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

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2279

Posted 04/26/08 - 09:13 PM:	#126
Socialism is a great scam. Its the greatest hoax perpetrated against humanity.
_____________________ Free Europe Now CFR candidates 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

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 04/26/08 - 09:23 PM:	#127
keda wrote: Socialism is a great scam. Its the greatest hoax perpetrated against humanity. And, even worse, its also perpetuated by people who truly believe they are doing good.
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

PontificatingChauncy
Student (aren't we all?)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2007
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 199

Posted 04/26/08 - 11:22 PM:	#128
Sigh I tire of this. Let's make this quick: GLYPH"S POINT: People are ultimatly determined by their environment. Therefore, the belief that we make inddpendent thoughts and decisions is untrue. Therefore, all actions are coerced and pre-determined by our experiences and teachings. Therefore, there is no theoretically free market possible, i.e. If no-one 'coerced' you by creating this Freudian pre-determinist environment, you would be totally tabula rasa. I'm sure a single term refers to this idea, but I can't find one anywhere. GLYPH"S PROBLEM WITH LIBERTARIANISTS: Glyph has failed to recognize that not everyone believes in his point: Because Glyph does not believe you can make a choice as an individual (It would require you to exist in a vacum) the word 'coercive' doesn't mean anything to him. Glyph's mistake is that there is a difference between government and society: Libertarians want a smaller, more easily left society than what government offers. MY REBUTTLE ON DESERVING LIFE: Cortes; When I was born I was not an individual: I was a product my parents created. I became a person when I developed a conception of self around age 1. Therefore my material existence was something my parents earned in that they 'bought' me through concieving and carrying (and caring for me before I attained person-hood). My mental state of individual I 'earned' in that it is a learned belief. Whether I deserved the time between then and now is debatable, but it would require case by case analysis. Honestly, there's been so much Ad Hominem in this conversation I could hardly read it. Neither Glyph nor Cortes did a good job of explaining their point, and you both started bickering like children. Frankly I'm most dissapointed in Fried Egg: his past threads have been so... (not professional, because this isn't a profession) that I'm surprise at some of his statements. I suppose this could be blamed on frustration though.
_____________________ The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao. That thing is a chauncy

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 997

Posted 04/27/08 - 06:32 AM:	#129
PontificatingChauncy wrote: Cortes; When I was born I was not an individual: I was a product my parents created. I became a person when I developed a conception of self around age 1. Therefore my material existence was something my parents earned in that they 'bought' me through concieving and carrying (and caring for me before I attained person-hood). My mental state of individual I 'earned' in that it is a learned belief. Whether I deserved the time between then and now is debatable, but it would require case by case analysis. We are discussing exactly this in "Moral Freedom". Join us there. Suffice it to say that your existence did not begin at 1. You were given the opportunity to develop into a person, as you say. What you did with that opportunity is another matter. Edited by cortes on 04/27/08 - 07:18 AM
_____________________ 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: 86

Posted 04/28/08 - 03:39 AM:	#130
JAC wrote: In what way is libertarianism a "final solution"? You talk of libertarianism as if it were a naiive position. Why do you think this?. Firstly: None of the following or indeed of the preceding remarks I've made on Libertarianism are 'my opinion'. Like everyone else on this forum we derive information from socio-political discourse. As far as my personal opinion is concerned I deem that to be irrelevant to any valuable philosophical debate. Indeed none of us are children, in that respect, at least so I would hope. Libertarianism is utterly absurd. A modern society couldn't function under such a model and everybody engaged in political debate knows this to be the case. Libertarianism like its opposite communitarianism are the colours of theoretical extremes that are posited by political theorists to engineer more complex ideas that are more sensible, the ingredients of political theory if you like. Any ideological point of view, a comprehensive doctrine if you like. Is essentially a mono-logic. Where it purports to know what constitutes a person, and how persons should live, it claims to hold a solution to the aims and objectives of mankind...IOW it ceases to be political in the democratic sense and becomes ideological...it presents a final solution that closes down changes in policy. Your message clearly confuses Libertarianism with Liberalism. The former is ideological and the latter is political. Liberalism expresses libertarian and communitarian values as well as other democratic principles of legitimisation that may support aspects of these ideas. But Libertarian ideas alone made political, ie libertarianism, is an arrant nonsense.

