PDA

View Full Version : Hitler's Economics



Chris
09-25-2012, 06:43 AM
Interesting article, written back in 2003, in response to some bank praising Hitler's economics:
...The same could be said about all forms of central planning. It is wrong to attempt to examine the economic policies of any leviathan state apart from the political violence that characterizes all central planning, whether in Germany, the Soviet Union, or the United States....

In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development....

What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.

Such programs remain widely praised today, even given their failures. They are features of every "capitalist" democracy. Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory: "[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire."

Keynes's comment, which may shock many, did not come out of the blue. Hitler's economists rejected laissez-faire, and admired Keynes, even foreshadowing him in many ways. Similarly, the Keynesians admired Hitler (see George Garvy, "Keynes and the Economic Activists of Pre-Hitler Germany," The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 83, Issue 2, April 1975, pp. 391—405).

...Perhaps the worst part of these policies is that they are inconceivable without a leviathan state, exactly as Keynes said. A government big enough and powerful enough to manipulate aggregate demand is big and powerful enough to violate people's civil liberties and attack their rights in every other way. Keynesian (or Hitlerian) policies unleash the sword of the state on the whole population. Central planning, even in its most petty variety, and freedom are incompatible....

Hitler's Economics (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/hitlers-economics.html)

KC
09-25-2012, 01:29 PM
Before we draw the conclusion that Hitler's economics were essentially left wing we ought to remember that Hitler vehemently hated welfare programs and made sterilization of welfare mothers a central point of his reproductive planning.

Great post!

Mister D
09-25-2012, 01:33 PM
Before we draw the conclusion that Hitler's economics were essentially left wing we ought to remember that Hitler vehemently hated welfare programs and made sterilization of welfare mothers a central point of his reproductive planning.

Great post!

The sterilization of the unfit was popular at the time and was practiced in your own country.

KC
09-25-2012, 01:35 PM
The sterilization of the unfit was popular at the time and was practiced in your own country.
Sure was. I would argue that the Nazi regime took it further, however.

Mister D
09-25-2012, 01:37 PM
Sure was. I would argue that the Nazi regime took it further, however.

No doubt. I'm just saying that eugenics was a progressive ideology. It still is. I'm in favor of negative eugenics.

IMO, Nazism was a humanist philosophy. Where Nazism differed was in what Nazis considered human.

KC
09-25-2012, 01:40 PM
No doubt. I'm just saying that eugenics was a progressive ideology. It still is. I'm in favor of negative eugenics.

IMO, Nazism was a humanist philosophy. Where Nazism differed was in what Nazis considered human.

Eugenics was favored by both the left and the right. In some political cultures it probably still is.

Also, Nazism was a humanist philosophy, as it found moral principles based on reason, no matter how faulty the reasoning.

Mister D
09-25-2012, 01:43 PM
Eugenics was favored by both the left and the right. In some political cultures it probably still is.

Also, Nazism was a humanist philosophy, as it found moral principles based on reason, no matter how faulty the reasoning.

All true. We are in agreement, sir.

Chris
09-25-2012, 01:49 PM
Before we draw the conclusion that Hitler's economics were essentially left wing we ought to remember that Hitler vehemently hated welfare programs and made sterilization of welfare mothers a central point of his reproductive planning.

Great post!

I wouldn't necessarily classify Hitler as leftwing. He was a socialist/collectivist, yes, but it could be said he was a rightwing or conservative socialist, one who sought to restore and maintain wealth in the hands of those who already had it, or had had it, a redistribution of wealth upwards. The wealthy fared well long as they toed the line dictated by the state.

For a better explanation of conservative socialism see Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (free for download @ mises.org).

KC
09-25-2012, 01:56 PM
I wouldn't necessarily classify Hitler as leftwing. He was a socialist/collectivist, yes, but it could be said he was a rightwing or conservative socialist, one who sought to restore and maintain wealth in the hands of those who already had it, or had had it, a redistribution of wealth upwards. The wealthy fared well long as they toed the line dictated by the state.

For a better explanation of conservative socialism see Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (free for download @ mises.org).

I think Hitler's particular strand of what you call "conservative socialism" is more nuanced than that. I think with Hitler we have someone who wants to see workers taking personal responsibility and maximizing their productivity, but at the same time he wants to see entrepreneurship. I recently read a bit of Mein Kampf for a class, where Hitler talks of the German creativity and how his racial program (and the one of the NASDP) will allow the German race to develop its full potential. I think Hitler meant this in a lot of a ways as both a social and economic statement.


No doubt. I'm just saying that eugenics was a progressive ideology. It still is. I'm in favor of negative eugenics.

What do you mean by negative eugenics? I'm not familiar.

Edit: Oh, by "negative" do you mean limiting the reproductive rights of some with undesirable inheritable traits?

Carygrant
09-25-2012, 01:59 PM
Sure was. I would argue that the Nazi regime took it further, however.



