Johndylan1,
I apologize for the lateness of my reply. I had lost the conversation in the busy day-to-day that is my normal schedule.
johndylan1 said:
I can see that you have at least given substantial time and thought to your economic philosophy, therefore for you to not know what natural law refers and at the same time to speak of “social contract” seems unbelievable to me.
I'm not sure why. Surely you are aware there are quite a few controversies over what Locke or Rousseau (or any other philosopher who isn't alive anymore) thought or meant about...well, practically anything they wrote. You are surely also aware that references to "natural law" occur in the contemporary literature in political philosophy, and the referent from paper to paper is seldom the same. Before I can debate you, I need to know what
your view of natural law is. That's the reason I ask.
Anyway, I'm more familiar than most with Locke. I have read the entirety (for example) of Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding and both Treatises of Government. Frankly, I think Locke was very clever, but he was not the genius that Liebniz or Hume were, both of whom had somewhat different views about government. I'm less familiar with Rousseau, but I think I have the general drift of what he thought.
johndylan1 said:
No. Cooperating freely apart from governmental influence is common and is part of basic economic theory. For example: Specialization creates efficiency; we can freely choose to specialize in our chosen field and then exchange our surplus goods and services without coercion at a reduced cost to other parties. Cooperation without coercion. The competition is in providing the best product at the lowest price within one’s specialization in order to liquidate surplus goods and services. Even within our specialization cooperation occurs when demand outpaces supply from a specific vendor. The vendor may ally with another vendor to supply steep demand.
I'm not sure why you start your paragraph here with "no" since this seems to agree with what I said. Two specialized vendors may cooperate at some times and compete at others. It's not possible for them to do both, with regard to the same object, at the same time. They either both go after the same dollar with no agreement, or they have an agreement about it.
johndylan1 said:
It does follow because conservatives understand that cooperation at every level is not dependent on government. Conservatives do not seek to enact unnecessary laws, depending instead on market forces to correct inequities as they develop.
I still don't see how it follows from this or the relevant point in your last post that "conservatives will opt for models of government that maximize liberty, with a limited but important role reserved for government." Feel free to specify your premises that entail that conclusion, but right now, I don't see them.
Anyway, your use of the word "understand" is problematic. I might use it in a similar way to say that liberals "understand" something else, but what we both really mean is that conservatives and liberals believe something. Otherwise, I understand (not merely believe) all of what you say about conservatives. However, it seems to me that this is first an admission of a preference for competition over cooperation. It also seems to me that it's just downright wrong.
johndylan1 said:
It needs to be said here, that you should carefully read what you have written. If “government rightly coerces” without consent, you do not have cooperation. You have authoritarianism.
Cooperation just means "co-operation"--i.e. operating together. It doesn't say anything about the motives of the cooperators.
johndylan1 said:
“Consent” means using the democratic process, while protecting the voting minority’s rights.
That's very odd. I was recently asked whether I consent to have a minor elective surgery. I said yes and signed a form. Was I not actually giving consent? Geez, I should sue that doctor for all he's worth!
A little less tongue-in-cheek: consent means nothing like what you've said here. I'm afraid I don't see any connection at all between the concept of consent and the other things you've written.
johndylan1 said:
Crime is a poor example of coercion without consent. Arresting one for criminal activity is a protective function, appropriate to government. Criminal law also has the consent of the people.
Not all the people, obviously. Are you saying that if enough people think something should be done, that makes it OK? Surely not...
johndylan1 said:
You misunderstand consent. The outcome of a vote is consent, if and when all rights are protected, and the law remains within the framework of the constitution (this includes the legislative process). Moral sensibilities of the larger society may and will be embedded within the vote itself
I'm afraid I have no idea why you would say this. Consent is the act of giving permission or agreeing to some course of action with at least one other person. The people who vote on the winning side consent to the outcome, and I suppose as long as there is "buy-in" for the democratic process, there is a kind of meta-consent between all the voters.
Another reason I have no idea why you would say this is I'm simply not sure what your point is. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything I've said, or with the topic of the thread.
johndylan1 said:
As for the “social contract”, one must understand its philosophical underpinnings of natural law in order to understand that there is a limit to what the social contract entitles one to.
One's labor is an essential capital for developing their own private property and that must be protected.
I'm not sure what to say about this because I'm not sure what this says.
johndylan1 said:
Not so; every contemporary in their society did have access to the correct resources, and are not entitled to the labor that those men added to the resources that they fairly acquired. Except to the extent that consent or charity require.
What correct resources are you talking about? Also, how is this a response to what I said? My point was that no one builds anything all by themselves.
johndylan1 said:
Actually I would posit that it did work. That is why people from all over the world came here to build this great country. At times there was misery and abuse, but in general it was that philosophy that produced capital formation and an elevated standard of living for the entire world. I will also suggest that that philosophy is doomed where morality and charity do not exist. I am also not opposed to antitrust laws, depending on how they are enforced.
I'm not sure why someone would think that an economic approach that led to the Great Depression "worked."
johndylan1 said:
Think of two situations.
In the first a man waits at his mailbox for a welfare check to arrive, with distain in his heart he takes the check that is two days late and cusses the government agency that has failed to deliver his check on time.
The second man finds a charitable man at the local church, and receives a reprieve from the hardship he has been experiencing after a two day delay for the purpose of charitable collection. The man is grateful and appreciative, making new friends and opportunities.
OK, I am thinking of these two situations. What is this supposed to show?
johndylan1 said:
Not claiming that no government is good. That’s a strawman. Of course public projects for the general welfare, with consent, are appropriate. I am a proponent of infrastructure investments by government. The cronyism and pocket padding is what I object to.
Well, we can agree that cronyism is no good; any form of corruption is no good.
johndylan1 said:
Yes, but morality is not the sole perview of government, morality resides in the everyday decisions of each person. A collective notion of morality will inevitable be enshrined in law and therefore gains consent. And yet at times the law errors and requires pushback. Is it a greater moral principal to protect ones right to keep earnings from labor, or to provide Obama phones?
The former, of course, but that's a rather slanted view of the issue at hand. Suppose we phrase it this way instead: is it of greater moral value to protect individual earnings (especially those that are superfluous to survival), or to keep members of a society from starvation, homelessness, or severe illness? It looks to me like the latter is more important, especially when we realize that no one earns anything all on their own anymore. Social inputs are required for everything any human being produces these days (with extremely rare, and mostly uninteresting, exceptions).
Anyway, no, morality is not solely the purview of the government. But government ought to be moral and governed by morality, and moreover, in the business of enforcing morality in some cases. Understand, however, that I use morality in the philosophical sense. When government catches a murderer and holds him or her accountable, that is an enforcement of a moral, namely that it is wrong to murder. I would agree there is a large range of moral issues that the government should have minimal or no involvement in.