The intrinsic worth of persons and our duty to society: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » The intrinsic worth of persons and our duty to society » The intrinsic worth of persons and our duty to society

The intrinsic worth of persons and our duty to society
Libertarians are selfish b******s

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The intrinsic worth of persons and our duty to society

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/07/08 - 08:57 AM:	#26
keda wrote: The problem with slaves is that they will try to impose slavery on others through their masters. The socialist sin is greed, for he jealously lusts after his neighbour's property. Very well put. I'm curious, Keda, any idea where this urge to replace kindness, love, and charity with egalitarian "social justice" came from? I've always wondered who first proposed that. I don't think it was Marx.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 04/07/08 - 09:14 AM:	#27
keda wrote: The problem with slaves is that they will try to impose slavery on others through their masters. The socialist sin is greed, for he jealously lusts after his neighbour's property. Hunh? How does any of that make any sense? Seriously: "The problem with slaves is that they will try to impose slavery on others through their masters." I would have thought that the problem with slaves is their masters and the master-slave relationship. Or maybe that's the problem for slaves and that the problem of slaves for the rest of us is that awful tendency of slaves to want others to be enslaved by their masters rather than to actually be free of their slavery. One only has to look at the writing of black activists in the days of American slavery to see that they wished fervently to be in slavery along with others. If we accept that statement, then there is still the non sequitor to the statement about socialism, since there is nothing in the first statement about socialism and nothing in the second statement about slavery. And is the socialist's sin a sin according to some given doctrine of socialism or is the socialist's sin a sin that one must commit in order to be a socialist? And how is it determined to be a sin? And how are the two statements not simply a non sequitor to the entire thread, which has nothing to do with slavery or greed? We might define the fact the people must rely on their society as some kind of slavery, but this would not serve any particular purpose. Perhaps putting the non sequitor in the thread was meant to point out that absolutely abysmal lack of reasoning in the posts of cortes. However, a direct statement to that effect would be far more illuminating. The non sequitor post might be more gratifying, however, and actually serve a non-argumentative purpose where no argument could be effective.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Clay
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/07/08 - 10:06 PM:	#28
Glypt wrote: Any wealth that Libertarian ethics (well there's a contradiction in terms) insist on keeping to themselves would be impossible without a civilised society. Every thought, every desire, every belief, everything that there is to believe in ...COMES FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF HUMAN BEINGS AND THE PLANET UPON WHICH THEY LIVE! First you argue that the dignity of the human being is central to your political and moral analysis and then you argue that the rights of the individual must be subordinated to the rights of the society. Which is it? I would argue that "societies" are morally neutral; that is, they have no rights and are incapable of violating the rights of others because they have no independent volition. To move into libertarian philosophy specifically, you claim that it is unethical exploit the opportunities that life presents to us. By contrast, a die hard libertarian might argue that it is immoral to refrain from exploiting such opportunities. To do so would be to refrain from creating wealth, the principle goal of libertarian thought. Property rights are a method of encouraging people to create wealth. If a better system could be designed, I would hope that thoughtful libertarians would abandon their property rights obsession. What we do with wealth once we have created it, whether we put it up our noses, buy cars and crash them, or give it to the needy really is outside the domain of libertarian political philosophy proper and becomes part of moral philosophy. To put it in your terms, I have a social duty not to kill you and take you things, not to defraud you, not to violate your person in any way. If I acquire resources through illegitimate means, there is ample room within libertarian thought for restitution. However, the libertarian mechanisms for wealth redistribution over time are market transactions and charity. To say that I should not act wisely for my own benefit or that if I do the government should take from me and give to another simply because all that I consume cannot be consumed by him is to make an imbalanced assessment of the rights and duties inherent in the social relationship.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 118