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 86

Posted 04/28/08 - 03:45 AM:	#131
PontificatingChauncy wrote: Sigh I tire of this. Let's make this quick: GLYPH"S POINT: People are ultimatly determined by their environment. Therefore, the belief that we make inddpendent thoughts and decisions is untrue. Therefore, all actions are coerced and pre-determined by our experiences and teachings. Therefore, there is no theoretically free market possible, i.e. If no-one 'coerced' you by creating this Freudian pre-determinist environment, you would be totally tabula rasa. I'm sure a single term refers to this idea, but I can't find one anywhere. GLYPH"S PROBLEM WITH LIBERTARIANISTS: Glyph has failed to recognize that not everyone believes in his point: Because Glyph does not believe you can make a choice as an individual (It would require you to exist in a vacum) the word 'coercive' doesn't mean anything to him. Glyph's mistake is that there is a difference between government and society: Libertarians want a smaller, more easily left society than what government offers. MY REBUTTLE ON DESERVING LIFE: Cortes; When I was born I was not an individual: I was a product my parents created. I became a person when I developed a conception of self around age 1. Therefore my material existence was something my parents earned in that they 'bought' me through concieving and carrying (and caring for me before I attained person-hood). My mental state of individual I 'earned' in that it is a learned belief. Whether I deserved the time between then and now is debatable, but it would require case by case analysis. Honestly, there's been so much Ad Hominem in this conversation I could hardly read it. Neither Glyph nor Cortes did a good job of explaining their point, and you both started bickering like children. Frankly I'm most dissapointed in Fried Egg: his past threads have been so... (not professional, because this isn't a profession) that I'm surprise at some of his statements. I suppose this could be blamed on frustration though. If by Glyph ypu mean Glypt... Please note the differences enphasised in my other messages ...between Libertarian and Libertarianism. A libertarianist is another equivocation that needs qualifying.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2279

Posted 04/28/08 - 03:57 AM:	#132
Glypt wrote: Libertarianism is utterly absurd. A modern society couldn't function under such a model and everybody engaged in political debate knows this to be the case. Libertarianism like its opposite communitarianism are the colours of theoretical extremes that are posited by political theorists to engineer more complex ideas that are more sensible, the ingredients of political theory if you like. Why is libertarianism absurd? Why cannot such a model work? Any ideological point of view, a comprehensive doctrine if you like. Is essentially a mono-logic. Where it purports to know what constitutes a person, and how persons should live, it claims to hold a solution to the aims and objectives of mankind...IOW it ceases to be political in the democratic sense and becomes ideological...it presents a final solution that closes down changes in policy. What has this to do with libertarianism?
_____________________ Free Europe Now CFR candidates 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

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 86

Posted 04/28/08 - 04:01 AM:	#133
PontificatingChauncy wrote: Neither Glyph nor Cortes did a good job of explaining their point, and you both started bickering like children. . You owe me an apology if you're refering to Glypt and not Glyph. You mistake humour for ad hominem remarks and you clearly have not read the arguments this forum applies to its messages. You are thereby also using ad hominem comments in this message which I resent. We all love Cortes and I do not consider our exchanges bickering. I resent the tone of your message PontificatingChauncy wrote: Frankly I'm most dissapointed in Fried Egg: his past threads have been so... (not professional, because this isn't a profession) that I'm surprise at some of his statements. I suppose this could be blamed on frustration though. I find this absurd also. Fried egg has made many insightful observations. And why is this not a profession, it supports my professional status?

