Fixing our country: Where did we go wrong?

[eskeryon]

---

Unsa man ang inyong ikasulti ini?
PHILIPPINES or FAILIPPINES? part 1 - YouTube
PHILIPPINES or FAILIPPINES? part 2 - YouTube

[eezychair]

@emow:

i understand your point of view and how you can see that the prescription of "Right-libertarianism" as advocated by the Austrian school can be very appealing to libertarian reformers, but also mainly to the pro-business lobby. i see that you have acquainted yourself well with the philosophy behind it and how it is suppose to work. personally, and as you might have already figured out, i do not subscribe to this school of thought for various reasons, foremost being the issue of accountability, and cannot agree with many of of its points especially those that deal with economics.

still, granting that we have our differences, the challenge is to find a common ground while we articulate on these differences. the main aim is to look at where, on the course of the nation's development, did it "go wrong", in a sense that there is this persistent impression (which is no doubt true) that we are being "left out" and even "over-run" by our neighbors.

this thread is rich with impressions, observations and insights as it is, most of which are valid. (corruption, government, self, culture being the supposed root of the problem) the more we can incorporate these into a system that purports to explain just exactly;

• where we went wrong in history,
• explains the current situation in a concise manner,
• offers steps and solutions on how we can get out of the quagmire,
  

the better explanation it would be.

Thank you for reiterating the gist of my post #160. If we do find this middle ground, taking the first steps to conquering the obstacles, most of which are commonly agreed upon (corruption, etc.) would be easier. Otherwise, we achieve nothing.

[gareb]

Thank you for reiterating the gist of my post #160. If we do find this middle ground, taking the first steps to conquering the obstacles, most of which are commonly agreed upon (corruption, etc.) would be easier. Otherwise, we achieve nothing.

i think that despite our stark differences of opinions and observations, there has to be a common ground. we, after all are sharing the same experiences.

[The_Child]

Yes, equality is not a natural gift, that's why i don't advocate for it. there are two types of equality that modern economists are debating about. Equality in Opportunity against Equality in Result. I am for the equality of opportunity for it respects the natural rights of life liberty and property. Equality in Result (what seems to be the trend of this world) in its basic foundation is an injustice committed against someone for the benefit of someone else.

My argument for liberty is this: We are all born with the right to life, and as such, we have two extensions of this right, right to liberty (to exercise our own conscious decisions to sustain our life), and right to property (to be able to exploit the rewards of our labor). These natural rights precedes any chartered law, formed government, or any contract agreement. All of us are afforded with these rights, and all of us will use force to defend these rights. The collective force to uphold these rights compelled man to form laws. Laws, therefore, are solely meant to protect rights, and remove injustices. No one has any right to violate another man's rights, and as such, whatever is prohibited between two people should also be applicable between the government and any one citizen.

I'm skeptical to some of your premises, particularly on the origin of rights. To consider a "natural" basis for rights is to play dangerously close to the necessity of asserting a pre-natural cause for rights, i cringe to say this, but that is God. But, assuming that, for the sake of argument, your premises hold. The consideration that comes to mind is this: if you hold on to the position of free market capitalism and equality of opportunity, then there seems to be a compatibility problem. To hold on to free market capitalism is to assert that the role of the state is reduced as merely a "watchdog" against any violation of rights and law (in the most passive terms). hence, it is correct to say that free market capitalism must not intervene in the economic transactions of members in society except when someone's right is violated by another. The state cannot, must not intervene. let the invisible hand do its job.

in the other case, to speak of equality of opportunity requires that everybody must be given an equal opportunity with equal space to compete in the world. Though this may be possible in a tenseless or ahistorical situation, this cannot be possible in the real world. For instance, two persons compete to enter a prestigious university. person A is born rich, hence we was given the best education money can buy. person B is poor, he has to content himself with public education(in our country some are really good, but let's face it, generally it is under-budgeted, lacks materials and turns teachers into workhorses before becoming martyrs) and the same time he has to work to pay his school projects and feed himself. How can equality in opportunity be possible in this scenario, if not for the State to intervene for the general welfare of its population. To do so contradicts laissez-faire capitalism.

Ok suppose you say that public education in itself is already state intervention. This, I think, will actually reduce the possibility of equality of oppurtunity. The poor, the worker, no matter how hard he tries is limited only to his skill. He is payed for that. How then can he pay for good private education for his children? The same scenario happens, he can only pay for a third-rate private education for his children which cannot compete to someone who is already rich. the equality of opportunity position cannot work here.

The possibility for equality of opportunity, though im not an economist, must be premised on the building of human capability and this is possible only with state intervention, it may be minimal intervention, but it is intervention, nonetheless.

