Why Liberals Can’t Think: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Why Liberals Can’t Think » Why Liberals Can’t Think

Why Liberals Can’t Think
Or, why it’s incoherent to be a liberal

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Why Liberals Can’t Think

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/25/09 - 08:35 AM:	#41
sheps wrote: Just to throw in my two cents, I've become highly disillusioned with liberal thinking lately, mainly because of their belief in eternal rights. 'Life, liberty and property' is clearly only a right for some in the world. I'm really with the Marxist on this; the 'rights' of a population are not eternal, they're relevant to a society and part of its superstructure. Plus, liberalism is fundamentally the ideology of capitalism. Individualism and the free market reign. You'll obviously get some more socially aware liberals of the concerned chattering classes arguing in favour of welfarism, but this is only a modern concept of a sort of 'safety net' to satisfy the masses and make liberalism a more electable concept. Plus, the traditional liberal notion of equality of oppurtunity is just as utopian as the socialist opposite of equality of outcome. Effectively, Conservatives are usually far more realistic. That said, I side with the Liberals or Socialists way more than I'd side with Conservatives, as at least they're progessive in their thinking. The whole notion of Conservatism resists change, something which is wholly unnatural. Essentially, I wouldn't say that liberals can't think; I would say that they sometimes think too much, getting wrapped up in the idealistic, eternal and inalienable rights of mankind rather than sitting back and taking a realistic look at the world. To go back on what I said once again though, where would we be without liberal idealism? Rights, at least in the way you understand them, are a societal tool. Governments have always been crowned the dispenser of rights, and in allowing that, every society founded upon rights has really undermined freedom by giving more power to certain people in the government who become the arbiters of 'rights.' Rights and freedom are entirely separate. In the beginning years of the United States, rights were at least said to be derived from freedom, but of course the government still assumed rights higher than the people and even had the power to deny "rights" to entire races. Freedom on the other hand, is inherent. It's very easy to show what freedom means. All it is is the lack of non-consentual authority. In other words, my freedom is only limited by the principles or agreements that individually I rationally consent to or contractually consent to. The only reason you could see progress as important is if you have an end-goal in mind. Of course progress is neccessary because a free society has never existed. But you should evaluate whether your 'progress' moves society a step closer to freedom or whether it, like every socialist society attempted in the past, takes mankind back to the dark ages of greed and irresponsibility. The way to solve selfishness is not to create a class of dependent people with no need for a conscience. Look at what happened, for example, during Mao's "Great Leap Forward." 20 million Chinese starved to death, but the worst thing about it was that their survival was completely in the hands of someone else. That is the reality of any 'right to life,' living under a government regime: the government 'graciously' grants it to you, but the government has the 'right' to take it away for any reason. At least if millions died of starvation in a free market country, their lives would still have been in their own hands. You probably don't understand the theory behind a real free market. It is unfree that any person should have greater access to raw resources than another person. Property and ability kick in when it comes to transforming those resources into valuable material goods. So in a free market, my survival would never be beyond my own effort because my access to natural resources is not in the hands of corporations or socialist "distributive justice." The only exception is when my allocating resources individually infringes upon the freedom of others, which means hording resources or manipulating the supply and demand of the market in any way. Socialist allocation of resources always requires an allocater, which means there is an individual or group with immense power over the lives of the 'collective.' So much for equality. The 'liberal corrections' to the free market, like welfare, social security, and all these other government programs aimed at equality first of all don't work, the same groups that are impoverished today were impoverised before Johnson's great society and before FDR's New Deal, but secondly they are all revisionist ways of ignoring the real problem. The real problem is resource ownership, not capitalism.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