Posted 04/08/08 - 01:25 AM:	#29
Clay wrote: First you argue that the dignity of the human being is central to your political and moral analysis and then you argue that the rights of the individual must be subordinated to the rights of the society. Which is it? Thank you for your message. You must realise that misrepresenting and being unfairly selective about what I've said is very poor philosophy, but I'm sure in your case you have merely not noticed my initial posting. To quote myself I said this at the start of the thread: "A person is the product of the society of which they are a part: A significant aspect of associations between individuals is language. Language enables thought...desire and belief. Our beliefs and desires underwrites our behaviour and experiences...the building blocks of our personal history that constitutes our character. Individual persons would not survive as human beings without the civilising effects of human society. A clear interdependent relation exists between private psychologies and public discourse. Given the above, it seems an unassailable truth that individuals need society and society needs individuals." I had also hoped that phrases like 'associations of human beings' would carry that proposition, it is usually a given in philosophical discourse. So you see there can be said to be a reciprocity of respect between 'the interests of individual' and 'the interests of collective individuals'. You have both of these also, you have your private interests and your public interests. Both of these need protecting under the law. Much of the rest of your message is negated given the above state of affairs. Clay wrote: ... you claim that it is unethical exploit the opportunities that life presents to us. Building such a straw man does you no credit. I have never said that ...quite the contrary I have liberal aspirations also, which entails individual freedom. But with freedom comes responsibility. Clay wrote: What we do with wealth once we have created it, whether we put it up our noses, buy cars and crash them, or give it to the needy really is outside the domain of libertarian political philosophy proper and becomes part of moral philosophy. Politics is the expression of morality, its roots feed from the interdependent notions of substantive and procedural justice, which is the epitome of the moral and ethical interdependent relation. You have a duty to the system that made it possible to acquire wealth. Clay wrote: ....the libertarian mechanisms for wealth redistribution over time are market transactions and charity. Mechanisms for redistribution, market transactions etc are social mechanisms...that is the point. The market place does not exist in a vacuum it affects and it is supported by all the predicaments of society and such a system is responsible for both positive and negative effects both locally and world wide. You depend upon the actions of others to make money and to distribute it...it is a reciprocal sytem that engages the individual's private and public interest. If you are a person you are the product of your private psychologies, which are formed by relating to other people and in turn those people are informed by you. How you behave impacts upon others, we learn this early in our lives. Thanks again for your message. Edited by Glypt on 04/08/08 - 01:29 AM

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 760

Posted 04/08/08 - 01:40 AM:	#30
Keda, - The problem with slaves is that they will try to impose slavery on others through their masters. The socialist sin is greed, for he jealously lusts after his neighbour's property. This is just rhetorical BS. You talk about socialism (as many on this thread- especially cortes) as if it were an ideology without reason or without a history; i'm not a socialist (Anarchist); people fail to see that the history of "socialism" and its leaders have brought the many freedoms, and rights that people enjoy today. You only need to dip into a page of US History to see this truism. You will find, not just oppression of the black man, but oppression of working class people - it was true to say that america was not "the land of the free....blah blah blah..." (this ideology, written in black and white contradicted what was happening on the ground) The history of the government- a small tightly entwined wealthy and vastly powerful oligarghy controlling 95+% of the nations wealth/property, and the "working class" (although the oligarghy wanted to remove this term, as all people are "equal" in the US) were in low paid, non-union jobs, and had no political power - and fed the fat pigs at the top. And, in many ways, those fucknuts at the top still control the wealth; the oligarchy is still in place. So, what do I think of "socialism" in these terms - it can only be good for the working people of the nation to get what they work for, it can only be good that there is a nation "land of the free..."
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Clay
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/08/08 - 07:38 AM:	#31
I did in fact read your original post. Saying that with freedom comes responsibility is same as saying that freedom is an illusion. It is akin to saying "freedom is slavery." Freedom is actually the opposite of responsibility. If by becoming "freer" I acquired new duties and obligations the word would cease to denote what it denotes. In this peculiar social context, I am free to ignore you, I do not have a duty to continue reading your posts, though perhaps one would argue that it is the right thing for me to do. The reason you are unwilling to concede these points is that gravity of you argument rests on the global "must" you attempt to describe. I'm sorry but you're no Kant. What you really mean to say is we all should be socially conscious, we all should help each other out. . . but that doesn't sound nearly as impressive and it doesn't stir people up on the internet.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 118