Yes , and with great thanks to that Nazi , David Rockefeller , or , My Oven Man , as Adolf warmly referred to him . Of course he said it in German ." Mein Juden Bunsen Berngurschmitzerung "

Mister D
09-25-2012, 02:20 PM
I think Hitler's particular strand of what you call "conservative socialism" is more nuanced than that. I think with Hitler we have someone who wants to see workers taking personal responsibility and maximizing their productivity, but at the same time he wants to see entrepreneurship. I recently read a bit of Mein Kampf for a class, where Hitler talks of the German creativity and how his racial program (and the one of the NASDP) will allow the German race to develop its full potential. I think Hitler meant this in a lot of a ways as both a social and economic statement.


What do you mean by negative eugenics? I'm not familiar.

Edit: Oh, by "negative" do you mean limiting the reproductive rights of some with undesirable inheritable traits?

I'd say it consists of discouraging reproduction among the lower classes, unfit etc. This could be done in a variety of ways from free contraception to withdrawing financial support.

KC
09-25-2012, 02:23 PM
I'd say it consists of discouraging reproduction among the lower classes, unfit etc. This could be done in a variety of ways from free contraception to withdrawing financial support.

Ah I see. Then I suppose I am also in favor of negative eugenics, as long as it involves free people making free choices via full access to contraceptives, abortions and whatnot. If those who tend to purchase these services are concentrated among those who don't have the resources to fully support a human life, then that's all the better.

Mister D
09-25-2012, 02:25 PM
Ah I see. Then I suppose I am also in favor of negative eugenics, as long as it involves free people making free choices via full access to contraceptives, abortions and whatnot. If those who tend to purchase these services are concentrated among those who don't have the resources to fully support a human life, then that's all the better.

I'm pretty sure this category eliminates anything forced like abortions or sterilization. It's still somewhat coercive in that you are pressuring populations to make certain decisions but I'm for it.

KC
09-25-2012, 02:29 PM
I'm pretty sure this category eliminates anything forced like abortions or sterilization. It's still somewhat coercive in that you are pressuring populations to make certain decisions but I'm for it.

Then I guess this is where we differ. I'm not for pressuring segments of the adult population. I do however think adolescents should be encouraged to us contraceptives if they are going to have sex.

Mister D
09-25-2012, 02:38 PM
It's not something I'm particularly comfortable with but higher reproductivity among the lower classes isn't a good thing. Frankly, I believe it has had a dysgenic effect.

Mind you, I understand the moral dilemmas this presents.

KC
09-25-2012, 02:44 PM
It's not something I'm particularly comfortable with but higher reproductivity among the lower classes isn't a good thing. Frankly, I believe it has had a dysgenic effect.

Mind you, I understand the moral dilemmas this presents.

Sure high rates of reproductivity among lower social classes helps perpetuate certain social ills but I don't think we need to pressure them. I think opening up abortion to market forces will make it more competitive, making it cheaper and more accessible to these groups of people, the same way many among lower social classes can purchase contraceptives or receive them from nonprofits like Planned Parenthood.

Mister D
09-25-2012, 02:52 PM
[QUOTE=kathaariancode;140344]Sure high rates of reproductivity among lower social classes helps perpetuate certain social ills but I don't think we need to pressure them. I think opening up abortion to market forces will make it more competitive, making it cheaper and more accessible to these groups of people, the same way many among lower social classes can purchase contraceptives or receive them from nonprofits like Planned Parenthood.[/QU

Reproductive "rights" need to be de-emphasized. Social responsibilty should be emphasized instead. It should be made clear that one does not have a right to burden the state with one's bastard children.

Mister D
09-25-2012, 02:56 PM
Better still, if the state is susidizing children it should be subsidizing those of the higher classes.

KC
09-25-2012, 04:41 PM
If you're suggesting that the state should get involved in the welfare of all children, Mister D, I'm all for it. I think it is backasswards to subsidize such a large segment of the adult population when it might ensuring they are adequately taken care of earlier on might help developing development. The problem Is how to go about this. In an ideal world maybe, but I'm not aware of any prectical way to make sure kids are provided for regardless of their parents' status.

Chris
09-25-2012, 06:56 PM
I think Hitler's particular strand of what you call "conservative socialism" is more nuanced than that. I think with Hitler we have someone who wants to see workers taking personal responsibility and maximizing their productivity, but at the same time he wants to see entrepreneurship. I recently read a bit of Mein Kampf for a class, where Hitler talks of the German creativity and how his racial program (and the one of the NASDP) will allow the German race to develop its full potential. I think Hitler meant this in a lot of a ways as both a social and economic statement.



Sure.

The same with Obama. While I think his aim is a sort of liberal leveling by means of redistributing wealth downward, from haves to have nots, he engages in a lot conservative socialism like the cronyism involved in Solyndra, and Obamacare mixes both, providing insurance for those who can afford it at the same time enriching insurance companies who gain more customers.

Hitler seems to have wanted to enrich his own race bottom to top.

(Mein Kampf is also a lot of rhetoric, like his claims to Christianity, which I doubt meant much to him personally, other than as propaganda.)

Chris
09-25-2012, 07:00 PM
I'm pretty sure this category eliminates anything forced like abortions or sterilization. It's still somewhat coercive in that you are pressuring populations to make certain decisions but I'm for it.

