EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Who wants communism? Nobody, of course, everyone wants freedom... and if possible a welfare state. This sounds as paradoxical as the reasoning about Achilles and the Tortoise.
The only way freedom can be freedom for all is when there is justice. JUSTICE and I clarify: this is not when X watches Y work and in the end they split the salary, but when everyone gets what they have worked for, even if that means Y getting the whole salary. And justice implies responsibility - first, to oneself, everyone must realize that they are responsible for their own life and no one else is obliged to take care of it, and second, responsibility to others, to respect other people's lives as well as their own.
The question arises why, since everyone wants freedom, liberalism has few supporters? The popular saying “don’t put off today’s work for tomorrow” is often supplemented with “if you can do it the day after tomorrow” and, to correspond most accurately to folk psychology, I will add, or if someone else can do it. Centuries ago, religion performed the same function that is attributed to the welfare state today. The reason for failures was not sought in people, but that was divine will. Today, “the state has not done its job.” In a slow, painful, evolutionary way, the role of religion and fate has lost its weight, but instead of people finally realizing that they must take their lives into their own hands, Bismarck introduces mandatory social security, later mandatory health insurance, mandatory education and other mandatory “benefits” provided by the state appear. But a person does not ask where these benefits came from, because he likes them, they save him the effort of making decisions about his life. What does freedom mean to people who expect someone else to take responsibility for them.
I am by no means saying that people are greedy and impudent creatures who think that everyone is obliged to share their lunch with them in a brotherly way, but simply that they have forgotten an expression that on one occasion or another they heard in their childhood "money does not grow on trees", the state's money too. They are collected from the people, most often through taxes. Taxes are usually calculated as a percentage of income and this percentage is either the same for everyone or increases with the increase in income, i.e. those who have more money pay more taxes, but receive the same as those with lower incomes. In economics, when the same product is offered to everyone at the maximum price that they are able to pay, it is called price DISCRIMINATION.
Can discrimination be fair?!
Who does the desired welfare state discriminate against: people with above-average incomes. And why does this discrimination go unnoticed: there are simply fewer of them. Despite this, what makes people continue to turn a blind eye? They simply like it to be easy, if it weren't, we would continue to wash by hand, count on our fingers, and the entire computer industry would have collapsed. Facilitation saves us time that we spend on hundreds of other things that we like. For example, mandatory health insurance makes it easier for us because we know that the state will take care of us in the event of a health problem and we won't have to look for a way, a facility ourselves, just like the washing machine, but do we buy it ourselves or wait for our neighbor? Then why do we rely on the redistribution of income for our health and all other social benefits in general? If we can do it ourselves, why should the state do it? And if we can't, why should someone else do it for us? If it's so important for everyone, why should it be mandatory, right? Everyone will realize the need, right?
There is no freedom without justice, there is no justice without responsibility. And responsibility is to stop telling children “don’t break YOUR toys” (i.e. because they are yours, do whatever you want with other people’s), and “don’t destroy” – regardless of whether you built it or not, respect other people’s things, as well as your own, even if you sometimes don’t like them. Every time someone says I want them, do you think about whether they can afford it themselves and if they can’t, how can they possibly get it, who should give it to them? Only the personal answer to this question depends on whether we can truly be free.
A lot of nonsense... and all in one place:
1. Freedom is not a state. It is an attitude. It depends on the individual's internal restraints and the external constraints placed on them.
So freedom can be achieved in different societies.
2. Justice is a moral norm and depends directly on the level of development of society.
In every society there is a concept of justice, even though it includes different elements.
3. I didn't understand what the hick will get and whether it depends on the "fullness of the salary" of the player :-D. Things with the payment of hired labor are not as elementary as they are presented. Because "salary" is a general concept, but "peek" and "earnings" are already something specific. Both have their pros and cons in terms of the quantity and quality of the work done.
The wage assumes that time is money and is paid when labor is hired, regardless of the amount of work to be done or completed. Such jobs exist.
4. Yes, everyone is responsible for their own life. But so are lone wolves. 😉 And the majority of wolves live and hunt in packs. It is true that they have a strict hierarchy and failure to comply with it is severely punished. But these are still wolves...
Humans have chosen to live in society because mutual aid allows the entire group to survive more safely. This is not their discovery, of course.
Hyena dogs in Africa, in addition to using a lot of intelligence when hunting and distributing tasks within the group, have an advantage when feeding on sick and weak individuals of the pack!
But the search for the easiest way to satisfy needs is a basic characteristic of living organisms. This, combined with the development of the brain, led to the emergence of the tyrants, who feed on the labor of others. Again, this is not a discovery of man. Such individuals are also observed in the animal kingdom.
In humans, those who want to live off the backs of others use their imagination to find ever more sophisticated ways. One of them is to be an "employer" For which the hired workers should be grateful to him, but I suppose that according to him they should also pay him. In no case am I saying that all entrepreneurs are brazen and greedy and seek to rob the worker's labor to the last drop. No, not all of them are, but the vast majority of them are exactly like that.
