[mike777]

Well as I said before if you do not think there is a full blown war, then what the USA is doing must seem insane or worse than Mao, Stalin and Hitler combined. If you do not think there is a real and current threat to your country then what the USA is doing does seem like genocide.

As you can see many here in the USA either do not believe in a real and present danger or those that do believe it may believe that it is better to fight it through a police action or through free trade.

We do have elections in this country and I do believe countries get the government they deserve. Whether it be a muderous Mao, Stalin, Hitler or a delusional Bush the people of the country need to take full responsibility. Congress could stop the funding for this war with one vote. College students and unions could shut down the country with strikes and marches.

No wait the students are too busy watching American Idol and tv and playing videos, the Unions are too busy making sure felons are exempt from losing jobs and can work at our ports(I guess Arab felons are banned but everyone else is ok) and Congress is too busy passing antigambling laws in the middle of the night with hidden bills or picking up teenage boys with emails.

[Al_U_Card]

In WWII the US stood up to Hitler and on the conventional field of battle, bested the worst that humanity could provide as opposition. Since then, they fail to understand that most fights are not about good vs evil but evil vs evil. They also stick mistakenly to their last favorable strategy (like underleading an ace that sets the contract.....a bad practice that usually doesn't work).

Conventional vs guerilla ie Vietnam.....didn't work
Conventional vs. ethnic cleansing ie Yugoslavia.......didn't work
Conventional vs. religious fanatics ie Iraq......isn't working

You cannot change people, you can only change yourself.

Elsewhere in the world, centuries of bloody regional, tribal and religious struggles transcend reason.

The US only has its history with slavery and discrimination as reference. How are they doing with that? Maybe once they change themselves they will better understand the world.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Oct 2 2006, 07:21 PM, said:

To Lukewarm

I apologize for suggesting that you do not 'think': it was not intended to be personal, altho I can see how it read that way. I am sure that if we were having this discussion ftf, it would be heated but not personal   I respect you as sincere, even when I disagree with you.

i doubt it would even be all that heated... i don't know if it comes across in my posts, but i rarely get heated, i much prefer to try to remain calm and logical ("rarely" isn't the same as "never" though)... i know you're sincere in your beliefs also, and respect your right to have and share them

Quote

I responded to the part I quoted because, yes, I do feel that Bush has skilfully created a 'frame' within which to discuss the motivation of terrorists in a manner that constrains critical thought.

it's true that politicians of all stripes use 'frames', not just bush, and most frames are built on emotion... i distrust emotional arguments (not that i haven't fallen into the trap of making them, but i do try not to)... we all enter into discussion based on our own preconceptions, our own worldviews... as long as people are intellectually honest enough to admit that, i don't have a problem with it....

Quote

Large numbers of educated, intelligent, western people believe that Bush is the major threat to world peace.

i'm sure that's true, but i'm also sure the converse is true - there are also large numbers of educated, intelligent, western people who honestly believe that fundamentalist islam truly wants the world at war... many believe they want either conversion or death for others, and those who don't convert are by definition their enemies... and you have to admit that if some of them are taken at their word, one could build a good case that this is one of their motives

Quote

I recognize (altho my postings would not usually reflect this recognition) that my thought processes are undoubtedly influenced by 'frames': by preconceptions that constrain my thinking on certain topics. I do sometimes try to think outside the 'frame', but it is difficult to do so until and unless I hear from someone who can point out those constraints to me. The truth appears to be (for me if no-one else) that the constraints are invisible from the inside.

excellent points... i believe you've said you are a trial lawyer (sorry if my memory is faulty here, or if that offends you ), which means to me that you have been trained in debate, in philosophy, in critical thinking... it's my view that any person unable to take both sides of a debate, and do them justice, can't actually win a debate from either side... i can tell from your posts and understanding of the issues that you could take either side of this issue and be persuasive... so i don't hold it against you that you write from your own 'frame' as long as you don't hold it against me when i do the same

Quote

Thus the power of the framing of the terrorists' motivation as being a hatred of a free nation: once in that frame, it constrains the debate. It comforts the thinker, because, as I said earlier, it tells us something good about ourselves (we are free) while eliminating any inclination to do anything to change those factors that gave rise to the hatred: after all, why on earth should we give up our freedom?

in a sense, this is true... however, when i use our freedom as a reason for their hatred, i don't mean that to be the only reason... in any case, i think that if a person listed as premises those things required of the u.s. for cessation of terrorist attacks, we'd find that relatively few of them could be met (practically or politically or even morally)... for example, when you say

Quote

If the 'frame' were that the terrorists hate the US for the conduct of the US as a nation on the world stage, that would require thinking about that conduct and, more importantly, how that conduct impacts the disadvantaged in the world.

i can sincerely ask why the u.s. conduct towards the world's disadvantaged is cause or justification for terrorism...