Then I guess this is where we differ. I'm not for pressuring segments of the adult population. I do however think adolescents should be encouraged to us contraceptives if they are going to have sex.

It's paternalistic, like Bloomberg's boobs over bottles.

I'm not against good advice, good manners, good morals, etc, but why from government when society does a better job of it?

KC
09-25-2012, 07:10 PM
It's paternalistic, like Bloomberg's boobs over bottles.

I'm not against good advice, good manners, good morals, etc, but why from government when society does a better job of it?

Because sometimes parents don't care and friends just make the problem worse. Government should encourage sound decisions for adolescents because we all have a collective interest in their making good choices, and those are years when we don't make good choices. Not arguing for coercion here, but paternalism is justifiable for non adult members of the population.

Goldie Locks
09-25-2012, 07:14 PM
Before we draw the conclusion that Hitler's economics were essentially left wing we ought to remember that Hitler vehemently hated welfare programs and made sterilization of welfare mothers a central point of his reproductive planning.

Great post!

And the progressive ideology is birth control, abortion, morning after pill, sterilization..it's just in a gentler more palatable package.

KC
09-25-2012, 07:16 PM
And the progressive ideology is birth control, abortion, morning after pill, sterilization..it's just in a gentler more palatable package.

There's a pretty big difference between free individuals making free choices and forced abortion/sterilization by the state. If people want these things progressives want them to have access. If they don't want them, progressives are cool with that too.

Chris
09-25-2012, 07:18 PM
Because sometimes parents don't care and friends just make the problem worse. Government should encourage sound decisions for adolescents because we all have a collective interest in their making good choices, and those are years when we don't make good choices. Not arguing for coercion here, but paternalism is justifiable for non adult members of the population.

I think we'll have to disagree for there's more than merely parents and friends to teach you, extended family, school, church, sports, and other social organizations and institutions. I look at government, especially the more the central planning, and I see mostly bad, from cronyism to crappy policies, it doesn't seem to serve as a good model.

Goldie Locks
09-25-2012, 07:21 PM
There's a pretty big difference between free individuals making free choices and forced abortion/sterilization by the state. If people want these things progressives want them to have access. If they don't want them, progressives are cool with that too.


It's the brain washing that leads them to it. It's the indoctrination of the progressive mentality. Just yesterday 14 year olds in NY can get birth control, morning after pill and most likely abortion without their parents consent. It's an opt in by parents of course, not an opt out, so if you didn't get the notice, or didn't bother to look or turn it in, your kid is in. Like I said, it is the kinder, gentler killing of babies.

KC
09-25-2012, 07:23 PM
I think we'll have to disagree for there's more than merely parents and friends to teach you, extended family, school, church, sports, and other social organizations and institutions. I look at government, especially the more the central planning, and I see mostly bad, from cronyism to crappy policies, it doesn't seem to serve as a good model.

School would be a chief institution for government to encourage good decisions by adolescents. The point is that if government can use a tool with any coercion, especially at local levels, in order to provide for some sort of collective benefit, it ought to do so. The cost to the taxpayer is pretty low and if it works it saves the taxpayers money in the long run.

KC
09-25-2012, 07:25 PM
Just yesterday 14 year olds in NY can get birth control, morning after pill and most likely abortion without their parents consent.

See, that's just good news to me.

Again, I think contraceptives and reproductive services should be left to the free market just as much as whatever you buy at Walmart or your local grocery store (which might be contraceptives anyhow).

Goldie Locks
09-25-2012, 07:29 PM
See, that's just good news to me.

Again, I think contraceptives and reproductive services should be left to the free market just as much as whatever you buy at Walmart or your local grocery store (which might be contraceptives anyhow).


In the hands of 14 year olds??? I hope you have no children you are trying to raise with any morals.

Chris
09-25-2012, 07:29 PM
School would be a chief institution for government to encourage good decisions by adolescents. The point is that if government can use a tool with any coercion, especially at local levels, in order to provide for some sort of collective benefit, it ought to do so. The cost to the taxpayer is pretty low and if it works it saves the taxpayers money in the long run.

Government needs to get out of it, meant by school, your teachers and classmates and others.


Again, I think contraceptives and reproductive services should be left to the free market just as much as whatever you buy at Walmart or your local grocery store (which might be contraceptives anyhow).

Indeed the free market, another social institution, not government.

KC
09-25-2012, 07:32 PM
In the hands of 14 year olds??? I hope you have no children you are trying to raise with any morals.

I didn't have sex until after I became an adult. This is the only moral option because risking pregnancy before one can support children is inconsiderate of the child and the child's future. It's wrong. That's what I will teach my kids when I have them. My Catholic girlfriend (of five years, we have talked about marriage) will probably provide a somewhat different message, don't worry Goldie.

I'll probably be much more conservative by that time too. I hear that sort of comes with age, and especially with children.

Goldie Locks
09-25-2012, 07:35 PM
I didn't have sex until after I became an adult. This is the only moral option because risking pregnancy before one can support children is inconsiderate of the child and the child's future. It's wrong. That's what I will teach my kids when I have them. My Catholic girlfriend (of five years, we have talked about marriage) will probably provide a somewhat different message, don't worry Goldie.