Posted 04/08/08 - 09:11 AM:	#32
Clay wrote: Saying that with freedom comes responsibility is same as saying that freedom is an illusion. It is akin to saying "freedom is slavery." Freedom is actually the opposite of responsibility. If by becoming "freer" I acquired new duties and obligations the word would cease to denote what it denotes. You partly misunderstand me here, although perhaps freedom is in a sense illusory or at least total freedom may be. Well, doesn't it largely depend upon whether you believe in such a thing as unconstrained freedom as a coherent notion? I would suggest that, for you to be free, constitutes a relative idea… ultimately even your use of the word is contingent. It is contingent, for one thing upon a society that develops a language. Look at it another way, are wild animals free? Can they be free if they do not even know what freedom means? As far as humans are concerned your freedoms would be less if there were not certain laws that protect you, hospitals to care for you, educational establishments to teach you about the world or even a family that feels allegiances towards you. If all this is even partly true of the human condition, would you feel justified in taking these benefits without a sense of duty to protect such sources of liberty? The point is that if civilisation ignores such responsibilities then even such relative freedom is threatened. Given what you value about yourself as the centre of a life capable of making moral judgements is it not coherent that the other people, of similar value with whom and from whom you have forged your beliefs and desires, should not demand your allegiance? Given the context of political freedom and the cooriginality of private and public autonomy freedom is contingent upon you living up to a duty of respect, a personal responsibility, toward the political freedom of others. Clay wrote: In this peculiar social context, I am free to ignore you, I do not have a duty to continue reading your posts, though perhaps one would argue that it is the right thing for me to do. Of course that is true but even that freedom could be taken away without a political system that ensures that state of affairs. If I were a libertarian despot, at the top of the post-civilisation heap, I could force you to do whatever was within my power or have you executed, so I suppose you would be free to die. Perhaps that is what you mean by denoting freedom? Clay wrote: I'm sorry but you're no Kant. If being Kant were a condition of participating in these discursive diversions then I would respectfully suggest to you that no one would be contributing. Only joking, you are right, I'm not Kant, and I accept that you are making a tacit criticism of my philosophical abilities. You might even be criticising me personally... arguing ad hominem so to speak . I just wonder whether you are intellectually equipped to judge, how much do you know about Kant or myself?. Clay wrote: What you really mean to say is we all should be socially conscious, we all should help each other out. . . but that doesn't sound nearly as impressive and it doesn't stir people up on the internet. I must point out that this is a philosophical forum... mere assertions do not count. I'm giving reasons for the views I hold. I do not know all of what you mean exactly but if I've strirred you up and you didn't want to be then I honestly apologise. Feel free to ignore me but if you have further difficulty understanding my position then of course do respond.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/08/08 - 11:55 AM:	#33
Clay wrote: In this peculiar social context, I am free to ignore you, I do not have a duty to continue reading your posts, though perhaps one would argue that it is the right thing for me to do. The reason you are unwilling to concede these points is that gravity of you argument rests on the global "must" you attempt to describe. I'm sorry but you're no Kant. What you really mean to say is we all should be socially conscious, we all should help each other out. . . but that doesn't sound nearly as impressive and it doesn't stir people up on the internet. The fundamental fallacy of Glypts argument is that "society" is an undifferientiated mass across time and space. Therefore if your parents gave birth to you that is "society". Glypt's entire argument falls apart as soon as you begin to make distinctions. If you make distinctions then you can make rational choices about where to invest yourself. This would be common sense anywhere else but a philosophy forum.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/08/08 - 11:57 AM:	#34
litkey wrote: You only need to dip into a page of US History to see this truism. You will find, not just oppression of the black man, but oppression of working class people - it was true to say that america was not "the land of the free....blah blah blah..." "Help, help, I'm being opressed!" "Bloody peasant!"
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 2391