Posted 10/25/09 - 09:39 AM:	#42
Odin wrote: In other words, my freedom is only limited by the principles or agreements that individually I rationally consent to or contractually consent to. Have you consented to laws made before you were born? Odin wrote: The only reason you could see progress as important is if you have an end-goal in mind. Of course progress is neccessary because a free society has never existed. But you should evaluate whether your 'progress' moves society a step closer to freedom or whether it, like every socialist society attempted in the past, takes mankind back to the dark ages of greed and irresponsibility. Capitalism keeps us in the dark ages of greed and irresponsability. I'm not a Communist, by the way, there are many fine points of capitalism. However, trying to claim that capitalism is the best system there'll ever be, and that it somehow ensures freedom is naive, in my opinion. Odin wrote: The way to solve selfishness is not to create a class of dependent people with no need for a conscience. Absolutely, but at least communist societies have tried to solve selfishness. Capitalism has even, at some points, seen it as good - "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the wickedest of men will do the wickedest of things for the greater good." (Keynes). Odin wrote: Look at what happened, for example, during Mao's "Great Leap Forward." 20 million Chinese starved to death, but the worst thing about it was that their survival was completely in the hands of someone else. That is the reality of any 'right to life,' living under a government regime: the government 'graciously' grants it to you, but the government has the 'right' to take it away for any reason. The government can take away one's right to life in capitalism as well - its the state, its got the power. Whether it is capitalist or communist, it still has armies and police forces. And Mao's attempt at Communism in an almost completely agrarian society is not a great example of an attempt to create true Communism in action. Its a common one to use if one wants to criticise communism, but as been said a million times, the Soviet Union and China did not even try to adhere to orthodox Marxism. Odin wrote: At least if millions died of starvation in a free market country, their lives would still have been in their own hands. You probably don't understand the theory behind a real free market. It is unfree that any person should have greater access to raw resources than another person. Property and ability kick in when it comes to transforming those resources into valuable material goods. So in a free market, my survival would never be beyond my own effort because my access to natural resources is not in the hands of corporations or socialist "distributive justice." So, according to you we should all shut up and accept that the free market is the ultimate provider of freedom. This requires a belief that absolute competition is natural in human beings, something which I could never agree with. This is a quibble on human nature though, and its always the argument between capitalists and communists. Agreed, you're not free in an oppressive communist regime with 'distributive justice,' but is a starving child who happens to be born in the middle of a desert in Africa really free to 'better himself' under the free market? In theory, he may be. You can attack me and say that I do not understand the theory of a free market. However, anyone can see that the consequences on the world of industrial and finance capitalism (imperialism, for example) have cost just as many lives, perhaps more, than the actions of Stalin and Mao. Odin wrote: So much for equality. You may not believe that equality is possible, which is a fair viewpoint. However, one cannot argue that equality can be created within a capitalist structure; liberals and evolutionary socialists who say this are naive. The oppressive state regimes of communism were an attempt to create an equal and free society in the future. Now, you can say that's naive, but at least they tried. Odin wrote: The real problem is resource ownership, not capitalism. The REAL problem is that inequality and greed come about when resources are not totally abundent to satisfy everyone's material wants. There have not been enough resources for all on Earth for thousands of years, and as such inequality has come about. Communism is a man-made attempt to correct the inequality 'imposed' upon us by nature; capitalism just sits back and lets it continue, supplementing the masses with the stories of the one in a million rich entrepeneurs, who built themselves up from nothing, to give the rest of us the tiniest glimmer of hope. So yes, we can all look up and say 'isn't Alan Sugar wonderful; he built himself up from being so poor.' Sugar, though, is an extremely rare exception. Most of the rich in our society come from priviliged, upper-middle class backgrounds and the rest of us don't stand a chance. The idea of trying to portray the free market as some sort of great enabling 'free' system that anyone can succed in ignores all privilige which has been given to some people because of being born to the right parents, and deceives people with the illusion of better conditions for most under capitalism.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/25/09 - 11:11 AM:	#43