I'll probably be much more conservative by that time too. I hear that sort of comes with age, and especially with children.


<facepalm>

KC
09-25-2012, 07:37 PM
<facepalm>

You don't think 20 year old's think differently about these things than those who are married with children?

Goldie Locks
09-25-2012, 07:38 PM
You don't think 20 year old's think differently about these things than those who are married with children?

Morals are morals, ethics are ethics. Something that should already be established and not grown into.

KC
09-25-2012, 07:40 PM
Morals are morals, ethics are ethics. Something that should already be established and not grown into.

Hmm. Well I think I'm a fairly moral person, but I suppose I'm undeniably biased in favor of myself.

Captain Obvious
09-25-2012, 07:44 PM
Morals are morals, ethics are ethics. Something that should already be established and not grown into.

So who's "morals" and "ethics" are appropriate?

Mine? Yours? Rowen Atkinson's?

KC
09-25-2012, 07:46 PM
So who's "morals" and "ethics" are appropriate?

Mine? Yours? Rowen Atkinson's?

I think we all know the latter's ethical principles.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDtqAKJ20c4&amp;feature=related

Goldie Locks
09-25-2012, 07:48 PM
So who's "morals" and "ethics" are appropriate?

Mine? Yours? Rowen Atkinson's?

Well for me it is God, but I guess if you're an atheist, there really is none...huh? Hell, just let kids do whatever the hell they want, if it's not against the law...go for it...whatever makes you feel good...do it...Sodom and Gomorrah.

KC
09-25-2012, 07:51 PM
Well for me it is God, but I guess if you're an atheist, there really is none...huh? Hell, just let kids do whatever the hell they want, if it's not against the law...go for it...whatever makes you feel good...do it...Sodom and Gomorrah.
So your morals are better than mine because yours are based on an unverifiable entity that you believe in because of your faith.

Okedoke.

Captain Obvious
09-25-2012, 07:51 PM
Well for me it is God, but I guess if you're an atheist, there really is none...huh? Hell, just let kids do whatever the hell they want, if it's not against the law...go for it...whatever makes you feel good...do it...Sodom and Gomorrah.

According to Osama bin Laden, God was the source of his morals and ethics.

Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is the authority in this area then?

Goldie Locks
09-25-2012, 08:07 PM
According to Osama bin Laden, God was the source of his morals and ethics.

Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is the authority in this area then?


Look, I'm not going to argue with y'all and go back and forth. You have your morals and I have mine...If you think yours are fine, then I guess they are. As for me, I stand with my God, not Islams.

KC
09-25-2012, 08:09 PM
Look, I'm not going to argue with y'all and go back and forth. You have your morals and I have mine...If you think yours are fine, then I guess they are. As for me, I stand with my God, not Islams.
That's a relief, because debates about religion are fruitless. I joined nearly every Christian denomination and went through two religions catechisms before I decided I'm agnostic.

Captain Obvious
09-25-2012, 08:13 PM
That's a relief, because debates about religion are fruitless. I joined nearly every Christian denomination and went through two religions catechisms before I decided I'm agnostic.

So, by Goldie's definition you're without morals.

:roflmao:

GrassrootsConservative
09-25-2012, 08:44 PM
So, by Goldie's definition you're without morals.

:roflmao:

By my definition, you can't read. Goldie clearly said "You have your morals, I have mine."

Captain Obvious
09-25-2012, 08:53 PM
By my definition, you can't read. Goldie clearly said "You have your morals, I have mine."

Fail


Well for me it is God, but I guess if you're an atheist, there really is none...huh? Hell, just let kids do whatever the hell they want, if it's not against the law...go for it...whatever makes you feel good...do it...Sodom and Gomorrah.

GrassrootsConservative
09-25-2012, 08:57 PM
Fail

Right. Because your quote trumps mine? Your quote is more important than mine? I don't understand you Liberals. You're all about equality, equal outcome, but yet you're so arrogant, so wrapped-up in yourselves that you forget you're not the only people on this great planet that God gave us. You don't understand anything.

Peter1469
09-25-2012, 09:03 PM
According to Osama bin Laden, God was the source of his morals and ethics.

Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is the authority in this area then?

Osama was worshiping Satan

Chris
09-25-2012, 09:58 PM
Interesting discussion, but we can't each have our own morals, but we can't either look to government for them either.

KC
09-25-2012, 10:01 PM
Interesting discussion, but we can't each have our own morals, but we can't either look to government for them either.

You are right. Moral relativism cannot be the case or else morals mean nothing and there is never any basis for outrage or indignation no matter how one treats their fellow human being.

So how do we decide what the most appropriate morals are?

Captain Obvious
09-25-2012, 10:07 PM
You are right. Moral relativism cannot be the case or else morals mean nothing and there is never any basis for outrage or indignation no matter how one treats their fellow human being.

So how do we decide what the most appropriate morals are?

Collectively we cannot.

KC
09-25-2012, 10:10 PM
Collectively we cannot.

How can we individually?

Obviously we are deciding what makes the most sense for us personally, but there is so much that goes into it. The society we are raised in. Our parents. The religious norms. Popular/mass culture.

