Derek,
Interesting conversation! More thoughts below...
If you have ever observed a free economic marketplace at work, I would
like to hear more about it.
--->DEJ The issue with answering this question is that for you to refute it you merely have to point out a sliver of government involvement in the marketplace to show it is not free. I cannot argue reality against a theoretical ideal.
You said, "The leftists I know tend for the most part to be losers in a free economic marketplace." Not even "would tend," but simply "tend," as if you were discussing something that is already happening now. I merely meant to point out that you were engaging in speculation, not observation of existing reality. Of course we could (and do, below!) argue about whether or not your speculation is accurate.
If you haven't observed a free economic
marketplace, it seems extremely presumptive to imply that most leftists
would not do well in one.
---> DEJ. Seriously. Just look out into the crowd of a Democratic Party convention and honestly ask yourself how many of those people you would trust with managing your money?
There's much more to a free marketplace than people who manage money, even in a society with as many money-managers as this one. Why is skill at money management more relevant here than other abilities that might be valued in a free market, for instance the ability of an actor or musician?
How many of them would you qualify as economic successes in what is clearly one of the freest economies in the world (The US), especially in terms of mobility and opportunity of labor. Then take a look at the Republican Party convention. I'll bet you the percentage of people on a government payroll is far lower among the republican party members (even though we control both houses of congress and the white house, and a large majority of the executive branches at the state level. How can this be? Willingness to take a government job is a good proxy for an inability to compete in the private sector.
You seem to be saying that "success" should be measured primarily in terms of money. When someone dies, would you view his or her life as successful or not based on how much money the person earned? Are you then prepared to argue for, say, Michael Jackson over Winston Churchill?
But back to your original response. You said "The leftists I know tend for the most part to be losers in a free economic marketplace. This is why so many of them seek power over others through political means instead."
I find your implication (intended or not, I don't know) that people seek power over others not only in politics, but in the marketplace to be an interesting one. To rephrase your statement, "People who seek power over others and fail to achieve it in the marketplace often turn to politics as an alternate way to get power over others."
This suggests to me that the root problem is not politics, but rather the desire for power over others. Even if we can prove that wealthy people are less likely than poor people to seek power through politics (a dubious proposition), we cannot assume this means that they are less power-hungry as individuals. It may merely be due to the fact that they already found a way to get power.
Also, do you really believe that people on the left are more
power-hungry than people on the right?
--->DEJ Yes, if you define power as political power. Rightists tend to pursue this by economic means (getting rich), while leftists tend to pursue this by political means (redistributing wealth through government force).
I'm glad you already see this distinction. And I'll grant that political power is more dangerous than economic power. But are people on the right any less prone to use government force, when it's at their disposal, than those on the left? I think they just use it for different ends. Looking on a global scale, the extreme left does seem responsible for the worst bloodshed and suffering -- at least in recent history (20th century, say). But most people on the left are not on the extreme left, and comparing the moderate left with the moderate right, I'm not so sure the right comes out ahead. It's also difficult to say what the extreme right would do, given the chance. Since the collapse of the European monarchies, I'd say it's been relegated to a minor role (the Roderick Long article goes into this). I don't think the Nazis were really far right; they came out of more of a leftist background. Extreme right could be the Taliban. But it's important to keep in mind the Advocates Chart; people we tend to think of as extreme left and extreme right tend to meet in the middle down at the bottom of the Authoritarian quadrant. And as Roderick Long said in the article I posted (http://www.mises.org/story/2099):
"While it's an interesting question whether Rothbard and Hess are correct in maintaining that the terms 'left' and 'right' are best understood as still retaining their original 19th-century meaning, how any particular thinker prefers using those slippery labels is not the most important issue. If you want to call the free market a left-wing idea, or a right-wing idea, or a neither-left-wing-nor-right-wing idea, or a left-wing-in-sense-37-but-right-wing-in-sense-49 idea, whatever, go for it — so long as you make clear how you're using it. I like calling the free market a left-wing idea — in fact, I like calling libertarianism the proletarian revolution — but terminology is not the fundamental issue. The crucial point is to track when one of these labels is being used in an authoritarian sense, or an anti-authoritarian sense, or a mixed sense, and not allow any particular preconceived stereotype of 'left' or 'right' to occlude one's thinking as to where one's natural allies are to be found."
Can you point to evidence of that in the 2000 or 2004 elections? The U.S . has been very evenly split between left-socialists and conservatives during the past couple cycles, but who succeeded in achieving power both times?
--->DEJ See my answer above. If government offices exist with power to control people, then if you love freedom you should very actively try to obtain those offices if nothing else than to prevent your enemy from using it against you.
Yes, but what one does *after* obtaining those offices is where one's true colors reveal themselves. I believe that government control, and even spending, have increased more under Bush with a Republican Congress than they did under Clinton when there was a divided Congress.
Which party is more traditionally noted for enforcing discipline in party votes, i.e.suppressing individual views in the name of unity, the Democrats or the Republicans?
---> DEJ You may think republican, but can you name me just 3 pro-life Democrats in the house or senate without looking it up?
That's a fair point in favor of the idea that Republicans do not enforce voting discipline more in Congress; I'm finding it somewhat easier to mentally name Republicans I believe are pro-choice than Democrats I believe are pro-life. It does seem to me though, that a widespread perception exists in the media that the Republicans have usually been more unified than the Democrats. Do you believe this perception is false?
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>