sheps wrote: Have you consented to laws made before you were born? That depends on the law. Definately not in the Lockean sense that I have to consent to any old laws passed by the founding generation. Only laws that I am rationally required to consent to are legitimate. For instance, a law like 'I cannot impose my own authority over others, nor can others impose authority over me" attracts universal consent from those who want to live free of authority. Those who would like to have authority imposed on them, can then have this law imposed upon them as well. So the law becomes universal. Capitalism keeps us in the dark ages of greed and irresponsability. I'm not a Communist, by the way, there are many fine points of capitalism. However, trying to claim that capitalism is the best system there'll ever be, and that it somehow ensures freedom is naive, in my opinion. Let me just say I do think you're making many intelligent points but I think there is a bit of misunderstanding of what a free market really entails on your part. Let me use a favorite example of mine to show what I mean. You may know of T Boone Pickens. He's a multi-billionaire who was trying to get the people to vote to finance a wind farm project he was trying to get about a year ago. He also bought an enormous amount of underground US water resources. His motive for the wind farms was to try to trick the environmentalist liberals to provide him the energy he needed to pump his water hundreds of miles to cities in Texas. Since he anticipates a water shortage in the future, his motive was to horde water and make big money on auctioning people's lifeblood in the future when demand has shot way up and he has cut off available supply greatly. I'm sure to most of us hording neccessary resources like that to make profit sounds like pure evil and sounds like a huge problem in the capitalist system. But really it isn't part of a free market system. Capitalism until now has been all about 'buying' ownership of resources, when in fact resources belong to all of humanity, and a resource only becomes property when labor or intellect is appled to it to give it greater use or value. In a real free market system T Boone would never be allowed to horde resources which belong to everyone and sell them to the rest of us as if he has added some value to them. In a free market, T Boone could build the pumps and charge his customers the value of transporting water to them, but never charge them for the water itself. Any other company or individual would be allowed to pump from the same water supply, creating competition, raising efficiency and lowering costs. In today's society i would be arrested for 'trespassing' on T Boone's property to get myself a drink, despite that a rational person can only conclude that the earth's resources belong as much to me as they do to anyone else. The government can take away one's right to life in capitalism as well - its the state, its got the power. Whether it is capitalist or communist, it still has armies and police forces. And Mao's attempt at Communism in an almost completely agrarian society is not a great example of an attempt to create true Communism in action. Its a common one to use if one wants to criticise communism, but as been said a million times, the Soviet Union and China did not even try to adhere to orthodox Marxism. Except, at least in my view, capitalism can exist without a coercive government. Socialism, or any form of distributive justice, requires an authority with the power to allocate resources. So, according to you we should all shut up and accept that the free market is the ultimate provider of freedom. This requires a belief that absolute competition is natural in human beings, something which I could never agree with. This is a quibble on human nature though, and its always the argument between capitalists and communists. Agreed, you're not free in an oppressive communist regime with 'distributive justice,' but is a starving child who happens to be born in the middle of a desert in Africa really free to 'better himself' under the free market? In theory, he may be. You can attack me and say that I do not understand the theory of a free market. However, anyone can see that the consequences on the world of industrial and finance capitalism (imperialism, for example) have cost just as many lives, perhaps more, than the actions of Stalin and Mao. No, but I think the free market works toward the goal of maximum abundance and working together. Competition eventually leads to ending the profit motive. And once the profit motive is gone there is no reason to have any more competition. Competition only exists when it is to find a more efficient or technological way or doing something. And when "capitalism" can create maximum abundance, competition will not be 'law of the jungle' surivalist competition, but humanitic, respectful competition. Soon there will be no need to 'fight for survival.' You may not believe that equality is possible, which is a fair viewpoint. However, one cannot argue that equality can be created within a capitalist structure; liberals and evolutionary socialists who say this are naive. The oppressive state regimes of communism were an attempt to create an equal and free society in the future. Now, you can say that's naive, but at least they tried. I believe that equality is secondary to freedom. I believe all human beings are equally free and own the resources of the Earth equally. A free market, at least the one I advocate, ensures that all people are easily capable of surviving and prospering on their own efforts and ability, without surrendering their labor to corporations. Given that, no one can assert a right to the superior abilities of others. Others are, of course, free to exercise their compassion through charity in any means they wish, which is of course laudible and neccessary to build character.