There have to be universal principles of morality in order to have a basis for accusing anyone of breaking them. But there is no way to objectively determine them.

This shit seriously has kept me up at night.

Chris
09-25-2012, 10:22 PM
You are right. Moral relativism cannot be the case or else morals mean nothing and there is never any basis for outrage or indignation no matter how one treats their fellow human being.

So how do we decide what the most appropriate morals are?

No one of us can. It is discovered socially, in how we interact with each other, and how we justify or condemn those actions to each other, and from that morality emerges. I do believe there is objective, absolute, universal morality, tied to man's nature, and that this is true whether you believe this is given us by God, or not, but man it too flawed to ever know it perfectly, so we, if we are moral, search for it, try to discover it.

Peter1469
09-25-2012, 10:39 PM
Morals are what they are.

The question is whether society understands and conforms to them.

The question is whether the individual understands and conforms to them.

Captain Obvious
09-25-2012, 11:08 PM
Morals are what they are.

The question is whether society understands and conforms to them.

The question is whether the individual understands and conforms to them.

What is the defining code of morality then?

The bible - your bible? The koran?

KC
09-25-2012, 11:42 PM
No one of us can. It is discovered socially, in how we interact with each other, and how we justify or condemn those actions to each other, and from that morality emerges. I do believe there is objective, absolute, universal morality, tied to man's nature, and that this is true whether you believe this is given us by God, or not, but man it too flawed to ever know it perfectly, so we, if we are moral, search for it, try to discover it.

This is as far as I've ever gotten. Word.

Chris
09-26-2012, 11:42 AM
Well, now that we've resolved what's moral, :-0, I'd like to return to a bit of discussion between kathaariancode and I on different sorts of central planning/socialism.

I think if we take popular definitions of socialism, it's difficult to pin donw Hitler, as kathaariancode pointed out, or even Obama, as I pointed out. But if we take an economic view that includes both liberal and conservative socialism, central planning to redistribute wealth downward as opposed to central planning to maintain a status quo or redistribute upward, it becomes clearer, both Hitler and Obama (throw in Bush if you like) were/are central planners in both respects.

And I think it becomes morally clear that the following is unjustifiable: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs (http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/): "About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies."

As America’s Fascist Economy (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2012/09/americas-fascist-economy/) puts it,
Politicians and intellectuals are always talking about how businesses “should” act, for the supposed sake of the greater good.

The notion that businesses operate and make decisions only with the consent of the government is known as fascism. There are already many fascist elements in our so-called capitalist society, and Republicans advocate these policies almost as much as Democrats do.

..We’re currently a “soft fascist” nation. Absent a complete course reversal and soon, hard fascism—including all the restrictions on more immediately personal liberties—is on the way.

Why? Because no economy can survive the growth of economic fascism, and no society with a collapsed economy will remain otherwise free for long.

Peter1469
09-26-2012, 05:35 PM
What is the defining code of morality then?

The bible - your bible? The koran?

Both may touch on the truths of morality.

Captain Obvious
09-26-2012, 05:39 PM
Both may touch on the truths of morality.

So are you admitting that there is no defining code? And by defining code I don't necessarily mean one source.

Elaborate.

Peter1469
09-26-2012, 05:57 PM
So are you admitting that there is no defining code? And by defining code I don't necessarily mean one source.

Elaborate.
If you mean something written down, no, there isn't.

Read this: http://www.amazon.com/First-Things-Hadley-Arkes/dp/069102247X

Captain Obvious
09-26-2012, 06:13 PM
If you mean something written down, no, there isn't.

Read this: http://www.amazon.com/First-Things-Hadley-Arkes/dp/069102247X

I guess my point is overshadowed.

I could read this and get someone elses POV as to what morals are just as much as I could read a similar but separate book about yet someone elses POV on the issue - and both may contradict each other to some degree.

Just as I could ask you Peter - "what is morality" and get your reply, then ask Chris the same question and get maybe a limited but not exact confirmation of your version.

So who is accurate? You or Chris, hypothetically? Or this book or some other book?

My point continues to be that there is no exact definition of morality because it's very subjective.

Hence, collectively there is no real definition. Only individual or subset interpretations.

Peter1469
09-26-2012, 07:06 PM
I guess my point is overshadowed.

I could read this and get someone elses POV as to what morals are just as much as I could read a similar but separate book about yet someone elses POV on the issue - and both may contradict each other to some degree.

Just as I could ask you Peter - "what is morality" and get your reply, then ask Chris the same question and get maybe a limited but not exact confirmation of your version.

So who is accurate? You or Chris, hypothetically? Or this book or some other book?

My point continues to be that there is no exact definition of morality because it's very subjective.

Hence, collectively there is no real definition. Only individual or subset interpretations.

Well that is what the book is about. I can be wrong about what morality is. Chris can be wrong. You can be wrong. But morality is objective, not subjective. And one can use reason and logic to discover it. Or not.

Chris
09-26-2012, 07:19 PM
Well that is what the book is about. I can be wrong about what morality is. Chris can be wrong. You can be wrong. But morality is objective, not subjective. And one can use reason and logic to discover it. Or not.