Glypt
Conceptual Engineer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 86

Posted 04/28/08 - 04:05 AM:	#134
keda wrote: Why is libertarianism absurd? Why cannot such a model work? What has this to do with libertarianism? I've explained all this in my previous messages. If you disagree I can only think you do not use the term libertarianism in the same way that we do in the UK.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2279

Posted 04/28/08 - 04:13 AM:	#135
Glypt wrote: I've explained all this in my previous messages. If you disagree I can only think you do not use the term libertarianism in the same way that we do in the UK. It appears more like you are the one using it in the wrong way, because libertarianism is a political stance that advocates minimization of government, especially elimination of interference in the market.
_____________________ Free Europe Now CFR candidates 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

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 723

Posted 04/28/08 - 05:08 AM:	#136
Anarchism also advocates something similar - although goes so far to say we do not need a heirarchical government. Such a market would be through Individuals co-operating, and without coercion. What does the Government look like under "libertarianism"? Libertarianism, and particularly the one espoused by FriedEgg, is nothing short of empty idealism - it wants the cake, the candles, and the eating: It is a system of non-governmental interferance (in the market), and allows freedom of all Individuals to interact without coercion or fraud. But, and like other Libertarian theories, they do not answer the question "What is this government?" (there is nothing but smoke and mirrors) In Fried Egg's theory it could be interpreted as a government of fat cats (A), lording it over the nation, and bending the masses in the direction that "business" wants,needs, and demands. Again, the question: where does the government derive its power>? Or it could read to the converse (B) -a thoroughly decent and philosophical group guarding the market against "gangsterism" against "fraud" and against "corruption" - but even this reads like a fish out of water: Where does the government derive its power? All governments derive power from some place. In a democracy it is the people (so-called) and in a monarchy (in many cases) the power is with King/Queen - where does the libertarian government derive its powers? To say the government is merely in place to protect against "fraud" and "theft" (protect property rights) opens up the question - "who is commiting these so-called crimes?" What does "Gangster" mean? In interpretation (A) the rule or dictum would be "Business Rules!" (or something close) AND if this was in a democratic state, then the people would [necessarily] have to go along with such a governmnet- hearts and minds etc., but, that seems implausable, right? Government (B) is a non-starter. There would not be such a group of people. You need only look to todays politicians to see this truth. Edited by litkey on 04/28/08 - 05:14 AM
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2279

Posted 04/28/08 - 06:07 AM:	#137
The government derives its power from the people. Its function is to protect the rights of the people. A criminal is a person who has broken the rules. In a libertarian society, violation of the rights of the people. To say "business rules" is contradictory to a principle of libertarianism which is that of separation of business and government.
_____________________ Free Europe Now CFR candidates 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

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 723

Posted 04/28/08 - 06:19 AM:	#138
This is more gobble-de-gook, and only understood by those with flour in their brains. You can't simply say "government and business" are seperate without even attempting to explain what this difference means, really means*, and what the consequences would be in a "democratic" nation, for example, do the people go along with business and government being seperate? - I've had this discussion with Mr FEgg, and we had many agreements, but for me the main difference and where we ended in the quagmire was in trying to answer the question: what would the government look like? It seems (at least to me) that most Libertarians think (especially FE) and take it for granted that we know what the hell they are on about.
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2279

Posted 04/28/08 - 07:10 AM:	#139
I don't see what the problem is. The government should not interefer with the market thus not be controlled by business interests, the merger of which is an example of corporatism, which is also the type of govenments we have today; oligarchs disguised as "democracies". The govenment should be controlled by the people, and not multinational corporations and bankers.
_____________________ Free Europe Now CFR candidates 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

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 723

Posted 04/28/08 - 08:41 AM:	#140
keda wrote: I don't see what the problem is. The government should not interefer with the market thus not be controlled by business interests, the merger of which is an example of corporatism, which is also the type of govenments we have today; oligarchs disguised as "democracies". The govenment should be controlled by the people, and not multinational corporations and bankers. The first idea is that there should be no governmental interference with the market; right? But running in tandom is the notion that government should not be controlled by business (interests)- so really what we are saying is that business is i- seperate and free from government and ii- a government is in place to protect and serve: protect property rights, and serve the nation. But there is a dark rainbow when we say "The Gov should be controlled by the people." - We are talking about the democratic system, but with libertarianism, or rather the L I have brought up, the people might also be seperate from the government - what if people say they don't want to work is sweatshops? What if people start thinking corporations are using mind control? What if people think the government and business will never ever be seperate? You can call these what you want - exaggerations, embellishments, whatever - but the fact remains, what the people want from their government, and what a government would be like with Libertarianism in place, are two different things. It is implausable to assert business and government seperate entities; although I realize this is a black/white picture I am framing, but still it needs to be stated - especially the truism about the relationship between power (gov) and wealth (business). You said it yourself- this is what we have today.
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2279