itinerant
reluctant marxist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2006

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 259

Posted 10/25/09 - 11:45 AM:	#44
jaoman wrote: I didn't know we were bad. But, hey, anything for a smooch. Pucker up, sweet-lips! See, it's not so bad after all. We can maintain our relationship even though I think your world-view borders on incoherent. Everything in human society is reducible to individual action. Come on now, honey. This is exactly what any sociologically-informed account of human action will deny. Remember Quine? It's been fashionable at least since him, and definitely since Jaegwon Kim's reply to him, to do away with reductionism and (with Kim) to look for supervenient properties. Just as the normative supervenes on the descriptive, or the mental on the physical, so does the social on the individual. But, none of the first are reducible to the second. To see why, all we need to do is acknowledge that there are patterns of behavior/structure in society. (Of course, were there no individuals, there would be no patterns. But, given that there are many individuals, we can look at patterns of their organization within and by, e.g., a hierarchical, capitalist society.) The food industry is an example of this. Like other capitalist industries, it seeks to maximize profit. And, again like other industries, one way it seeks to do so is by minimizing costs. That means production on a mass scale, paying workers as little as possible, etc. Now, if we try to reduce the above features of the food industry to the actions of individuals, we end up with Popper's Conspiracy Theory of Society. That is, the actions of the whole are seen as actions of a few conniving, colluding individuals. But, to see things this way is to miss the larger patterns that the actions of the few fall into, like maximizing profits by minimizing costs or constant surveillance of workers to keep them maximally productive. ...mass action by individuals can create systemic changes. How this would happen I specified at the end of my previous reply to you. Supply and demand, basically...So, the answer to the OP is that 3) is faulty. Solutions to problems can also come from further down along the reductionist scale. You don't expect a Marxist to deny your premise, do you? Of course mass action can create systemic changes. But, I've been arguing that mass action presupposes mass "ability," and that that ability is lacking when it comes to most people's food purchases. Where I shop, organics are often double the price of non-organics. Now, the reason I and so many others cannot just switch to organics is that we already spend everything we earn (and then some, which makes us the indentured servants of credit card companies). Worse, the food industry's reach is global, so its practices can't be significantly altered by "better choices" by even a majority of those in rich countries. When the top 10 percent of the world's adults have 85 percent of its wealth, and the bottom fifty percent have only 1.1 percent, the hope for a "consumer revolution" looks very dim. (Of course, another kind of revolution could do the job, but that's a different story.)
Philosophy should be more than an apology for capitalism

itinerant
reluctant marxist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2006

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 259

Posted 10/25/09 - 11:49 AM:	#45
sheps wrote: Where would we be without liberal idealism? Better, where would liberal idealism be without "our" social system to support it?
Philosophy should be more than an apology for capitalism