5. We can't get along with the discrimination of the rich 🙂 A flat tax would go very well with a limit on the rate of profit from any venture. But the Tariqats do not agree with this. They want "freedom for the enterprising" and, above all, economic freedom for any speculation with the prices of the goods and services offered. They want "to let the invisible hand of the market regulate economic relations". Naturally, so that they can direct it to their advantage.
"Respect other people's work as your own!" I agree with this. And I would even add: Respect other people's work as your own! When you hire people to work, think about whether you would do it for that salary day after day, year after year! Because remember: You are not an employer, but an employee!
So... They, you work with freedom like that...
1. A person's attitude towards the world determines his state in it. There is a causal relationship between our thoughts (our attitude towards things) and our actions, which determine the state we will be in. We do what we think. And certainly freedom is not possible only on an internal or only on an external level. It is a function of both variables.
2. In countries in the Arab world, it is the order of things if a girl is raped, then killed by her own family because she has brought shame on them. They consider this to be fair. Many things exist, but that does not mean they are right.
3. The famous Bulgarian expression "one person works and everyone else takes care of it". The example with the salary was an elementary explanation of the fairness in the distribution of goods. Otherwise, I am aware of the different forms of remuneration for labor and that they are specific to different types of labor.
4. Man needs a society composed of other individuals like himself. The division of labor and trade show this. For the functioning of any social, economic, or political system, personal awareness and responsibility on the part of the people are necessary. Employers also, without exception, are included among these people. There is no particular difference between a worker who does not conscientiously do his job and an employer who exploits his workers - both want what is not deserved. But if a worker can leave work whenever he wants, then it is almost impossible for an employer to fire a worker and then not lose the case in court if the worker decides to sue him.
5. Here I will answer with a quote from the judgment against the American Aluminum Company, although it was pronounced a long time ago: "It was not inevitable that it (the company) should always anticipate the increase in the demand for iron and be ready to satisfy it. No one forced it to double its capacities again and again before the others entered the market...".
I can at least think of an example of large-scale speculation with prices that are not supported by the state. When speculatively high prices appear, someone else sees an opportunity to sell at lower prices. Speculators lose their customers. This happened a few years ago with taxis in Varna. There were prices of over 1 lev per km when a company started fulfilling orders at a price of 55 cents. Consumers were free to choose how much to pay and to whom. After that, prices were regulated and now everyone rides at 79 cents. The invisible hand does not protect speculators; in a free market, a monopoly can only exist if it is effective. Who loses from these fair state regulations?
1. We cannot always do what we think. I argue that an individual has a feeling of freedom when the constraints imposed by the environment (in this case society) are weaker or equal to his internal scruples (moral restraints). In this sense, “absolute freedom” is the complete absence of external constraints and internal restraints. For a short time, an individual can feel this feeling even when ignoring external constraints. For example, when jumping from the eighth floor.
2. “Right” and “wrong” are subjective concepts related to morality.
For example, I consider it wrong to dismiss government health care as unnecessary and then take advantage of it:
http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
"Recent years" section
"...Rand's health deteriorated in the 1970s. In 1974, she underwent surgery for lung cancer caused by smoking. Despite her criticism of universal health care policies, Rand insisted on and received reimbursement for her medical expenses, with the check made out to Ann O'Connor, her given name.[29][30] According to her lawyer, Eva Pryor, this was necessary because "Doctors cost more than she could make writing books, and she would have been broke."[29]..."
3. “Fairness in the distribution of wealth” requires that the worker be able to restore his working capacity and calmly raise his children with the salary he receives. This is currently impossible in Bulgaria, and not only here. And neoliberal “thinkers” recommend abolishing the state-protected minimum wage. And “liberating the labor market”. Even now there are “employers” for whom even these 310 leva per month seem like a lot ( http://www.kik-info.com/useful_info/mrz.php ). Would you work for such a salary?
4. I didn't know that society organizes itself to make trade appear. Let's not lament over the "poor employer with his hands tied by the law". Because he is not in an economic position equal to the worker. And besides, the worker cannot "leave whenever he wants". Because of this same law. And the law in Bulgaria protects the "employer" very well.
5. This made me laugh out loud 🙂 . Why do we have to go back so far in time? The current crisis is a prime example. Weren't the speculators saved from the bankrupt banks with the money of the state – of all the other taxpayers in society? After which the upper echelon in these same banks distributed huge bonuses with this very money:
http://www.segabg.com/article.php?issueid=5108§ionid=5&id=0001201
http://www.monitor.bg/article?id=207484
http://paper.standartnews.com/bg/article.php?article=333890
And this is given that "everyone must bear responsibility for the consequences of their actions"! Is this justice?
6. And the "free market" has long ceased to exist. The claims about the "objectively self-regulating free market" are absolutely groundless. The market has not been free anywhere since the information about it spread quickly enough. The market has long been based on the subjective expectations of its participants. Which can be very easily manipulated by people with opportunities, but without scruples. This means that the economic conditions for the development of society are a direct consequence of public morality, relations between people, their attitude towards the state and the desire for mutual assistance. State control in the economy is necessary because it acts as a brake on human reckless and destructive greed.