Agree. In fact would argue we're all flawed and wrong. And agree morality, like truth, is objective, absolute, and universal, regardless we get it right. To me its about what Thomas Aquinas said about natural law, that it, natural law, morality, is that much of God's law man can discover through right reason, again, regardless we ever get it right.

As such, regardless we get it right, seeking it is important I think we most all can agree.


Peter's recommended Hadley Arkes's First Things is a great book on it. I recommend Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp).

Deadwood
09-26-2012, 07:30 PM
The sterilization of the unfit was popular at the time and was practiced in your own country.


Actually you are correct. The whole Nazi Aryan thing came out of the then termed "Eugenics Movement" which had the support of much or America and Britain. It was a distortion of some of Plato's theories.

It in fact taught that humankind was deteriorating as a result of cross breeding with "inferior" species.

Captain Obvious
09-26-2012, 07:36 PM
Well that is what the book is about. I can be wrong about what morality is. Chris can be wrong. You can be wrong. But morality is objective, not subjective. And one can use reason and logic to discover it. Or not.

So is euthanasia moral or immoral?

If someone has a living will that states what is to be done if they are incapacitated, acting on that living will according to that persons wishes could by default be considered moral, but what if they don't have a living will and are likely suffering immeasurably?

So euthanizing them is moral? Yes, no? If two people are in this state and one has religious beliefs to not be euthanized and the other wants to die but cannot express this desire and neither have a living will, is euthanizing both of them moral or immoral?

I couldn't disagree more on the subjectivity of morality and while I don't want to clutter up this thread with examples like there, they are virtually endless.

It's the whole "can God create a rock heavier than he can lift" paradox. By definition of logic, it's undefined.

Peter1469
09-26-2012, 07:41 PM
So is euthanasia moral or immoral?

If someone has a living will that states what is to be done if they are incapacitated, acting on that living will according to that persons wishes could by default be considered moral, but what if they don't have a living will and are likely suffering immeasurably?

So euthanizing them is moral? Yes, no? If two people are in this state and one has religious beliefs to not be euthanized and the other wants to die but cannot express this desire and neither have a living will, is euthanizing both of them moral or immoral?

I couldn't disagree more on the subjectivity of morality and while I don't want to clutter up this thread with examples like there, they are virtually endless.

It's the whole "can God create a rock heavier than he can lift" paradox. By definition of logic, it's undefined.


So is euthanasia moral or immoral?

That is certainly up for debate. I suspect that humans are not morally advanced enough to discover the truth of that question.

But how about something else?

Has any civilization not held that the unjustified killing of a human was wrong?

Captain Obvious
09-26-2012, 07:53 PM
That is certainly up for debate. I suspect that humans are not morally advanced enough to discover the truth of that question.

But how about something else?

Has any civilization not held that the unjustified killing of a human was wrong?

On paper, no. In practice is another matter.

How many of the medieval power mongering Popes unjustly killed innocents?

Chris
09-26-2012, 07:57 PM
So is euthanasia moral or immoral?

Immoral, as it attempts elevate man as designer of man, which can only lead to folly.

Deadwood
09-26-2012, 08:27 PM
What is the defining code of morality then?

The bible - your bible? The koran?



It would be wise to make a distinction between personal and public morals. I wouldn't think of walking down the street naked [people would point and laugh] but I can "hang out" that way in my home.


I do not believe you can legislate morality...the best example I can come up with is prohibition. That had nothing to do with health, but rather an attempt by a few to have their values enforced on others.

The comparison with today's drug laws is aborted on that point......now enter, ta da, the debate whether pot is unhealthy....?
\

Captain Obvious
09-26-2012, 08:29 PM
It would be wise to make a distinction between personal and public morals. I wouldn't think of walking down the street naked [people would point and laugh] but I can "hang out" that way in my home.


I do not believe you can legislate morality...the best example I can come up with is prohibition. That had nothing to do with health, but rather an attempt by a few to have their values enforced on others.

The comparison with today's drug laws is aborted on that point......now enter, ta da, the debate whether pot is unhealthy....?
\

Exactly - and you're supporting my later point.

Personal, which means morality is highly subjective on a collective aspect. Clearly you have different morals than I do, and I have different morals than someone else, etc.

Deadwood
09-26-2012, 08:32 PM
So is euthanasia moral or immoral?

If someone has a living will that states what is to be done if they are incapacitated, acting on that living will according to that persons wishes could by default be considered moral, but what if they don't have a living will and are likely suffering immeasurably?

So euthanizing them is moral? Yes, no? If two people are in this state and one has religious beliefs to not be euthanized and the other wants to die but cannot express this desire and neither have a living will, is euthanizing both of them moral or immoral?

I couldn't disagree more on the subjectivity of morality and while I don't want to clutter up this thread with examples like there, they are virtually endless.

It's the whole "can God create a rock heavier than he can lift" paradox. By definition of logic, it's undefined.

You must love thin ice.


There is a very fine line between euthanasia and palliative care. Suffering immeasurably is not necessary anymore. I have just been though this with a friend of a friend who lost her three year fight with colon cancer. She wished to die at home and so she did....relatively painless.