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

Posted 10/25/09 - 12:34 PM:	#46
Odin wrote: That depends on the law. Definately not in the Lockean sense that I have to consent to any old laws passed by the founding generation. Only laws that I am rationally required to consent to are legitimate. For instance, a law like 'I cannot impose my own authority over others, nor can others impose authority over me" attracts universal consent from those who want to live free of authority. Those who would like to have authority imposed on them, can then have this law imposed upon them as well. So the law becomes universal. Interesting. I seem to remember the likes of Thomas Paine et al. arguing against the ridiculousness of having old institutions imposed upon new generations, and I naturally agree with him and you. Laws should obviously always be open to change, but it is difficult for many in our society to perceive of a situation where murder, for example, would be beneficial. However, wars still take place even in the most liberal of lands, and as such institutionalised murder, i.e. war between countries, does seem to be an inevitable part of the human condition. Even laws against murder are relative, as there are still examples of murder which the state allows, such as the above example of war. Odin wrote: But really it isn't part of a free market system. Capitalism until now has been all about 'buying' ownership of resources, when in fact resources belong to all of humanity, and a resource only becomes property when labor or intellect is appled to it to give it greater use or value. In a real free market system T Boone would never be allowed to horde resources which belong to everyone and sell them to the rest of us as if he has added some value to them. In a free market, T Boone could build the pumps and charge his customers the value of transporting water to them, but never charge them for the water itself. Any other company or individual would be allowed to pump from the same water supply, creating competition, raising efficiency and lowering costs. In today's society i would be arrested for 'trespassing' on T Boone's property to get myself a drink, despite that a rational person can only conclude that the earth's resources belong as much to me as they do to anyone else. Reasonable enough rationale which work in theory and maybe in practice. I have no problem with Boone pumping out the water, and using the profits from his sale of the pumped water to pay his costs. However, he is still trying to make as much money as possible (because of the reliance on materialism in a capitalist system to drive people) and so drives down the wages of his workers, who can never be as 'free' as him as they are paid only enough to live on. It is the gradual reduction of workers pay which leads to recessions and depressions. One would hope that the competiton from other companies will drive prices down so that workers can afford them, but the fact that there are other companies competing with him to pump out the water can make no difference if the workers' wages are so low that they cannot afford any company's water. Often, effeiciency savings that companies make are simple taken by them as more profit; they keep the price of their water the same. Put it this way; no one should be making money out of water or any other resource vital to human life, in my opinion. Someone has to pump it out for humans to survive en mass, and I see no problem with the state handling this instead of profit-driven companies. If one wants a capitalist system, one should rely on profit from materialist and luxury goods, not the sale of resources vital to human existence on the planet. Either you rely on these, or there has to be some regulation on how low employee wages can go, like a minimum wage, so that they can always afford the water. This obviously entails welfarism, which is always a bit of a curb on any free market economy. Odin wrote: Except, at least in my view, capitalism can exist without a coercive government. Socialism, or any form of distributive justice, requires an authority with the power to allocate resources. Oh, no doubt that capitalism results in the minimalising of state power, but if the state doesn't control resources, private firms do. I know the theory is that they can compete to offer the consumer the best deal, but it doesn't always work that way. I think I'd rather have resources vital to me sold to me by a state which I have a democratic say in (just because a state can coerce minorities into doing or not doing things doesn't make it un-democratic) than a private company which is totally unaccountable. I'm not in favour of state repression, I believe that in this case the state is acting as an enabling body, not a repressive one. Odin wrote: No, but I think the free market works toward the goal of maximum abundance and working together. Competition eventually leads to ending the profit motive. And once the profit motive is gone there is no reason to have any more competition. Competition only exists when it is to find a more efficient or technological way or doing something. And when "capitalism" can create maximum abundance, competition will not be 'law of the jungle' surivalist competition, but humanitic, respectful competition. Soon there will be no need to 'fight for survival.' I think this bears some similarities with the belief that state socialism is the path to true freedom. It would be nice to think that everyone will someday be competing purely for satisfaction under capitalism, but I cannot see that a theory based on the privitisation of commodities, and making profit from the sale of those commodities will ever lead to a society where people merely compete to do things better or more effeciently. In fact, I think what you're describing is the end game of Marxism - 'competition only exists when it is to find a more efficient or technological way of doing something.' So, money and the fetishisation of materialist goods will have gone, and people will be only competing with each other to improve society and make themselves feel better? Sounds like the dream world of a Marxist... Odin wrote: Competition eventually leads to ending the profit motive. Does this mean the ending of private property? Odin wrote: I believe that equality is secondary to freedom. I believe all human beings are equally free and own the resources of the Earth equally. A free market, at least the one I advocate, ensures that all people are easily capable of surviving and prospering on their own efforts and ability, without surrendering their labor to corporations. Given that, no one can assert a right to the superior abilities of others. Others are, of course, free to exercise their compassion through charity in any means they wish, which is of course laudible and neccessary to build character. Where is the right to the aspiration to private property, a key principal of liberal capitalism, in this? In this future society which the free market can create, will people still be economically unequal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I cannot see a society which still has inequality but not profit and private property. Even under communism, the mantra of everybody being equal is wrong; people need not be equal in the amount they produce in a utopian communist society. They will want to produce more than their fellow worker because of the intrinsic happiness work satisfaction brings to human beings. Everyone will be materially equal, but that doesn't matter, as they will acheive happiness from striving towards better technology, and "man's mastery over nature." The end game of your model of free market based economics sounds much like a communist utopia, to me.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2253