[eezychair]

^^The rich get richer, and the poor, poorer. This has been said again and again, yet we still have to fully realized why this is so. We should first agree on where we went wrong first, before we can start to think about what to do to set things right.

OT: 'A libertarian is one who follows a Utopian political ideology which claims to support individual freedoms in all areas socially and economically. Ironically, while they advocate "small" government (that is, reduction of government in all areas except those which protect the capitalist class), if the libertarian ideology were to be actually put in effect, it would more likely lead to an extremely oppressive society dominated by a wealthy few. Because of this, libertarianism can be described as a form.of corporatism in disguise. Libertarianism is popular among rebellious high schoolers who in actuality know little of politics or the real world.'

[ketllac]

@emow

sorry I am not an economist, and my knowledge about this is limited . Pero base sa akong nasabtan sa methodological individualism nga gi advocate anang Austrian school of economics, nga ang economic strategies kuno should be rooted ug magagikan sa pag sabot sa individual behavior sa mga citizens in a particular society contrary anang conventional economic model nga i-test ang effectivity sa usa ka model ngadto sa society (macro economic model). now i-apply ta ni sa history ug kasamtangan situasyon sa Philippines, mo labas ba nga ang ideal approach sa pag sulbad sa problema mao ang free market system?

kung i -base nato ni ng methodological individualsim sa kasamtangan situastion sa atong pinalangang nasod, naa ba ni relevance? ug most importantly ang atong kasamtangan situasyon ug history fit or haom ba sa gitawag anang free market system? kay imong tan-awon objectively dili malikayan nato nga taas ang gap sa pobre ug datu, now kung i hatag tanan sa consumer ug capitalista ang autonomy sa competion without government intervention, maka assure ba ta ug healthy and order sa competition? kinsay mo -empower sa batakang masa nga halos way igong capital para mo compete sa mga dagkong capitalista? tan awa ni, sa sinugdaan pa lang daan (history) ang ideal nga imong gidamgo para sa pilipinas unfair na para sa mga kabus.


Ok ra man ng laissez-faire policies pero ang dakong pangutana, haom ba sa atong nasod?

[emow]

@emow:

i understand your point of view and how you can see that the prescription of "Right-libertarianism" as advocated by the Austrian school can be very appealing to libertarian reformers, but also mainly to the pro-business lobby. i see that you have acquainted yourself well with the philosophy behind it and how it is suppose to work. personally, and as you might have already figured out, i do not subscribe to this school of thought for various reasons, foremost being the issue of accountability, and cannot agree with many of of its points especially those that deal with economics.

still, granting that we have our differences, the challenge is to find a common ground while we articulate on these differences. the main aim is to look at where, on the course of the nation's development, did it "go wrong", in a sense that there is this persistent impression (which is no doubt true) that we are being "left out" and even "over-run" by our neighbors.

this thread is rich with impressions, observations and insights as it is, most of which are valid. (corruption, government, self, culture being the supposed root of the problem) the more we can incorporate these into a system that purports to explain just exactly;

• where we went wrong in history,
• explains the current situation in a concise manner,
• offers steps and solutions on how we can get out of the quagmire,
  

the better explanation it would be.

- the discourse we are having in this thread is one good way of exchanging ideas through intellectual discussion. We cannot change the system through our leaders directly... It must start at the most basic unit of society, individuals. We spread the message one at a time, hoping to reverse many fallacies that our education has done to our people. No true positive change can ever come from violent means...

- where we went wrong in history? We are very unfortunate to have been developed by the American post-free market post-war regime in which socialism was the dominant philosophy. The toxic socialist ideals have been present in our Constitution ever since, for the common good, for the general welfare... These are mantras that keep on appearing without fully understanding what it is.... What is the common good? I keep on hearing it but no one can pin point what exactly it means...because there is no such thing.

It is the misplaced altruism of the nature of people that seeks to equalize the status of all citizen the real culprit of our problems. Our nature is to despise disparity of what one person has accomplish and what the other person has not accomplish, and blame it on the one who has been more productive. Social justice of equality, to provide the basic necessities for human existence perverts the nature of what the laws of the society ought to be. Laws are suppose to favor no one, exert no positive action on any one... It is in a state of neutrality, functions only when injustice is committed. But by promoting equality through legislation, we have allowed the government to steal money from the successful and productive, to the needy and unproductive, while keeping a commission for itself. Social equality is by its very core, an injustice in the name of charity.