Now a question back at you....is it moral to pull the plug on life support based on ability to pay?

KC
09-26-2012, 08:37 PM
Well, now that we've resolved what's moral, :-0, I'd like to return to a bit of discussion between kathaariancode and I on different sorts of central planning/socialism.

I think if we take popular definitions of socialism, it's difficult to pin donw Hitler, as kathaariancode pointed out, or even Obama, as I pointed out. But if we take an economic view that includes both liberal and conservative socialism, central planning to redistribute wealth downward as opposed to central planning to maintain a status quo or redistribute upward, it becomes clearer, both Hitler and Obama (throw in Bush if you like) were/are central planners in both respects.

Sounds reasonable. Obama's economics are just the logical continuation of the corporatism laid down by FDR, and it is weel known that Hitler admired Mussolini's economics, which were more or less corporatist.


And I think it becomes morally clear that the following is unjustifiable: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs (http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/): "About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies."


Be careful when a study cries foul over high corporate subsidies. As your link shows


Tax breaks targeted to benefit specific corporations could also be considered a form of welfare.

Then some of this number represents a decrease in taxes to specific corporations. Of course this is nit picking, both contribute an imbalance in competition. If we were simply to eliminate taxes on corporations (which I would advocate), most of these "subsidies" wouldn't exist, although we might take even less revenue in.

Chris
09-26-2012, 08:42 PM
Sounds reasonable. Obama's economics are just the logical continuation of the corporatism laid down by FDR, and it is weel known that Hitler admired Mussolini's economics, which were more or less corporatist.



Be careful when a study cries foul over high corporate subsidies. As your link shows



Then some of this number represents a decrease in taxes to specific corporations. Of course this is nit picking, both contribute an imbalance in competition. If we were simply to eliminate taxes on corporations (which I would advocate), most of these "subsidies" wouldn't exist, although we might take even less revenue in.

Remove taxes and personhood from corporations. And rescind The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. And...

KC
09-26-2012, 09:05 PM
Remove taxes and personhood from corporations.

Yes. Unless we do that any sort of governance is pointless to Americans and our votes are useless.

Now Chris. Do you agree that eliminating corporate taxes would have the twofold benefit of preventing inflation to a degree, plus actually allowing for a possible gain in federal income and capital gains taxes?

The argument for the former is that when we tax a corporation that provides some good or service to the public, they pass it along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for whatever good they are offering. If we eliminate these taxes, in theory corporations would be forced to compete, and one way of doing that is by offering their goods at a lower price than the competition.

Now, I believe the latter to be true because if the largest corporations no longer pay taxes, they get to return a larger share of their profit to the shareholders, and possibly to upper management. This would mean that the wealthy would become wealthier, which means they would pay a larger amount of cash in taxes.

Do you think this would be the case, or is my reasoning based on flawed assumptions?

Chris
09-26-2012, 09:18 PM
Yes. Unless we do that any sort of governance is pointless to Americans and our votes are useless.

Now Chris. Do you agree that eliminating corporate taxes would have the twofold benefit of preventing inflation to a degree, plus actually allowing for a possible gain in federal income and capital gains taxes?

The argument for the former is that when we tax a corporation that provides some good or service to the public, they pass it along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for whatever good they are offering. If we eliminate these taxes, in theory corporations would be forced to compete, and one way of doing that is by offering their goods at a lower price than the competition.

Now, I believe the latter to be true because if the largest corporations no longer pay taxes, they get to return a larger share of their profit to the shareholders, and possibly to upper management. This would mean that the wealthy would become wealthier, which means they would pay a larger amount of cash in taxes.

Do you think this would be the case, or is my reasoning based on flawed assumptions?

Sound in theory. Eliminating corporate taxes would leave more money in the hands of people who would probably spend it, and more in the hands of corporations, who would likely invest it, energizing the economy, and raising revenue. This follows the Laffer Curve idea. Of course, in practice things are always complicated.

Here's how rescinding The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 would help. In that act corporations are required to report profits every quarter. More here: The misguided practice of earnings guidance (http://www.uic.edu/classes/actg/actg516rtr/Readings/Markets/Earnings-Guidance-1-McKinsey-Full.pdf).

What this does is incentivize corporations to adopt a high time preference, iow, plan only for the immediate gain, it's one reason CEO pay is so high. Growth, though, requires long-term planning, a low time preference, a willingness to to forego rewards and risk investment for long-term future gains. More here: GOVERNMENT AND TIME PREFERENCE (http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/government-and-time-preference), a review of Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed.

Peter1469
09-26-2012, 10:26 PM
On paper, no. In practice is another matter.

How many of the medieval power mongering Popes unjustly killed innocents?

The question is moral truth. Don't you think that those Popes were wrong?

Peter1469
09-26-2012, 10:29 PM
It would be wise to make a distinction between personal and public morals. I wouldn't think of walking down the street naked [people would point and laugh] but I can "hang out" that way in my home.


I do not believe you can legislate morality...the best example I can come up with is prohibition. That had nothing to do with health, but rather an attempt by a few to have their values enforced on others.

