t have much else to offer but his fealty to some class of politicians. — NOS4A2

How does that statement square with your years of defending a particular politician?

This is a very uncharitable view, and I think it is also false.

In my experience, libertarians and classical liberals (I consider myself the latter) care just as much about their fellow man as anyone else. They simply disagree on how that care should be expressed. — Tzeentch

As I see it, it's not a question of expressing concern for humanity, it's about taking responsibility for their welfare. To lighten that a bit, it's at least about not benefitting from their misery. As I see it, it is not possible to live in a modern society without doing that. Do libertarians pay wages adequate for their workers to live decent lives, or do they let the market have it's way? Do they provide for a safe workplace? Do they provide clean and secure housing for their tenants? Do they limit themselves to a reasonable return on investment to allow them to provide these benefits? It seems clear to me that most people with power over other's lives don't do that without government involvement, regulation, at a minimum.

Turning charity and humanism into a state-mandated process is objectionable for various reasons. The most obvious one being that states are flawed institutions that simply aren't able to provide the solutions they promise. The other is that it replaces the personal process and turns it into an anonymous one - the giver no longer feels like they did a good thing, and the recipient no longer feels they were given anything other than what they were entitled to in the first place. If you force people to do 'the right thing', then they no longer get to choose out of their own volition and thus the moral act is devalued if there is any moral act left to speak of at all. — Tzeentch

This rings a resounding hollowness. If government is not the solution, tell me what is. Either that or acknowledge that you don't see it as your problem, however sympathetic you are to your fellows. As for "...they no longer get to choose out of their own volition and thus the moral act is devalued if there is any moral act left to speak of at all," - that is an outrageously lame virtue signal.

The (extended) family has fulfilled this role throughout the ages, and I believe it should have a much bigger role in modern society.

In general, I believe people should be encouraged to create and maintain social networks that they can fall back on. Social bonds between people cannot be replaced by a government surrogate. — Tzeentch

Do you really think these institutions are capable of meeting the needs of people with no decent healthcare, housing, education, nutrition, etc. Not "throughout the ages" but now in a crowded, interconnected world where workers do not have primary control over their economic lives. I don't.

There is plenty anarchist and libertarian literature showing that the opposite is the case. I’ll accept your experience in good faith but I’m going to defer to my own experience. — NOS4A2

I'm not talking about literature, I'm talking about real life. Can you give some examples of large complex societies where non-governmental institutions provide conditions for a decent life? Or, as I just described in my post to @Tzeentch, at least prevent people from benefitting from the misery of others. Do we trust in the market? Has that ever worked? Do we count on the people with control of economic conditions? Has that ever worked?

They just have a little more faith in human nature and their fellow man, that if the government disappears tomorrow not everyone will go to war with one another. They believe people will largely cooperate, as they do already. — NOS4A2

When given the opportunity, powerful people will enslave others. Will use violence to prevent organizing. Will pay less than livable wages to people with limited choices. Will allow their employees to work in life-threatening conditions. Same as it ever was. To the extent that it isn't, it's because of government and labor unions.

But most of all they are taking a moral stance. They refuse to rely on an instrument of exploitation and coercion to achieve cooperation with others. To do so, to me, is a sign of moral poverty. — NOS4A2

Your moral purity is maintained based on the lives and misery of millions of people.

Speaking of pie in the sky, the vain hope that we can elect a bunch of angels to run the government is an absurd one. But, I guess we’ll keep trying anyways. — NOS4A2

We don't need angels, we need Democrats. Well... even I don't believe that. I don't expect perfection, but it should be better than it is.

In my OP I tried to be clear - I'm not here to rail against the evils of conservatism, capitalism and corporativism. I'm just talking about the hypocrisy of fighting against using regulation to protect the great majority of people against the predatory actions of those who have economic power when the foundation of capitalism is built on government involvement.

Thanks for the kind words. :blush:

Not to derail, but what, if there is such a thing, is an example of a perfect institution? Who is it instituted by? Who or what ensures its perfection? Are they truly not able or is there rational, moral, and legal aspects that contribute to it's inherently or otherwise unavoidably flawed nature? — Outlander

I think institutions are inherently flawed, because they are ran by humans who are inherently flawed.