Quote

I can only say that many of us on this part of the forum seem to have the same problem: I will try to be more appreciative of opposing views, no matter how irrational I may find them to be when composing my response

heheh... it's true that posters from both sides can sometimes seem arrogant or irrational... one of my rules of life (never turn down a breath mint is #1) is, a man's gotta know his limitations... i might not always come across as if that's a rule of mine, but i try to - and it is

gerben said:

HELLO? There is no WAR on terror! You cannot beat terrorism by invading countries.

i agree there is no war, just as i think vietnam wasn't a war and korea wasn't a war... the primary goal of a war is to win it, and the strategy and tactics necessary for victory must be employed... that doesn't appear to be the case here

[Winstonm]

Quote

Ya, ok me too but you do realize this is War not a police action?

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War,


Did I miss this headline somewhere? I don't remember Congress declaring war.

Quote

Come on guys has anyone actually read the bill.

Yes. I believe the thought processes capable of this work unpatriotic at best. The U.S.A. was established to preserve freedom and rights. I have no disagreement with the wish to establish a military tribunal for the trial of real terrorists - those caught in the act of carrying out an act or terrorissm or in the active planning phase of such actions - this has precedent with German agents. But to rush through a bill that allows presidential descretion in proclaiming anyone it so choses an "enemy combattant" and then having them locked up without a trial is beyond unpatriotic and into tryrannical behavior.

If you do read the act, and many legal experts have voiced this concern, it actually allows the president to determine without proof an enemy combattant and does not stipulate whether foreign or domestic.

The closest this country ever came to a coup was with Richard Nixon - he reached the point in his presidency where it was resign or use the military to stay in power.

You may think it farfetched, but with this bill anyone who has evidence of criminal actions by this administration could be deemed an "enemy combattant" and locked up. If Nixon would have had this, Daniel Ellsberg could have disappeared and we would never have learned of Cambodia. What other secrets are hidden? Would you blow the whistle now?

At best this bill is sloppy to the point of unpassable by intelligent men; at worst it is a beginning of a nightmare.

Quote

comparing Germany's 1930's, Hitler and the USA in 2006 seems a bit desperate.

Do you think the American people of today are smarter, braver, and wiser than the Germans of the 1930s? Human nature does not change. Fear drove Germany in Hitler's hands; fear has driven power in the U.S.A. into the president's hands. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. History may not repeat itself; but to say it cannot happen here is to deny human nature.

[Impact]

Let us examine sme of the alleged "causes" of hatred from a realist's perspective instead of utopian or doctrinaire viewpoints (and I don't care which doctrine it is).


US foreign polcy has usually been an extension of domestic policy - as with most nations.

In the later part of the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth century, strong isolationism (and protectionism) fought with the occasional foreign adventure and imperialism.

Post WWII, US foreign policy was pretty much "hold the fort against communism" - which meant in practice supporting anything which was anti-communist.

Rid yourself of a prism of idealism and the rhetoric showered on the public, the alleged volte faces of US policy make some sort of sense (whether or not you agree with the justification adn vlidity of the underlying tenet).

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA was effectively without a direct rival both economically and militarily: it is THE superpower.

Historically when any dramatic dominance by one nation has occurred previously, either a further period of conquest has been embarked upon or (and frequently almost seamlessly) a determination for maintenance of the status quo in order to avoid a meaningful challenge to dominance, has been the motivating force.

Metternich's balance of power doctrine, and England's switching sides/allies in continental Europe for at least 250 years in order to prevent an hegemony to challenge her incipient - and then real- empire spring to mind.

I suggest that the latter has been the order of the day for the US - and it is only events of direct threat which have motivated foreign adventures.
The US did not want a too powerful Japan to dominate Asia, a powerful theocratic Iran to dominate the Middle East (hence the decision in 1991 to cease hostilities against Saddam's Iraq which could act as some form of balance to Iran) - and some balance in both South America and Europe. By and large Africa to date has been largely irrelevant (save for periods of active communist infiltration of states which led to propping up and supplying some of the strangest regimes - making Vietnam or Saddam appear almost normal).

So much for the hstorical perspective of the US actions.