Posted 04/08/08 - 01:09 PM:	#35
cortes wrote: I'm curious, Keda, any idea where this urge to replace kindness, love, and charity with egalitarian "social justice" came from? I've always wondered who first proposed that. I don't think it was Marx. I suppose it is a very old idea, but to bear fruit (which by it iherent flaws must be rotten) it requires a large number of naive idiots to buy it. The central bankers were very clever people and still are, and most of the people were very naive, and they still are. Kwalish Kid wrote: Seriously: "The problem with slaves is that they will try to impose slavery on others through their masters." I would have thought that the problem with slaves is their masters and the master-slave relationship. Or maybe that's the problem for slaves and that the problem of slaves for the rest of us is that awful tendency of slaves to want others to be enslaved by their masters rather than to actually be free of their slavery. One only has to look at the writing of black activists in the days of American slavery to see that they wished fervently to be in slavery along with others. Anyone who truly values freedom knows that freedom is not free. It is paid with the blood of patriots. The obvious problem with the slave population is that they would sell their freedom as well as that of others for security, but the historical reality is that you have never got security out of selling your freedom, just tyranny. If we accept that statement, then there is still the non sequitor to the statement about socialism, since there is nothing in the first statement about socialism and nothing in the second statement about slavery. Nor is there are "therefore", and therefore there is no non sequitur. I'm just adding my two centences to the debate. You may wonder what I'm trying to say or how it is relevant to the debate, so I will put forth the connection. Glypt is apparently trying impose on us duties toward society and even the environment with the justification that we need them. I do need many things, including sunlight, but I have no duties toward the sun for that matter. Private property rights means, I can do whatever I want with my property as long as I do not violate anyones rights, including buying a second house. Privation of those property rights is tantamount to slavery. The condition under which the fruits of ones labour is taken without consent is per definition slavery. Edited by keda on 04/08/08 - 01:13 PM
_____________________ Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/08/08 - 02:10 PM:	#36
keda wrote: cortes wrote: I'm curious, Keda, any idea where this urge to replace kindness, love, and charity with egalitarian "social justice" came from? I've always wondered who first proposed that. I don't think it was Marx. I suppose it is a very old idea, but to bear fruit (which by it iherent flaws must be rotten) it requires a large number of naive idiots to buy it. The central bankers were very clever people and still are, and most of the people were very naive, and they still are. I'll give five bucks to whoever can point to the first person to put this idea in writing. I would really like to know who thought it up. But I think you're right, it was only relatively recently that a critical mass of idiots latched onto the idea, perhaps sometime around the mid-19th century. The French Revolution was obviously a percersor of sorts but Marx deserves credit for giving form to it as a political movement. (Give Marx his due, he rightly recognized the vulnerability of factory owners to their workers.) keda wrote: I do need many things, including sunlight, but I have no duties toward the sun for that matter. Thank you. A perfect example. Glypt prefers to attack a strawman, the claim, that nobody here has made, that we don't need others or that we have not benefited from others. But the real debate here is whether to regard our undeserved posessions as gifts or not.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 04/08/08 - 03:49 PM:	#37
keda wrote: Anyone who truly values freedom knows that freedom is not free. It is paid with the blood of patriots. The obvious problem with the slave population is that they would sell their freedom as well as that of others for security, but the historical reality is that you have never got security out of selling your freedom, just tyranny. Who is this slave population? The Jews? Everything you're writing here sounds exactly like standard anti-semitic propaganda. What "historical reality" are you talking about? As far as I can tell, there is only a incredibly small population that has ever had total freedom, and I bet none of them post here. Nor is there are "therefore", and therefore there is no non sequitur. I'm just adding my two centences to the debate. You may wonder what I'm trying to say or how it is relevant to the debate, so I will put forth the connection. Glypt is apparently trying impose on us duties toward society and even the environment with the justification that we need them. I do need many things, including sunlight, but I have no duties toward the sun for that matter. Private property rights means, I can do whatever I want with my property as long as I do not violate anyones rights, including buying a second house. Privation of those property rights is tantamount to slavery. The condition under which the fruits of ones labour is taken without consent is per definition slavery. I think Glypt is trying to impose duties on us to members of our society. As you say, freedom "is paid with the blood of patriots," so you cannot claim to be the only person who contributed labour in order to produce "fruit".
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/08/08 - 05:39 PM:	#38
Kwalish Kid wrote: I think Glypt is trying to impose duties on us to members of our society. As you say, freedom "is paid with the blood of patriots," so you cannot claim to be the only person who contributed labour in order to produce "fruit". Interestinlgy, this is starting to sound more like the agreement model I advocated in another thread.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 2661

Posted 04/08/08 - 10:41 PM:	#39
Glypt The problem that contemporary philosophy identifies with libertarianism is that it is incoherent. The methodological individualsim upon which it relies cannot support close scrutiny in the light of what we know about how personal identity comes about. Methodological Individualism, as I understand it, is approaching the understanding of social and economic phenomena through a study of the individual actions that it comprises. As opposed to a holistic approach. It is the methodological approach of Austrian economics, in which Hayek emerged, and perfectly sound as far as I know. In what way does it not "support close scrutiny"? Libertarians are not anti- society, how can they be? they cannot survive without it... it is that they do not properly understand the interdependent relationship that optains between the interests of the person and the interests of the community, for if they did they would live up to their social responsiblities beyond the autopoeitic forces of the market place. Libertarians take from the market but complain about playing their part in sustaining the social infrastructures upon which the financial markets depend. Libertarians are not concerned only with markets. Their concern is that all social arrangements entered into by individuals should be done so on a voluntary basis. They oppose only those arrangements that are coercively imposed by others. The labelling of those social arrangements as "social responsibility" by one group of people does not justify their coercive imposition on another group of people. That is merely tyranny. There is a distinction between individualism/liberalism and libertarianism. Liberalism and libertarianism is often confused because of their similar sounding names but they are different things. I subscribe to the liberal notion of individualism and a discursive democracy not the libertarian model. Hayek was a not a libertarian. He supported a classical liberalism (the freedom of the individual) and he repudiated being labelled a Conservative. He was not a libertarian. Although he criticised certain socialist values I respect many of his liberal views. Well, Hayek certainly didn't call himself a libertarian but then again, no one did back then. He definitely didn't extend the principles of individualism to it's logical conclusion in that he believed that some things did need to be coercively imposed (hence the need for the state) but he certainly sought to limit the scope of it's activities significantly. Do you mean, when you say "libertarian", an anarcho-capitalist? Someone who opposes any form of coercive government?