As a general rule of thumb, the bigger institutions become, the more flawed they become, because there is more distance between the institution, the people it's supposed to help and the problems it's supposed to solve. They also tend to grow more bureaucratic and less transparent.

Yet many people look at governments the exact opposite way: the bigger they are, the more power they have and thus the more problems they can supposedly solve.

Personally, I am a fan of decentralized institutions, thus putting more power in the hands of local governments.

Unfortunately, power tends to consolidate and move in the opposite direction - towards centralization and control.

But that aside, sometimes "forcing someone to do the right thing" is a matter of social survival. — Outlander

I agree, and there are many situations imaginable where forcing people to behave in certain ways is necessary.

But the main point I'm trying to make is that this comes at a cost as well. Contrary to what argues, I believe that forcing people to behave in certain ways takes away their individual responsibility and moral agency.

Too much of this and you end up with a 'nanny state' which tries to micromanage every facet of individual life - a category which I think European countries, including my own, are getting dangerously close to.

With every law that is implemented the question should be asked whether the solution really is to put more power in the hands of the government. The government, after all, is not comprised of superior moral beings, but the same normal, fallible people as those who would forego placing 'slippery when wet' signs.

_____________________________________________________________________________

As I see it, it's not a question of expressing concern for humanity, it's about taking responsibility for their welfare. To lighten that a bit, it's at least about not benefitting from their misery. — T Clark

In my opinion, arguing for more taxes and expecting the government to fix things isn't taking responsibility.

Taxes have to come from somewhere - and that includes the lower income strata. The idea that there is a huge pile of money lying around that governments can freely dip into without it being missed, is magical thinking.

In the Netherlands, normal people end up paying like 50% of our income in taxes, and still there is poverty, homelessness, misery, still our social programs are shitty, etc.

Money doesn't grow on trees, and governments are rarely able to create real solutions to human problems.

If government is not the solution, tell me what is. — T Clark

Individuals creating social bonds and taking individual responsibility.

Government cannot replace this, try as they might.

Do you really think these institutions are capable of meeting the needs of people with no decent healthcare, housing, education, nutrition, etc. — T Clark

Oh, definitely and without a doubt.

I would much rather rely on a friend or family member for any of those things. And they're much more likely to provide actual help, because it is based on a personal relationship.

In the Netherlands all of these things are closely managed by the government, and it fails to provide on all four counts, forcing people to fall back on their social networks anyway.

That's where shedding 50% of your income to the government gets you.

It is, indeed, part of the liberal attitude to assume that, especially in the economic field, the self-regulating forces of the market will somehow bring about the required adjustments to new conditions, although no one can foretell how they will do this in a particular instance. There is perhaps no single factor contributing so much to people's frequent reluctance to let the market work as their inability to conceive how some necessary balance, between demand and supply, between exports and imports, or the like, will be brought about without deliberate control.

He has a point to some extent, but this misses the (now much more well-known) fact that dynamic systems can also hit tipping points and totally break down. Also, even if there is "equilibrium in the long run," as Keynes said, "in the long run we're all dead."

Anyhow, to the OP, of course there is great hypocrisy in corporate America (and often vis-á-vis where politicians and corporate interests intersect). Unfortunately, the system is sort of set up almost to ensure that.

I've read a few interviews with Big Tech CEOs on their path from 2008-2012 Obama supporters to 2024 Trump cheerleaders. Their grievance was that the new hires coming out of elite universities (which is where Big Tech hires) after the Great Recession (and Great Awokening) were actively hostile to their companies. The work climate became hostile. At the same time, the political climate became hostile. They are of course, real people and were (I think quite plausibly) really left leaning, but they were also operating in a system of furious competition where "responsibility" means watching short term profits and share prices. At the same time, they were watching their own "tribe" turn them into public enemies even as everything they had learned about corporate ethics in their professional training urged action in another direction.