For 500 years at least Europe has been the centre of Western thought and power. It is never pleasant to realise that rather than being the mjor player(s), you are a now a bit player. There is a resentment at the swing in economic, military and poltical power. The EU which consists of nations with historical enmity is an attempt to redress the balance.

At the same time the nations in the EU are delighted that they can spend (in real terms) far less on defence than previously as there is no direct national threat to them - and no need for the umbrella of US defence offered by NATO during the cold war.

At one and the same time the US is accused of massive conspiracies and Macchiavellian machinations, it is blighted with seeming incompetence in those machinations and overriding all is a touching naivete: you actually seem to expect to be loved, and to live up to the rhetoric uttered by its leaders.

That schizophrenia is apparent in an inherently secular society which insists on paying lipservice to notions of God and playing to a "moral majority".

It also makes Americans and US politicians almost uniquely vulnerable to outbursts of sanctimonious pap from politicians of other nations (who have no qualms in maintaining their countries' own economic interests and no hesitations in making pronouncements of utopianism without the slightest intention of furthering such).

On an individual basis do YOU you give to every charity or group which masquerades as a charity?

Do you feel a need to explain to each such group why you are giving an amount to them or justifying why you are giving more to another?

Foreign aid is part of diplomacy - and as such is pursued for the real perceived interests of the donor country (which incidentally might include all sorts of altrusitic notions which are important to domestic voters).

It is sheer nonsense that aid must be given equally or come with no strings - after all it is your tax dollars and you are entitled to demand some return either real or maybe just sickly warm feelings for it.

However, anecdotal observation of human nature is such that gratitude is rarely received. Rather envy of someone (anyone) who is better off appears to be the norm, and expectation that they should be placed in that position is a given.

Victimisation is standard with pleas/demands for more without actually offering anything in return or performing oneself. The modern object is to make the donor feel guilt about not doing enough as opposed to what the donee could do for himself.

Hence a whole range of groups and nations line up for largesse as of right - but then resent any suggestion that there may be a quid pro quo.

For a not inconsiderable period the US was the largest single donor to "the Palestinians" but of course that would not lead to gratitude: how dare the US give more to Israel?

No culture or people copes well with inferiority. All like to believe they are (at least) as good as the next group - and usually better.

Of course, occasionally when faced with stark reality, the issue becomes how do you cope? Various methods have been tried: the rarest is to actually try to absolutely improve your own level of well-being but that pales if your neighbour too improves his own level (look at the relative well-being of the poor in OECD countries and compare the criteria of poverty in those countries over the last century); the most popular is a declaration of war: if you cannot improve in direct comparison of your own doing, the least you can do is drag the opposition down. The modern form is one of begging without humility: the demand as of right to charity, but is not called charity!

Regardless of economic and military dominance which you may lack, you know that you at least have moral/theological superiority - but perhaps - like suffering stoically, there is no point to it unless everyone knows that that is what you are doing!

Hence the last refuge to justify all else can be used as a weapon - and is being so.

As usual our own freedoms are turned against us: freedom of religion is fine but it doesn't give you a right to active intolerance of others.

If you are a taxi-driver presumably it is within your rights to deny access to an intoxicated passenger (on the grounds of safety, cleanliness etc). However, the mere fact that someone is "armed with the means of intoxication" (alcohol) is no more reason to refuse them carriage than refusing a woman "because she is equipped with the means to be a prostitute".

That should be a term of the licence.

No one compells someone to work on his religious holiday but you cannot seek employment at an abattoir and then object to the killing of animals for meat, refuse to participate and expect to be paid by the abattoir!

If someone hates you already and you are paying them for nought - perhaps rather than reconsider your other policies, you should first reconsider whether you should be paying them!!

Only the Western democracies are so consumed with issues of self-guilt that they let their own best interests decline.

We hear all about Islamic solidity but where were the funds from various Islamic states loaded with oil revenue when their brethren were suffering from tsunami: the expectation was that the heathen West would supply funds - and we did.

It is time to stand up for our own self-interest before it is too late: that is not taking an antagonistic posture it is simply being open and admitting self-interest instead of pretending otherwise.

Self-interest includes feelings of gratification for helping someone: after all it makes you feel good, but don't pretend that they have a RIGHT to more!

[pbleighton]

"Only the Western democracies are so consumed with issues of self-guilt that they let their own best interests decline."

So I guess it was a non-Western dictatorship which invaded a country which had less than 10% of its population and far less than .1% of its GDP on the pretext that the invaded country was developing weapons similar to those the invading country already had in great abundance.