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 760

Posted 04/09/08 - 01:15 AM:	#40
cortes wrote: "Help, help, I'm being opressed!" "Bloody peasant!" I'm glad people like you exist, it keeps my sword sharp. If there wasn't evil, we wouldn't have goodness...right? I mean, even God needs the devil? It just wouldn't work otherwise. But, in the end, you will lose.
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 760

Posted 04/09/08 - 01:20 AM:	#41
keda wrote: The problem with slaves is that they will try to impose slavery on others through their masters. The socialist sin is greed, for he jealously lusts after his neighbour's property. what garbage. Where do you get this rhetoric from?
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1740

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 04/09/08 - 02:36 AM:	#42
Libertarians are not concerned only with markets. Their concern is that all social arrangements entered into by individuals should be done so on a voluntary basis. They oppose only those arrangements that are coercively imposed by others. The labelling of those social arrangements as "social responsibility" by one group of people does not justify their coercive imposition on another group of people. That is merely tyranny. I'm not in a particularly argumentative mood right now but I think the concept of individuality is overrated. It doesn't mean much to be an individual without our relationships. I am an individual because of the contrast with you. Ultimately I think the choice between society and individuals is a false dichotomy. Neither exists without the other but trying to find a fixed rule that will decide which one has paramount importance in all practical situations is futile. As far as it concerns the inviolability of life and certain human rights I would say individuality trumps societal norms but as regards socio-economic decisions. I would have to say that in all honesty my position is a rationalisation of how I feel about it. So instead of offering arguments I'll share my unsubstantiated views in the hope of appealing to your humanity. To have the freedom to enter into social arrangements, there needs to be choice of social arrangement. This is for many not a matter of choice, not a matter of a volational will but harsh survival due to their socio-economic circumstances. Sociologist research has shown that hard work simply is not enough to escape these circumstances and the concept of many "privileged" people that they must be poort because they are lazy is false. And that's not even going into the power differences between various groups in where small groups impose rules detrimental to society as a whole. The development of the corporation is one, certain outgrowths of the application of intellectual property rights is another. (I know these are just statements now but I'm willing to expound if necessary). I am not accusing you of this view just painting a broad picture of the non-existence of voluntary social arrangements for a very, very large percentage of people in the world. Now, I'm all for voluntary social arrangements in a perfect world, where people have more or less the same ability to make choices and the same level of power to ensure an equal level of parties negotiating. The tension comes to the fore because we know such equality is impossible and does not exist. I'm naturally endowed with certain faculties that allow me to have a 6-figure income, had parents who were comfortably rich and lived in a country with one of the best educational systems in the world. Truly the land of opportunity for me. The Dutch model is aimed at maximising choice of social arrangements for as much people as possible and therefore enforces high taxes (I'm paying 42% for instance and including all local taxes it's over 50%). In return we have a very inclusive society in which I've met people in university, who had great skill, whose parents were unemployed and largely uneducated (highly unlikely in the US, some get grants but most miss the boat). One of them went on to start her own attorney's office specifically representing people of low income. Without such redistribution of wealth, these poor people would still not be able to pay for a good lawyer who understands their problems, the girl would not have a good practice, her kids would not have the same headstart as I did and she wouldn't serve as an example for the people who used to be in similar situations. The return on investment is largely social and it certainly dampens economic growth. Dutch economy is not the most flexible and not the fastest growing everytime there is a global upswing. I could move to another country but I enjoy living here. I like the mixing of people from different social economic backgrounds as it enriches my life, I like the fact that when I get sick I am insured well, I like the fact that 80% speaks a second language and about 40% a third. I like our roads, railways and bridges that aren't crumbling. And I like it that part of my money enables people to have more choices where they would otherwise have none. I like it because it is a real social society I live in as opposed to a collection of competing individuals struggling for survival. So the intrinsic value of a person for me is for him or her to be free to choose from a variety of socio-economic choices and it's a society's duty to provide for these choices (to a certain extent). Of course, people could choose to be an opportunist and benefit from these societal arrangements without returning anything but if sufficient people would do that the fabric of society would unravel and survival would drop to a far more basic level as society no longer provides me with the basic goods I would need. Being devoid of many practical skills I personally would most likely starve. So, in the long run a robust societal arrangement is even in my interest even though I already feel a personal responsibility to society due to having the luck being born here. Call it gratitude. Furthermore, a society needs to invest as whole in societies infrastructures. The more developed a society, the more complex those infrastructures the more expensive it is. The Netherlands is a service industry and requires a high level of education of its people. For our society to survive at this level of wealth, a very high investment in education is a simple necessity. Pursuit of individual profit above all else will maximise economic growth and will be economically more efficient (generate more profit) but will impoverise a society as societal benefits are not solely expressible in economic gains and supply and demand theory in this respect must necessarily fail to explain such benefits. For instance, despite having an abysmal police force in the Netherlands we still have relatively low crime rates (abysmal in the sense that they couldn't catch a crook if he would be caught red-handed, it's really embarassing really). One of the explanations for this is that it is due to the relatively small number of people living in terrible socio-economical circumstances as opposed to the US for instance. Well, those are just some views as to how a high redistribution of wealth (tyranny) leads to freedom for a larger part of people in Dutch society (not tyranny). And I'm happy with it despite the 42% taxes.
_____________________ - How are you doing? - I'm doing good. _ No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 118