There was a polemical documentary on how corporations meet the psychiatric definition of "psychopath" many years back, e.g., a tendency towards short term thinking and a total disregard for the welfare of others. It verged on propaganda, but there is a grain of truth there. The system is set up in such a way that it undermines principled leadership and promotes hypocrisy, and the pressure cooker education elites tend to receive, which focuses so heavily on "success" and method just feeds into this.

In my opinion, arguing for more taxes and expecting the government to fix things isn't taking responsibility.

Taxes have to come from somewhere - and that includes the lower income strata. The idea that there is a huge pile of money lying around that governments can freely dip into without it being missed, is magical thinking. — Tzeentch

This has been a useful discussion - it's helped me get my head together on what I really see as the issue. Both you and @NOS4A2 have forced me to look a bit deeper into my beliefs. Earlier in this thread I wrote that, at base, this does not need to be about taking responsibility for other's lives, it can just be about not benefitting from the suffering of others. I had never thought of it explicitly in those terms before. This issue has not been addressed in previous responses. I'd like to hear what both of you have to say.

In my opinion, arguing for more taxes and expecting the government to fix things isn't taking responsibility. — Tzeentch

Here's my simplistic understanding of history. In the US Constitution, the government was set up restrict the power of large institutions which control social and economic life - the church and the government itself. Since then, I guess as a result of the industrial revolution, another institutional player has entered the field - business and especially corporations. That very powerful institution has a vast amount of power over our lives which our society is not set up to limit. That kind of limit is needed. Where can that come from if not government?

I would much rather rely on a friend or family member for any of those things. And they're much more likely to provide actual help, because it is based on a personal relationship. — Tzeentch

Is that the answer? I don't have to pay a living wage because I can count on families to fill in the gaps. That's incredibly cynical. Not cynical, corrupt. I'm a pretty affluent American and when my wife and I were just getting started, we received financial help from our families to buy a house and to allow my wife to take care of our children rather than work full time. I try to give that same kind of help to my children. Most people don't have the benefit of that kind of help.

My wife and I contribute somewhere between five and ten percent of our incomes to charities. I've been working on increasing that amount. I have volunteered extensively in my town - I was a member of the volunteer fire department for 25 years and I volunteered on town committees and in cub scouts. All of that together is not enough.

That's a fact, although you disagree, anarchy and libertarianism/liberalism won't work to provide a decent society.

Regulation only seems to be a problem when it benefits the people who actually use the products and services of these industries and who have to face the consequences of their ineptitude, negligence, and malfeasance. Worker safety, environmental, and consumer protection regulations cost money and reduce profits so they are considered unreasonable, too restrictive. — T Clark

Especially the so-called "conservatism" in the US could be described more accurately to be simply lobbying efforts for the super rich disguised in an traditional political movement that has it's ideological roots in conservatism.

Yet not every country is like the US. Many countries do have strong trade unions and the left has been in power, usually that left being the Social Democrats. (The socialism of Marxism-Leninism is totally different and in the realm of authoritarian/totalitarian and anti-democratic regimes.)



Conservatism differs a lot in these countries, especially in those where Social Democracy has enjoyed an upper hand in politics and where administrations are made up by coalitions of parties. You can easily see this in the difference between US regulation and EU regulation. The above description of regulation simply doesn't cut it when you look at Nordic countries and many EU countries, even if they have right-wing governments.

He has a point to some extent, but this misses the (now much more well-known) fact that dynamic systems can also hit tipping points and totally break down. Also, even if there is "equilibrium in the long run," as Keynes said, "in the long run we're all dead." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think it's simpler than dynamic systems devolving into chaos, although I certainly have seen enough of that over my economic lifetime. It's a matter of values - is it acceptable to build and maintain a society on the suffering of that society's members.

Anyhow, to the OP, of course there is great hypocrisy in corporate America (and often vis-á-vis where politicians and corporate interests intersect). Unfortunately, the system is sort of set up almost to ensure that. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, and this is nothing new. And it's not uniquely associated with capitalism. Those with economic power will always use it to take advantage of those without. I guess it's human nature. I'm not asking for a golden age of charity and fairness. I'm not even necessarily asking for more progressive programs, although that would be good. In the context of this discussion, I'm only asking for recognition of the hypocracy.