Posted 10/25/09 - 02:01 PM:	#47
The whole question boils down to how do you measure the advance of society? Some would look at the luxurious lives of the richest among us and claim that society has advanced to the greatest heights ever achieved. Others would look at the lowest among us and claim that society has not advanced at all. Both are correct. This is the contradictory nature of the perception of social advancement. The world has shrunk, wild frontiers no longer exist. Instead of us against them conflict is reduced to us against ourselves. The days of ignoring the plight of others is over. A global consensus is forming. What shape it will ultimately become is still a question but there are a few things that are becoming clear. People want freedom to live their lives without undue interference from the state. They want freedom from coercion and exploitation and murder no matter who is doing it. They want decent food and adequate shelter and health care and education for their children. Above all they want the opportunity to make an honest living that allows them to accomplish all this. The really interesting thing about this is that a great consensus of poor people worldwide believe that this is possible and the only thing preventing them from a good life is the greed of the developed world. They are not wrong. Business in the developed world is not about the best and most efficient use of resources for the advancement of society but for the advancement of business. It would be great thing if capitalism could provide social advancement for all instead of the few. Alas, I fear this is not to be. The capitalists are entrenched in their misguided individualism and the socialists assail these bastions with their unconvincing convictions of egalitarianism. We need something in the middle ground. A base of existence guaranteed to all and a freedom for capitalist pursuit. It is no longer acceptable for some to wallow in luxury while others languish in poverty and despair. We are all connected now.

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1426

Posted 10/25/09 - 02:32 PM:	#48
itinerant wrote: Come on now, honey. This is exactly what any sociologically-informed account of human action will deny. Remember Quine? It's been fashionable at least since him, and definitely since Jaegwon Kim's reply to him, to do away with reductionism and (with Kim) to look for supervenient properties. Just as the normative supervenes on the descriptive, or the mental on the physical, so does the social on the individual. But, none of the first are reducible to the second. Well, buttercup, I'm perfectly happy to switch reduction for supervention in this case. It's even more accurate. However, supervention does not dismiss reduction; rather, it does away with the absoluteness of it. A social phenomenon is still reducible to a collection of individual phenomenons. It is just not dependent on that specific pattern for it's realization. This means that what I said was correct, if incomplete. Everything in human society is reducible to individual action, just not necessarily a one specific action. itinerant wrote: Now, if we try to reduce the above features of the food industry to the actions of individuals, we end up with Popper's Conspiracy Theory of Society. That is, the actions of the whole are seen as actions of a few conniving, colluding individuals. But, to see things this way is to miss the larger patterns that the actions of the few fall into, like maximizing profits by minimizing costs or constant surveillance of workers to keep them maximally productive. Ah, but I didn't say the larger pattern didn't exist. What I said was that is reduces (meant supervenes) on the smaller pattern of individual action. Changes in that pattern of individual action will effect changes upon the larger pattern. itinerant wrote: You don't expect a Marxist to deny your premise, do you? Of course mass action can create systemic changes. But, I've been arguing that mass action presupposes mass "ability," and that that ability is lacking when it comes to most people's food purchases. Where I shop, organics are often double the price of non-organics. Now, the reason I and so many others cannot just switch to organics is that we already spend everything we earn (and then some, which makes us the indentured servants of credit card companies). Worse, the food industry's reach is global, so its practices can't be significantly altered by "better choices" by even a majority of those in rich countries. When the top 10 percent of the world's adults have 85 percent of its wealth, and the bottom fifty percent have only 1.1 percent, the hope for a "consumer revolution" looks very dim. (Of course, another kind of revolution could do the job, but that's a different story.) Can't succeed if you refuse to try, babe. The fact that organics are even placed on the shelves is proof that the consumer revolution, impossible as it may look, is nevertheless happening.
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5580