Posted 04/28/08 - 09:05 AM:	#141
But there is a dark rainbow when we say "The Gov should be controlled by the people." - We are talking about the democratic system, but with libertarianism, or rather the L I have brought up, the people might also be seperate from the government - what if people say they don't want to work is sweatshops? What if people start thinking corporations are using mind control? What if people think the government and business will never ever be seperate? Business and government are not separate because the people aren't doing anything about it; they are too irresponsible and busy with their own lives to care about anyone else, and instead , they will exploit one another using the corporate government complex. The only way to separate them is to educate people about liberty, about decency and respect for one another as human beings, and the government corporate public education media entertainment industry complex is of course doing eveything to prevent that from happening. If people don't want to work in sweatshop, then stop working there. Whoring for pennies is still whoring. Democracy doesn't work, not because government officials can't be trusted, but because the people can't be trusted. There are only a tiny number of patriots, and the rest are in bed with the parasitic machine that is about to destroy all nations for good.
_____________________ Free Europe Now CFR candidates 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

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 04/29/08 - 01:07 AM:	#142
Glypt wrote: Firstly: None of the following or indeed of the preceding remarks I've made on Libertarianism are 'my opinion'. Like everyone else on this forum we derive information from socio-political discourse. From other people's opinions? Libertarianism is utterly absurd. A modern society couldn't function under such a model and everybody engaged in political debate knows this to be the case. Ad populum. Libertarianism like its opposite communitarianism are the colours of theoretical extremes that are posited by political theorists to engineer more complex ideas that are more sensible, the ingredients of political theory if you like. Wrong. Libertarianism is not an "extreme" position. It posits that the government's proper role is the protection of the rights of every individual (the ultimate minority). The government is there to protect the individual from all forms of tyranny, including that posed by democracy. The government's job is NOT to protect the individual from him/herself, to redistribute wealth, or to interfere in the free exchange of individuals. Any ideological point of view, a comprehensive doctrine if you like. Is essentially a mono-logic. Where it purports to know what constitutes a person, and how persons should live, What? Persons can live any way they want. Every society has certain rules that people "ought" to follow. Libertarianism believes that those rules ought to be applied by oneself, and that society, or the government, can only get involved if one individuals rights are being violated by another. Tell me one libertarian in this thread who has said "Everyone ought to live THIS way."? Libertarianism is the only political theory that allows for the diversity of human beliefs and values to live and work together. That's what capitalism is. it ceases to be political in the democratic sense and becomes ideological Excuse my French, but fuck democracy. Why should something be political in the "democratic" sense? What is democracy but an ideological position advocating that the will of the majority ought to be expressed? What is libertarianism but an opposing position which states that the will of the individual ought not be suppressed? But Libertarian ideas alone made political, ie libertarianism, is an arrant nonsense. How so? What is so nonsensical about people wanting less government interference in their lives?
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 04/29/08 - 01:16 AM:	#143
litkey wrote: what if people say they don't want to work is sweatshops? Then don't work there. Capitalism works to provide competition and individual choices. There should be other places to work. Just don't pass a damn law saying no one can work in sweatshops. What the individual does with his/her own body is not the government's, nor is it "the people's", business.
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 723