They are of course, real people and were (I think quite plausibly) really left leaning, but they were also operating in a system of furious competition where "responsibility" means watching short term profits and share prices. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I've watched this process take place several times in my work history - as companies I worked for became bigger, focus changed from one of client/customer service to one of financial management. In the most recent case, the wonderful moderate-sized engineering company I worked for expanded, got money from venture capitalists, and was purchased by a larger engineering company which then went public. Managers and project managers jobs changed and required a much larger emphasis on cashflow, work backlog, employee utilization, and stock price rather than health and safety, worker well-being, and client service.

Especially the so-called "conservatism" in the US could be described more accurately to be simply lobbying efforts for the super rich disguised in an traditional political movement that ideological roots are in conservatism. — ssu

I think that's an over-simplification, although there is certainly truth in it.

Yet not every country is like the US. Many countries do have strong trade unions and the left has been in power, usually that left being the Social Democrats. — ssu

Yes, this is the image I have of governance in western Europe. How does your view from Finland match up with @Tzeentch's from the Netherlands? Is it a difference between the two countries or a difference in political ideology? Do Europeans get better lives for their higher taxes?

The above description of regulation simply doesn't cut it when you look at Nordic countries and many EU countries, even if they have right-wing governments. — ssu

Again, that's consistent with my somewhat naive understanding of European politics and economics.

I think that's an over-simplification, although there is certainly truth in it. — T Clark

Well, add to it the wooing the nativist/isolationist people in America who distrust the democratic institutions and opt for an authoritiarian leader to make things right. That's what the current so-called conservative party is that the Republican party under Trump is.

Because the rest of the "policies" are a collected assortment of brainfarts of an old vindictive populist to whom power has gone to his head.

How does your view from Finland match up with Tzeentch's from the Netherlands? Is it a difference between the two countries or a difference in political ideology? — T Clark

Of course the two countries have a totally different history among the other differences. First issue that comes up is that Netherlands is really multicultural and far more permissive compared to Finland. But what I agree with @Tzeentch is that "money doesn't grow on trees". Hence in order to have a welfare state, you have to have a functioning strong economy that can compete in global market to create that income that allows a welfare state to exist. Even if you would have the situation of "money growing in the trees" and a society that has abundant income from natural resources like oil, it also creates problems like the the Dutch Disease that the Dutch themselves could avoid, but the Venezuelans didn't.

Do Europeans get better lives for their higher taxes? — T Clark

When I talked about this with Finns living in the US, the complexity of this came apparent. Naturally they liked living far larger homes and paying less taxes than in Finland. But then getting children educated or the what to do if you lose your job and get ill are problems that aren't such a financial disaster in Finland as in the US. The highest tax levels aren't so different, actually, what is the difference is that at far lower income you hit the highest tax bracket in the Nordic countries than the US.



The ugly reality is that when it comes to education and health care, the OECD-country example of having universal health care is far less costly than the system in the US. Hence I think that for the taxes paid the people in the Northern Europe usually get more services than what the Americans tax payer gets. For example, the Finnish universal health care costs well under 50% of what the US health care costs are per capita. Talk about a racket in the US case.

When given the opportunity, powerful people will enslave others. Will use violence to prevent organizing. Will pay less than livable wages to people with limited choices. Will allow their employees to work in life-threatening conditions. Same as it ever was. To the extent that it isn't, it's because of government and labor unions.

I hope it is merely irony to advocate for the regulation of everyone’s lives just in case powerful people were to enslave us. Maybe if the government appropriates enough from the fruits of my own labor it will help stop the powerful from taking my things.

I’m curious, though, that if given the opportunity, would you enslave others? If not, why do you assume others will?

Your moral purity is maintained based on the lives and misery of millions of people.

One thing is for certain, my morality is maintained based on my actions towards others, not on my political beliefs and voting patterns. It’s clear to me, at least, that one is unable to judge another’s moral character from what he says about government regulation or what box he marks on a ballot.

Clearly there are many good people out there advocating and voting for higher wages for workers, for more protections and better conditions, and so on, but how many of those good people are out there providing them? Providing those things to workers can be moral, no doubt, but voting to force people to provide those things cannot be moral.