Peter

[Impact]

Peter,

For once they acted in perceived self-interest (if you accept that the administration actually believed WMD to exist).

Getting it just plain wrong happens: there were all sorts of justifications which some will find acceptable for going into Iraq.

What is and was even then clearly wrong to me was the absence of a viable plan for Iraq following the initial military victory: a disaprate tribal country with no history of democracy was always going to take a generation of "occupation" if there was to be any hope for the installation of western democratic practice on a lasting basis.

I said as much before they went in, and continued to make the same statement: does USA really have the will to stay the course for 25 years both economically and in terms of the lives lost (with no guarantees)? If not - don't go in because all you do is disturb the fragile balance that exists (albeit sending some sort of message to those who defy teh might of US).

There were lots of alternatives to invasion - including just wiping out Saddam - but all left serious questionmarks about the vacuum, even if they might have left less direct responsibility. The same sanctimony about assassination of leaders appears to be maintained by many on the grounds of personal interest.


In an age of instant gratification by pressing buttons, it did not seem likely - and with the exception of the US Civil War there have few occasions where the US has had to buckle down for the long haul (which is fortunate on the one hand but gives no real experience and an increasing unwillingness to embark on such a course).

What the effect of departure by the coalition from Iraq in the short term, would be is interesting conjecture.

It is hard to doubt that it would be hailed as a victory in much of the Arab and Islamic world.

Victories do little to discourage those groups, but the cost of a "draw" much less victory for the coalition is looking high.

My reaction is "at least another 20 years" now that you are there - for better or worse. You can't set the clock back - but I truly doubt the intestinal fortitude for the task.

If perseverance ensues for the longer term there are a lot of potential benefits (not least amongst them the concern of other nations, the soaking up of "terrorists" in one place, and the potential for more widespread favourable regime change in a strategically important part of the world - but don't hold your breath).

As I said the "crime" was to go in with a bizarre belief in a short-term goal.

[pbleighton]

"For once they acted in perceived self-interest (if you accept that the administration actually believed WMD to exist)."

Do you consider that "perceived self-interest" is an adequate justification for a war which will wind up killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

The U.S. has LOTS of WMD, and I certainly wouldn't consider that fact to be a justification for invasion of us.

As to your "20 more years" theory, the situation in Iraq has gotten worse every year we have been there. What make you think it will get better as long as the U.S. is there?

For all your trumpeted realpolitik, you seem to be a very trusting, idealistic soul

First Rule Of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging.

The natives have AK-47s and plastic explosive. Colonialism (or whatever historical parallel you choose) will never be the same.

Peter

[Impact]

20 more years (at least) because it requires an education system to inculcate values and traditions which do not grow up overnight.....it took almost that long in relatively homogeneous civilizations (Germany & Japan - of which at least Germany had had some embryonic experiences in the Weimar).

It may be idealistic but at least there is some basis for foundation - as opposed to nothing at all!

Cry over the spilt milk but and agonise over the options foregone as is the want of historians and journalists, but also face a present reality and let us see if there is some advantage to be obtained...

Your Rule of Holes neglects the concept that you may have had a goal in digging and perhaps you wish to reach it (OTOH if you meant to suggest that getting out of quicksand has something to recommend it, that would be a difficult proposition to resist - albeit not accepting the analogy).

[luke warm]

although i don't accept the philosophy of objectivism totally, a lot of what rand wrote rings both true and effective... impact has pretty much summed it up - when a person, group, city, state, country works in their/its own best interest, the best interest of the majority is served... of course this assumes that one is able to logically deduce what is in one's best interest... be that as it may, i agree with most of his posts - there is a sense of entitlement from many of those who receive charity

[Al_U_Card]

Hatred and fear. Motivators and instigators of much of the world's current woes. Why do people hate and fear the US? Why does anyone hate and fear? They fear the unknown and they hate what they think the unknown represents.....

Get to know your neighbour and see that he is just you, living in a different house.

[pbleighton]

"It may be idealistic but at least there is some basis for foundation - as opposed to nothing at all!"

A nation which doesn't go out of its way to create enemies for itself (which is what the U.S. has done) - I don't think this is "nothing at all". I think of it as realism.

As for your fantasy about a 20 year occupation with a happy ending, this ignores:
1. The corrosive effect of the occupation on Iraqi society, and
2. The reaction of the broader Muslim world, and
3. The evidence so far.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

What is and was even then clearly wrong to me was the absence of a viable plan for Iraq following the initial military victory: a disaprate tribal country with no history of democracy was always going to take a generation of "occupation" if there was to be any hope for the installation of western democratic practice on a lasting basis.