Posted 10/26/09 - 02:17 AM:	#49
Now, if you can show how the structural problems in 1') are reducible to individual actions, you win. If not, reductionism -- which is dead in just about every other domain -- is dead in economics, too. (Tobias, this applies to your Margaret Thatcher reasoning, too.) To recap, though, I say Food Inc. is incoherent because it talks about structural problems for the first 3/4 of the movie, then concludes with the blind, ideological solution of, "We just need to make better choices." I guess all those people who died from E. Coli in their food had it coming, and it's illegal Mexicans' fault that companies pay them less than minimum wage, huh? These individuals just made bad choices. You mistake what it means to "make better choices". The movie appeals to consumers to make better choices (better here being more healthy, with more feeling for social inequalities or what not) If we would do that, than the food industy would shift its production strategies. This is all perfectly logical if you aks me. The question would be how to go about that. Well we have all kinds of campaigns targeting exactly that. You can also work with tax schemes and subsidies. I wonder what you favourite solution would be. Legislation? I wouldn't be in favour of that because In want to be able to eat fatty foods if I want to.
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

itinerant
reluctant marxist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2006

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 259

Posted 10/26/09 - 03:22 PM:	#50
jaoman, it seems we agree on supervenience and on the existence of social patterns. How, then, do you deny that the consumer revolution isn't plausible in the face of stark economic inequality? Granted, the upper-middle, Volvo driving, latte sippers can afford to shop at Whole Foods, and granted that Walmart has now seen it in their business interest to carry "organics" (the lobbying efforts of big companies succeeded in redefining "organic" to much more lenient standards), how does this apply to the majority of people? Let me put in a syllogism: a) Consumer choice presupposes consumer ability-to-pay. b) Worldwide, most consumers don't have the ability-to-pay for organics. c) Therefore, they can't choose to buy organics. Since b) is the crucial premise here, let's get some info in front of us. Again, the top 10 percent of the world's adults have 85 percent of its wealth, and the bottom fifty percent have only 1.1 percent. Worse, the bottom 40% of people, which numbers about 2.5 billion, live on less than 2$/day (PPP 1993); on average, they can buy about as much each year as $666 would fetch in a typical rich country. Even in the U.S., wealth distribution is grossly unequal, with the top 20% holding 85% of the nation's wealth, and the bottom 80% holding only the remaining 15%. I have to admit one thing, though. Of course you're right that some of us in the wealthy countries, including me with my whopping $15K/year income, could change our expenses so that we could buy "organics." But -- and here's the real site of the incoherence in the liberal's consumer revolution -- doing so would require us to make cuts elsewhere, including in purchases of things that liberals also say we should "choose" not to purchase. For ex., we should buy fuel efficient cars (or, where possible, use public transportation). We should buy "sweat-free" clothes, ones certified not to come from sweatshops. We should buy local, support union-made products, and avoid big chain store and major corporate brands. We should only buy from companies that pay their employees a living wage. And so on and so on. These and other examples, together, are wishful thinking. The consumer revolution will not change the socioeconomic system because it will not happen. A mass consumer movement that would satisfy all the above "shoulds" presupposes that the individuals involved have the economic power to pull it off. But, the data shows otherwise: very few of us have the economic ability to so drastically change our purchases, and those of us who do are the beneficiaries of the system, and so the least likely to pursue such changes (or, if not, any systematic reform of it). All this means, as Tobias wants me to explain, that the solution has to be something more than a bourgeois consumer revolution. Sorry to tease, but I'll have to save the details of that for tomorrow. (Hint: it can't be just passing a law or otherwise working within the system, either.)
Philosophy should be more than an apology for capitalism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.