Posted 04/09/08 - 02:44 AM:	#43
Hello fried egg, thank you for your thoughtful response Fried Egg wrote: Glypt Methodological Individualism, as I understand it, is approaching the understanding of social and economic phenomena through a study of the individual actions that it comprises. As opposed to a holistic approach. It is the methodological approach of Austrian economics, in which Hayek emerged, and perfectly sound as far as I know. In what way does it not "support close scrutiny"? Social scientists and historical materialists include functional terms and relational patterns as useful tools in social explanation. However, the claim of methodological individualism is that explanations of social phenomena are reducible ultimately to facts about individuals. It is unclear that individual facts are more real or have primacy over social facts. Both types of entity have a dubious ontology. The psychology of individuals, and to what extent an individual is constituted independently from a social context, is potentially as indefinite as social phenomena. Certainly we experience social facts on a daily basis in our dealings with each other and we are affected directly and continually by structural constraints that society places upon us which lead us to believe social phenomena to be real if indeed relationally comprehended. The intentionality of our existence is itself just as relational in character and, as multipli-realised in brain states as social facts, are in the actions of individuals. We trust that we understand the reasons for our actions or rather we interpret our behaviour much in the way we interpret social events. We might therefore be forgiven in not judging causal mechanisms, as derived solely from the assumption of individual psychologies, as always prior to social facts. The causal mechanisms of game theory are as much an explanatory device it seems as the dispositional assumption of consequence laws. Therefore the coherence of MI’s claim to provide the explanation to which other explanations of social enquiry should be reduced is not unquestionable. There is another stronger case for rejecting MI. This is on the basis of there being different kinds of enquiries into social phenomena irrespective of how they might be said to be brought into existence. There is a need in all kinds of analysis, including the scientific, to apply order and classification. To reason at typical as well as at specific levels of analysis. Explanations are as much lines of communication to an appropriate level of enquiry as they are truisms about causal facts. Like any syntax, the most significant form is that which corresponds directly with the matching analytical purpose of the enquiry itself; M.I. sacrifices the aforementioned correspondences in favour of speaking with only one explanatory language. It is for these reasons that I find that M.I. is either trivial or false. Fried Egg wrote: Well, Hayek certainly didn't call himself a libertarian but then again, no one did back then. He definitely didn't extend the principles of individualism to it's logical conclusion in that he believed that some things did need to be coercively imposed (hence the need for the state) but he certainly sought to limit the scope of it's activities significantly. This is broadly true. Though needs filling out. Hayek was an Austrian-born British economist who later turned into a political philosopher. He provided a critique of socialism and the modern welfare state. His writing was as a classical liberal (although he objected to the label ‘conservative'. He tried to develop a theory of the market, as a mechanism enabling economic coordination, into a more general theory of law and politics. You will note the latter socio-political acknowledgement of governance and content. Hayek’s liberalism was in response to totalitarianism, which manifested in both the regimes of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, which both entailed individual power-seeking to contrive the nature of society. This was the basis of his early opposition to socialism and the limiting of constitutional government under the rule of law. Later the development of his political thought led him to become critical of excessive government and interventions in the autogenic or spontaneous growth of society. For him society was a ‘spontaneous order’ … not the product of human design. According to Hayek the threat to civilization comes from mankind’s misplaced over-confidence in the individual's capacity for reasoned intentions alone to design social processes, to shape society, to match an ideologically comprehensive template…‘constructivist rationalism’. Hayek wanted to protect social order from the illegitimate power of such templates, and as an old fashioned liberal would include the templates of libertarianism mascerading as liberalism. Fried Egg wrote: Do you mean, when you say "libertarian", an anarcho-capitalist? Someone who opposes any form of coercive government? Yes, but there is no political theory that will have such tidy boundaries and it is true that it is the extremes of most theories (ie not just in libertarianism) that become damaging to civilisation. My observations are about those aspects of libertarianism that come down to wanting a free ride, to take from a supporting system without aknowledging their duty to a world upon which they depend, without paying their dues to sustain necessary systems including socio-economic and democratic structures. There is no such thing as an unqualified free market and it is ethical for the price of keeping it as free as possible to come from its beneficiaries. As a liberal, I share with libertarians and socialists a healthy distrust of state power over individual liberty. That is why I believe in democracy, ideally a discursive one that improves the chances of making our governments represent every individual, powerful and vulnerable alike. If libertarian sensibilities feel coerced by being governmed they should make it their government via the democratic process. However, to do so legitimately entails engaging socio-politically with other people. As a believer in a democratic process I realise that improving social justice is crucial for controlling potential tyrannies whether they come from politicians or private corporate bodies or raving lunatics who think they are earthly gods or who think they represent some master race. The freedom we need is not just the opportunities for positive freedom but the opportunities for negative freedom. The last thing we need is the application of mono-logic, for such single-minded, one eyed perspectives destroy enquiries, surpress our differences, and lead to the deterioration of enlightened thinking. So added to a liberal and democratic perspective I also would value a politics of difference. "As a white, heterosexual, middle-class, able-bodied, not old woman I cannot claim to speak for… Blacks, Latinos, American Indians, poor people, lesbians, old people or the disabled. But the political commitment to social justice…tells me I cannot speak without them." (Iris Marion Young, Politics of Difference, 13-14) Social justice is also coherent because such mutuality is ultimately to everyones benefit, although we have yet to achieve it. By contrast, on a purely individual level, with regard to those who argue that they would insist upon being free to do whatever they want merely because they are powerful enough to do so, I must resist such nonsense: With power comes responsibility, and might is not always right. Having reaped the rewards of human associations the individual has a duty of allegiance to fellow citizens. It is absurd to think that merely because one occupies a particular body or is born into particular circumstance or is advantaged in other ways that everything one gains is down to individual effort alone. The Lockean and Nozikean theories are fundamentally flawed, the former can be partly excused because he was talking in a different time. The incoherrence of libertarianism as a stand alone intuition, is really a matter that cannot be coherently questioned, it is just self-evident that if you were stripped of the benefits gained from society and associated happenstance of birth, your personal power would not be sufficient for you to be the person you are and such a hermetically conceived theory if applied in practice would hasten your end. Because we are interdependent as a species in todays world the selfish actions of such forms of libertarian belief to which I have referred jeapardises social justice and in so doing threatens everyone, including libertarian individuals themselves. That is why it is absurd. Thanks again for your message and the points it raises.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 760