So what you are saying is that American imperialism should have a goal larger than supporting Haliburton, Lockheed, and Boeing? Or are you simply suggesting colonialism? What right does the U.S. have to impose western democracy on anyone?

Quote

Victories do little to discourage those groups, but the cost of a "draw" much less victory for the coalition is looking high

Is this a re-write of the domino theory? Gee, if we pull out of Iraq, next thing you know Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran will all become Islamic nations - wait a minute...something's wrong with this picture.....where's McNamara....he can explain this.....

Quote

As I said the "crime" was to go in with a bizarre belief in a short-term goal.

The crime was lying in order to justify invasion.

[mike777]

"What right does the U.S. have to impose western democracy on anyone?"

What right does the USA have to act in it's national interest? We can all debate what that is and how to achieve it but what right do they have?

[pbleighton]

"What right does the USA have to act in it's national interest? We can all debate what that is and how to achieve it but what right do they have?"

The degree of justification depends on the action proposed to be taken and the circumstances.

Peter

[mike777]

What?

I do not understand this logic, the action justifies itself and provides rights to itself?

[luke warm]

it's a funny thing, mike... there seems to be little or no consistency of thought from some people posting... one minute you'll see negative references to the book 1984, the next you'll see an attack on the principles opposed to those in that book, all by the same people

while i've already stated that i don't agree 100% with the philosophy of objectivism, i do think that the basic tenets contain much truth... and that philosophy is not only meant for the individual, rand's thoughts on it also encompassed nations... so the highest goal (in rand's view) to which a nation (or person) can aspire is to work in its own self interest - to work to ensure its own survival...

in america we've seemingly reached the point where many citizens (i don't know how many, but imo it's too many) have embraced a collective mindset, one that sees as the greatest good that which works for the good of all... an uderstanding of objectivism, an understanding that when one works in one's own self interest then it betters those around him, might help stem that tide... but i doubt it

here's howard roark's summation from the fountainhead ... i'd be interested to know how many people actually understand what he's saying, let alone agree with him.. to refresh memories, 'courtland' was a low income housing project roark designed... the collective mindset says that such a project should have been done for the good it did for those who would live there... roark says that those destined to live there have no bearing on the issue - he created it for himself, for no other reason than that he is a creator

Quote

Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived, and he lifted darkness off the earth.

Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators -- the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors -- stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won.

No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered.

His truth was his only motive.

His work was his only goal.

His work -- not those who used it.

His creation -- not the benefits others derived from it -- the creation which gave form to his truth.

He held his truth above all things and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not, with his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing and no one. He lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement. Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be subordinated to the needs, opinions, or wishes of others. It is not an object of sacrifice.

The creator stands on his own judgment; the parasite follows the opinions of others.

The creator thinks; the parasite copies.

The creator produces; the parasite loots.

The creator's concern is the conquest of nature; the parasite's concern is the conquest of men.

The creator requires independence. He neither serves nor rules. He deals with men by free exchange and voluntary choice.

The parasite seeks power. He wants to bind all men together in common action and common slavery. He claims that man is only a tool for the use of others -- that he must think as they think, act as they act, and live in selfless, joyless servitude to any need but his own.

Look at history: Everything we have, every great achievement has come from the independent work of some independent mind. Every horror and destruction came from attempts to force men into a herd of brainless, soulless robots -- without personal rights, without person ambition, without will, hope, or dignity.

It is an ancient conflict. It has another name: "The individual against the collective."

Our country, the noblest country in the history of men, was based on the principle of individualism, the principle of man's "inalienable rights." It was a country where a man was free to seek his own happiness, to gain and produce, not to give up and renounce; to prosper, not to starve; to achieve, not to plunder; to hold as his highest possession a sense of his personal value, and as his highest virtue his self-respect.

Look at the results. That is what the collectivists are now asking you to destroy, as much of the earth has been destroyed.

I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live. My ideas are my property. They were taken from me by force, by breach of contract. No appeal was left to me.

It was believed that my work belonged to others, to do with as they pleased. They had a claim upon me without my consent -- that it was my duty to serve them without choice or reward.

Now you know why I dynamited Courtland. I designed Courtland. I made it possible. I destroyed it. I agreed to design it for the purpose of it seeing built as I wished. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid. My building was disfigured at the whim of others who took all the benefits of my work and gave me nothing in return.

I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life, nor to any part of my energy, nor to any achievement of mine -- no matter who makes the claim!