I know how people don't want to talk about philosophies and principles and seek the technical solutions for what seems to be technical problems... However, our problems deals with the mind set of the people therefore it is a philosophical problem, and unless we address it as such, we will never have true solutions for this country. We have been developing a culture of parasites, and we demand the successful to take care of them. We demand the government to give social safety nets and assure a minimum standard of living for all people. We demand government to provide free education, free health services, free housing, free credit, subsidize petroleum, subsidize industries, etc... We keep on demanding from the successful as if we have a right to claim from their own hard work...as if they are perpetually indebted in servicing the needy and the poor and the irresponsible... in effect, we diminish the incentive of being successful and reward the undeserving. And if we don't change that system, the successful might transfer their businesses somewhere else, like....china? Imarflex and IPI are planning to transfer their factories in china, and i'm will not be amaze if other companies will follow...

The perpetual dependency of people with the successful is destroying this country. The perpetual dependency of people gives rise to corruption in the government. Major part of our debt is public service... and debt decreases the standards of living for all people.We dug an even bigger hole by setting up regulations that is anti-business... We tend to think its okay to tax businesses as long as private people are not... But that added operational cost of the businesses will just be passed on to the consumers, us.

As long as we are still in this current paradigm, no amount of oration, no amount of reason, no amount of laws can ever solve these problems, unless we subscribe to the concept that has liberated the world from slavery and tyranny...liberty.

-remove government regulations gradually in a systematic manner as to promote a friendly business atmosphere.
-remove minimum wage and SSS, Phil Health, and Pag-ibig as mandatory requirements for business operation
-remove Child labor
-no additional taxes
-cut government spending

*the effects of these measures will be immediate, and prevents the very very long effects of government failures.

[masakiton]

daghan anak (less fortunate) = mag lisod pa eskwela sa mga anak
less educated = less chances maka kita ug trabaho nga maayo ug income
dili maayo ug income + less educated = asset sa mga politicians

[emow]

I'm skeptical to some of your premises, particularly on the origin of rights. To consider a "natural" basis for rights is to play dangerously close to the necessity of asserting a pre-natural cause for rights, i cringe to say this, but that is God. But, assuming that, for the sake of argument, your premises hold. The consideration that comes to mind is this: if you hold on to the position of free market capitalism and equality of opportunity, then there seems to be a compatibility problem. To hold on to free market capitalism is to assert that the role of the state is reduced as merely a "watchdog" against any violation of rights and law (in the most passive terms). hence, it is correct to say that free market capitalism must not intervene in the economic transactions of members in society except when someone's right is violated by another. The state cannot, must not intervene. let the invisible hand do its job.

in the other case, to speak of equality of opportunity requires that everybody must be given an equal opportunity with equal space to compete in the world. Though this may be possible in a tenseless or ahistorical situation, this cannot be possible in the real world. For instance, two persons compete to enter a prestigious university. person A is born rich, hence we was given the best education money can buy. person B is poor, he has to content himself with public education(in our country some are really good, but let's face it, generally it is under-budgeted, lacks materials and turns teachers into workhorses before becoming martyrs) and the same time he has to work to pay his school projects and feed himself. How can equality in opportunity be possible in this scenario, if not for the State to intervene for the general welfare of its population. To do so contradicts laissez-faire capitalism.

Ok suppose you say that public education in itself is already state intervention. This, I think, will actually reduce the possibility of equality of oppurtunity. The poor, the worker, no matter how hard he tries is limited only to his skill. He is payed for that. How then can he pay for good private education for his children? The same scenario happens, he can only pay for a third-rate private education for his children which cannot compete to someone who is already rich. the equality of opportunity position cannot work here.

The possibility for equality of opportunity, though im not an economist, must be premised on the building of human capability and this is possible only with state intervention, it may be minimal intervention, but it is intervention, nonetheless.

The free market is not an entity like the government. The free market involves all the participants of the market, producer/provider and the consumer. In a free market economy, the violations made by businesses will be punished by the consumers themselves by not buying their products. Isn't it natural for us to post our complains with businesses through the internet? and the word will spread like wildfire and the business will lose customers, and it will die. Even without government intervention, as a businessman, I make sure that my products are of quality and at a most cost-effective price so that my consumer base will grow and remain loyal to me. If my products do harm to any one, i am just destroying my own self. If i cheated anyone, word will spread and i will lose my customers. If my business doesn't offer the best product at the most cost-effective price, then i will have to be creative to meet the demands of the market, otherwise, i will have to liquidate my business and venture into another that is relevant with what the market demands.

In a free market, there are no artificial highs, and bursting of big bubbles. Yes, there will be failures, but there are a lot and bigger with government failures. The failures of the market are usually localized to one industry, one place... The failures of the government affects all, even the non participants of the market. The failure of the free market is quickly resolved. The failure of the government is never resolved, they only add additional failures to solve the prior failure.