Posted 04/09/08 - 04:23 AM:	#44
FriedEgg, While I agree with some of your ideas, you do not know what form this government would take; you have stated that the governement would i-protect property rights and ii- bring justice when property rights are circumvented: fraud,theft,coercion. However, what we have seen is that any government that has the power (necessarily), will have the (consequentially) a "vested interest" ie., they will hold a particular attitude to wealth, to property, and perhaps most significantly- to those people in the community that have the wealth/power. The Irony, which I am unsure that you notice, is that these people will necessarily be protected by the law; and what is more, it is not clear that these individuals will not be the very people "assisting" in the formation of law, of "order" and determining markets. When you say 'property rights' should be protected, it often reads, at least to me anyway, that the only people that will have their rights protected are the very one's with the property. Cortes, I find the argument that we have free will flawed, although it certainly feels lie we have free will - the latter I go along with: but, you are missing the 'Contingency' -you are born white (?), in the US, and born into a unique set of circumstances...these are facts. Ok, so before you reply, put down the glue. Also, you seem to misunderstand the notion of "Individual" - I disagree with the thinking that "each Individual is an Island" - It simply is not true. Infact, the more you look at it, the more it is examined, it seems each act we undertake has consequences...and further consequences... To think the Individual is seperate from society is ridiculous. I agree with Liberty, with freedom for Individuals, but some Individuals are born into terrible circumstances, some dont get justice. Did you hear about that Scottish guy who was jailed for 21 years, and then released because no proof? How many more people are there in jail? How many have died through hanging? Did they have wealth, property, and political power? Course not. Justice is a concept that does not recognize a person's status - but that's just maybe my own principle.
_____________________ The future has arrived! The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/09/08 - 09:14 AM:	#45
litkey wrote: I find the argument that we have free will flawed, although it certainly feels lie we have free will - the latter I go along with: The debate over free will has to be one of the silliest in the history of philosophy. Nobody really believes in determinism but the success of science in certain fields has caused many people to fear admitting that they believe in free will. The bottom line is that there is no logical argument or scientific experiment that you can construct that proves determinism or free will and arguing for determinism is frought with logical landmines, you've stepped in two already. litkey wrote: ...but, you are missing the 'Contingency' -you are born white (?), in the US, and born into a unique set of circumstances...these are facts. Whatever the circumstances of my birth, there are objective facts, yes. And contrary to Rawls, I am most enthusiastically aware of my circumstances and seek to exploit them fully. I am grateful for the injustice of my existence. Thank God life is so unfair. litkey wrote: Also, you seem to misunderstand the notion of "Individual" - I disagree with the thinking that "each Individual is an Island" - It simply is not true. Infact, the more you look at it, the more it is examined, it seems each act we undertake has consequences...and further consequences... The island vs. cog debate is much like the determinism vs. free will debate. Of course our choices have consequences. If I choose to cut you with a knife, you will bleed. My point is that I can make that choice. To put it another way, you could throw me into a socialist concentration camp and I would still be a free man. litkey wrote: To think the Individual is seperate from society is ridiculous. Again, like Glypt, you are using that vague "society" term. If you would but look bring the subject into greater focus you would see many things more clearly. The wonder is in the details. The question is not whether we prefer to live with other people, to buy bread from the grocery store rather than to grow it and produce it in a secluded mountain retreat. The question is whether we are free to make our own choices in life, to choose how we relate to other people, for example or where we invest our efforts. We decide these things individually. Even those who choose to go with the flow and be a doormat for everyone around them are making an individual choice. ("If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.")
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2471