It had to be said: The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing. I came here to be heard in the name of every man of independence still left in the world. I wanted to state my terms. I do not care to work or live on any others.

My terms are: A man's RIGHT to exist for his own sake.

[pbleighton]

"What right does the USA have to act in it's national interest? We can all debate what that is and how to achieve it but what right do they have?"

"The degree of justification depends on the action proposed to be taken and the circumstances."

"What?

I do not understand this logic, the action justifies itself and provides rights to itself?"

You left out "and the circumstances"

Let me give you four examples:

1. Nazi Germany invaded countries and murdered many millions of people in order to conquer the world, enrich themselves, and fulfill the wish of God that Aryan Christians rule the world.

2. In WWII, the Allies murdered many millions of people in response to the aggression and mass murder of Germany and Japan.

3. The U.S. gives economic aid selectively to foreign countries, in order to promote its interests.

4. The U.S. has invaded and occupied foreign countries, and caused the deaths of millions of people (2 million in Vietnam alone) in order to promote its interests.

I believe 2 and 3 to be justified, and 1 and 4 to be not justified.

Is this clearer?

Peter

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Oct 4 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

although i don't accept the philosophy of objectivism totally, a lot of what rand wrote rings both true and effective... impact has pretty much summed it up - when a person, group, city, state, country works in their/its own best interest, the best interest of the majority is served... of course this assumes that one is able to logically deduce what is in one's best interest...

Nice little assertion that you are making there. Pity that this isn't the way the world actually works.

There is a very well known branch of economics known as "Public Economics". Public Economics focuses on the intersection of the public sector (aka the government) and the economy. Public economics is full of well known and well accepted examples of market failure where an efficiently operating market leads to a sub-optimal equilibirum. Historically, the classic examples of market failure have been

1. Positive and negative externalities (pollution, schooling, infrastructure such as highways)

2. Public goods: Street lights, police protection, national defense. Some would go so far as to argue that "art" should be considered as a public good

3. Resource extraction problems: Fisheries, oil wells, etc

4. Natural monopoly: The electric company and the waterworks

For what its worth, I'd add another example of market failure. Large companies like Ford, IBM, Microsoft, General Electric and the like rarely use markets inside the company. These titans of capitalism are almost identical to the old fashioned centrally planned economies in Eastern Europe. (I used to work in Symantec's strategic planning organization. Even the vocabulary is the same - "the 5 year plan"). For what its worth, I often think that these companies would work better if they had less planning and more internal market. In particular, I think that cross subsidies between different Profit and Loss centers dramatically erode a companies competitive edge. However, the real issue that needs to be asked is why do all these companies make use of planning and (gasp) collectivism... It certainly suggests that self organizing systems are vulnerable to invasion.

A large portion of my undergrad and graduate studies was in the field of economics. I like markets. I think that they're great when they work. But its incredibly naive to believe that markets and enlightened self interest are sufficient in all cases.

[luke warm]

Quote

Nice little assertion that you are making there

well i wasn't asserting a fact... i wrote, "a lot of what rand wrote rings both true and effective" ... the term 'rings true' means "seem genuine" and implies opinion

my reply to the rest might be off the wall, because i'm not sure exactly what you're saying... are you saying that these

Quote

1. Positive and negative externalities (pollution, schooling, infrastructure such as highways)

2. Public goods: Street lights, police protection, national defense. Some would go so far as to argue that "art" should be considered as a public good

3. Resource extraction problems: Fisheries, oil wells, etc

4. Natural monopoly: The electric company and the waterworks

are examples of efficiently operating markets that led to a a sub-optimal equilibirum, and thus to market failure? if so, i'd argue that none are shining examples of efficiency (though i admit i'm not quite sure what #s 3 and 4 mean, exactly)

it seems to me that it is in america's best interests to reduce pollution to the minimum possible while not adversely affecting other, equally important, things... it's in america's best interests to have a strong infrastructure, strong nat'l defense, excellent schools, etc etc... the fact that we don't have those things isn't proof that we shouldn't, it just shows how difficult it is for countries (and people) to either know what their best interests are or to work toward them... in my opinion

Quote

These titans of capitalism are almost identical to the old fashioned centrally planned economies in Eastern Europe.

is it in their best interests to be so?

Quote

But its incredibly naive to believe that markets and enlightened self interest are sufficient in all cases.

it might be incredibly naive to think enlightened self interest is possible, but it doesn't follow that it's incredibly naive to think it's sufficient - if in fact it is possible