The argument that in a free market economy, greedy people will consume the people therefore the government must regulate the businesses. That is an economic fallacy. All businesses want repeat customers. therefore they have their own self interest to profit more as a priority through making the consumers happy with their services/products. It is self-destructive to do otherwise. Greed is necessary for advancement, if not for greed, we won't have the modern conveniences and man will stagnate.

-Natural rights exist because you are conceived and born. To dismiss the existence of natural rights because to admit its existence is to admit a pre-natural cause is also saying that you don't have natural rights. Therefore, can i kill you in the absence of a chartered law? will you not defend yourself? Can i steal your harvest? Isn't it because man has found value in life and liberty and property that he deems it important to make laws to defend these rights?

- Equal in opportunity means no one will block in your pursuit in happiness. There is equal opportunity to achieve unequal results. In the case of education, just the same as all products and services, the person who values it will find ways to pay for it. But by providing cheap education by the government (cheap also in quality), we are doing more harm than good. Instead of poor people finding ways to acquire good quality education, they settle for what is free and degraded education. I was raised by a single mom, but she strove hard to put us in a good school. We were poor and barely eating good quality meals, but she was able to finish us in a fine school. We were very poor yet it was never an excuse to settle for what is free. She valued education and found ways to pay for it. We were poor but never ever benefited from government welfare.

Government should stay out in education. Leave it to the free market. Education is a personal gain, therefore must come at a personal expense. I cringe on the idea of giving something free at the expense of tax payers just because it is a desirable attainment.

- your last example touches on another issue, employment. Government has enacted the most anti poor legislation of all. Minimum wage. Prior to its legislation, illiterate people can get any job rather quickly than today. There are jobs that don't require a higher education level, and they could fill that post temporarily or permanently depending on their own choice. But now, there is a basic standard of wage, in effect, businesses will employ the best employee out there to fill even those jobs that don't require higher education just to maximize the payment of the minimum wage. Minimum wage and SSS have destroyed the incentive of employing more people, instead of being able to employ 10, the business will only employ 5.

Another effect is that it created a huge entry barrier for ordinary people to engage in a legal business. Start-ups often fail because they fail to comply with government regulations. They resort to underground market. Employees will think a lot before starting their own business as they will realize the huge barrier government has placed before them, almost making sure, they will remain as employees for the rest of their lives.

I would also like to touch on Child labor Act, and the harm it does to the new generation. Prior to that law, businesses were able to employ children. Some were exploited, while many were treated fairly. The poor children can work to help his family and at a certain time, the child can go to school with the money they have saved... The children who underwent through this kind of reality were able to see the real picture of life, and gain insight based on their job experiences. They begin to aspire for more and understand the value of education. Because of their work, they have real life experiences...

With the law enacted, children are no longer permitted to work. So instead of working, children join gangs, groups, brotherhood, street loiters, syndicates, etc... 24/7, they are into pleasure seeking activities and become juvenile delinquents. They don;t value the importance of work and education (free from government) and resort to snatching and other crimes, even as contract killers...

You see, these are government interventions and the result is what you hear in the news and what you see in the streets...

[emow]

^^The rich get richer, and the poor, poorer. This has been said again and again, yet we still have to fully realized why this is so. We should first agree on where we went wrong first, before we can start to think about what to do to set things right.

OT: 'A libertarian is one who follows a Utopian political ideology which claims to support individual freedoms in all areas socially and economically. Ironically, while they advocate "small" government (that is, reduction of government in all areas except those which protect the capitalist class), if the libertarian ideology were to be actually put in effect, it would more likely lead to an extremely oppressive society dominated by a wealthy few. Because of this, libertarianism can be described as a form.of corporatism in disguise. Libertarianism is popular among rebellious high schoolers who in actuality know little of politics or the real world.'

do you even know the meaning of the two? There is socialism utopia...there is socio-capitalistic utopia (current trend), and there is libertarian utopia.... These are just the extremes of what one desires, and the desire to achieve the great measure of it. Everyone has their own utopia, your own ideal world view, which affects your insights and your communication with the rest of the world.

Libertarianism doesn't advocate equal results? They acknowledge that some people will remain poor and some people will become rich. They don't intend to do something to help that individual change his status in life. Libertarians believe that is his own choice.

You have just exposed yourself as an ignoramus. Protect the capitalist class? OF COURSE! Everyone is a potential capitalists, if you choose to be one! But not the kind of protection you are talking about, libertarians believe the government should never favor any group, any class, any creed, any religion.

If one achieves wealth through honest means, should he be condemned by his ingenuity in commerce? If he was able to do it by providing quality products that everyone enjoys, should he be condemned? Should we limit the incentives of acquiring wealth then? That is the epitome of human regression.

Again, save your bias opinions for yourself... you don't know what you are talking about, really. You have been resorting to ad hominims lately... sounds like...uh oh...