Posted 04/09/08 - 10:38 AM:	#46
cortes wrote: Whatever the circumstances of my birth, there are objective facts, yes. And contrary to Rawls, I am most enthusiastically aware of my circumstances and seek to exploit them fully. I am grateful for the injustice of my existence. Thinking that Rawls claims that you are unaware of your circumstances makes you mistaken. Thank God life is so unfair. This is what makes you evil.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/09/08 - 11:25 AM:	#47
Kwalish Kid wrote: Thinking that Rawls claims that you are unaware of your circumstances makes you mistaken. You should read more of the thread to get the context. You are mistaken if you think I thought that Rawls claimed that I was unaware of my circumstances. Kwalish Kid wrote: cortes wrote: Thank God life is so unfair. This is what makes you evil. I don't doubt that socialists would consider me to be evil. And I wear that accusation as as a badge of honor. But tell me, Kwalish Kid: What did you do to deserve being born? Edited by cortes on 04/09/08 - 11:30 AM
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 2391

Posted 04/09/08 - 01:14 PM:	#48
Some people do not deserve to be born. Even abortion is too lenient for them.
_____________________ Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/09/08 - 01:40 PM:	#49
keda wrote: Some people do not deserve to be born. Nobody deserves to be born. It is impossible to earn your birth. In a just world you would not exist. Every breath you draw is an act of opportunism. Thank God life is so unfair.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 118

Posted 04/10/08 - 03:32 AM:	#50
"What did you" (misplaced subject/indexical) "do to deserve" (misplaced predicate) "being born?" (Incoherent proposition ) Repaired proposition from above: What does being born have to do with deserving acts? Rationalised proposition from above: How is personal existence justified? The perspectival, reflective, and teleological dispositions of persons have intrinsic value for they alone can conceive of justice in an otherwise disinterested universe. Without such personal entities the notion of a just world is incoherent. Thereby, persons have a moral status that demands respect. Dispositional/personal centres have the capacity to recognise and respect the intrinsic value of another life; the capacity for personal sacrifice in a just cause, and the formation of allegiances in the interests of others ...they recognise deonological demands as mutual respect... such human existence is well deserved and is made possible only through the many instances of association that is generically called human society from which political systems have been refined and for which many individuals have dedicated or given up their life . IMHO, those individuals who would put the clock back to a time when justice did not exist, to a state of nature where only might was right, exhibit a petty egoism and an impoverished teleological model for the human race.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.