The comparison with today's drug laws is aborted on that point......now enter, ta da, the debate whether pot is unhealthy....?
\

Common law recognizes two types of laws and I can't spell the Latin...,

1. Prohibited for moral reasons
2. Prohibited per se

And example of each
1. murder
2. speeding

Chris
09-27-2012, 09:58 AM
Let's go back to eugenics.

Eugenics and Progressives (http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/humanities/philosophy/applied-ethics/eugenics-and-progressives?width=800&height=600&inline=true#quotes_page)
Eugenics represents a shameful period in the United States' history. The progressive idea that technocrats in government could improve society and cure social evils encouraged many scientists and policymakers to look for a way to do so through the field of genetics. Social Darwinism, racism, as well as some scientific research helped bring the eugenics movement into existence.

Eugenicists attempted to improve the gene pool using positive or negative eugenics. Positive eugenics focused on encouraging the higher classes of society to reproduce offspring. Negative eugenics focused on stopping the lower and "defective" classes from reproducing. Because the eugenicists believed that insanity, criminal tendencies, deafness, blindness, epilepsy, and even laziness were genetic traits, they thought that preventing the carriers of these traits from breeding would cut off the traits and improve society. Many in the United States, blinded by their goal of improving the gene pool, passed compulsory sterilization laws in 33 states for those members of society deemed "defective." The Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, upheld Virginia's law in 1927. By the 1970s, 60,000 people had been sterilized under these laws. One such victim, Carrie Buck (Buck v. Bell), is on the left of the picture above.

Though not all progressives or socialists were eugenicists, many individuals of influence in the United States and other countries who affiliated themselves with those schools of thought were indeed supporters of eugenics. Some of the more famous supporters were President Teddy Roosevelt, John Maynard Keynes, President Woodrow Wilson, Bertrand Russell, Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw, Harry Laughlin, H.G. Wells, Margaret Sanger, foundations connected to the Rockefellers, Harrimans, and Carnegies, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and others.

After the horrors of the Holocaust were widely publicized in the late 1940s, eugenics in America (and any progressive support of the idea) quickly faded into the past. Nonetheless, it's an important piece of American history that should not be forgotten. The temptation to manipulate science, to use aggressive propaganda in schools, and to enact repugnant laws in the belief that technocrats can mold a perfect society is something that will always linger in different forms. Americans should study the tactics and think of the eugenicists and some of the progressives from this period in order to guard against future acts of collective tyranny.

What is moral ought to be justifiable, don't you think? But how is eugenics justifiable? On a visceral level the horrors of the holocaust ought to be enough to deny this. But on a rational level, the very idea of eugenics is based on a flawed premise, namely social Darwinism, which scientistically misconstrued Darwinian evolution, which is undesigned and undirected, as something that could be designed and directed through public policy and pulpit pontifications (social gospel spread social darwinism).

Man simply cannot redesign or re-engineer man.

Peter1469
09-27-2012, 12:48 PM
What about the negative eugenics that Mr. D brought up (somewhere and more than once)? Society discouraging the unfit to reproduce through non-coercive means seems to be acceptable morally. Mr. D went further and suggested no public support (ie welfare type programs)- that is more problematic if the government still provides welfare to people it deems fit to reproduce.

Mister D
09-27-2012, 12:51 PM
There is a significant difference between positive and negative eugenics.

As for natalism, all I'm saying is that if the state is going ot be in the business of subsidizing child birth then it ought to have standards.

Chris
09-27-2012, 12:53 PM
If by negative you mean anti-eugenics, otherwise just another form of social engineering.

I've gone back to previous post to highlight positive and negative eugenics.

Peter1469
09-27-2012, 01:09 PM
If by negative you mean anti-eugenics, otherwise just another form of social engineering.

I've gone back to previous post to highlight positive and negative eugenics.


If by negative you mean anti-eugenics

Negative eugenics v. positive eugenics =
negative rights in the constitution v. positive rights in the Constitution.

Chris
09-27-2012, 01:13 PM
Negative eugenics v. positive eugenics =
negative rights in the constitution v. positive rights in the Constitution.

Haven't heard them defined that way.

Negative rights are the rights to be left alone in your property, positive rights the right to have a say politically, to vote, etc.

If negative eugenics thus implies leaving people alone, which would be anti-eugenics, OK.

roadmaster
09-28-2012, 02:28 AM
Hitler followed Darwin, he was his idol. He believed that blacks were more close to the gorilla family.

Carygrant
09-28-2012, 05:35 AM
Hitler followed Darwin, he was his idol. He believed that blacks were more close to the gorilla family.


Quite a popular belief in this Forum among the baboon tribe .

Chris
09-28-2012, 08:57 AM
Hitler followed Darwin, he was his idol. He believed that blacks were more close to the gorilla family.

Hitler didn't follow Darwinian evolution, he followed Social Darwinism. The one is undirected, undesigned, the other directed and designed. He was applying not evolutionary theory but animal breeding practices that existed long before.

KC
09-28-2012, 02:04 PM
Hitler followed Darwin, he was his idol. He believed that blacks were more close to the gorilla family.

Except now we know that humans are more closely associated with chimpanzees. Of the large apes Gorillas are the least closely associated with man.