Posted 04/29/08 - 03:32 AM:	#144
JAC wrote: Then don't work there. Capitalism works to provide competition and individual choices. There should be other places to work. Just don't pass a damn law saying no one can work in sweatshops. What the individual does with his/her own body is not the government's, nor is it "the people's", business. Another young pup in my midst. Yes, well done sport, people can choose to work elsewhere; they must be plain silly for working in the sweatshop in the first instance huh. A gold star for you. Edited by litkey on 04/29/08 - 03:36 AM
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 04/29/08 - 09:05 PM:	#145
litkey wrote: Another young pup in my midst. Yes, well done sport, people can choose to work elsewhere; they must be plain silly for working in the sweatshop in the first instance huh. A gold star for you. Thank you. How many people would work in a sweatshop accept if there was no other place to work or any other way to make a living? Choices provide not only options for workers, but they also provide the incentive for sweatshop owners to better their working conditions so as to lure workers.
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2279

Posted 04/30/08 - 12:47 AM:	#146
That's what you get when you have people who can't do 2+2=4 anymore. Throwing gasoline on the fire trying to extinguish it
_____________________ Free Europe Now CFR candidates 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
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 997

Posted 04/30/08 - 06:55 AM:	#147
I love capitalism and hate socialism. Anyone who has followed my posts knows that. However, what it really boils down to is values. The most basic question, properly framed, is which do you prefer? 1) equality at the expense of progress or 2) progess at the expense of equality? There is just no debate anymore that capitalism is more efficient than socialism and that capitalist societies will progress economically than socialist societies. Neither is there really any doubt that full-throated capitalism leads to inequality. Now although the poor of a capitalist society will, over time, be better off than the average person in the socialist society (sometimes even than the apparrithniks), if you value equality you will still prefer socialism and you will still complain about capitalism. Now obviously most people fall in the middle somewhere. They want some equality; they want some socialism to temper capitalism. These people are not the idiots, they are merely pursuing their values. The idiots are the ones who deny that socialism comes at a cost. And in spite of the spectacular demise of communism, there are still far to many of these people out there. And they seem to be among the "smartest" people typically occupying professorships in prestigious universities. But for a great many people out there in the world, the only thing worse than sweatshops would be no sweatshops.
_____________________ 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: 22
Total Posts: 2279

Posted 04/30/08 - 08:14 AM:	#148
In another sense capitalism is the equalizer while socialism is not. I don't like the notion of progress - it is like the notion change, which could be in either toward the worse or toward the better. That we have technological progess doesn't necessarily mean that we are better off. It is relative, to an end. Nuclear physics can be used to exterminate people or to harness huge amount of energy, and progress is defined in terms of what end you have in mind. The debate between socialism and capitalism isn't just a pragmatic question, it also trespasses on the issue, whether it is right or wrong. I believe capitalism is the choice if you want to do things the right way, and socialism is the way if you want to milk people (obviously this option is only available to those who already have enough power to implement it e.g. the central bankers). For us commoners, capitalism is the way if we want to survive at all. The central bankers do not want equality. They want one big slave class, and themselves at the top, and the way to do it is do scam people that robbing the middle class is a good thing, when it can only lead to absolute tyranny. The thumb rule is, that the more money you throw on a problem, the less likely it is going to be solved, because throwing money at anything without a brain, attracts the blood sucking bureacrats. We have been pacified by the brainwashing mechanisms of society into believing there are no wolves, when they are all around us. The sheep are fat and full of meat and their legs have been cut off and their eyes have been gouged out, ready for slaughter.
_____________________ Free Europe Now CFR candidates 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
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 997

Posted 04/30/08 - 08:41 AM:	#149
keda wrote: I don't like the notion of progress - it is like the notion change, which could be in either toward the worse or toward the better. Let me be more precise then. By "progress" I mean ever greater value. Now mostly this is measured by GNP/GDP. However that is only a measure of something real: standards fo living. The main thing that capitalism offers is a growing standard of living. That's what I meant by "progress". keda wrote: In another sense capitalism is the equalizer while socialism is not. I don't see how you can honestly defend this. By what measure is a capitalist society more equal than a socialist one? (Certainly it is true that socialism requires big government which requires politicians who become very powerful indeed but for the most part, poverty is shared equally.) keda wrote: The debate between socialism and capitalism isn't just a pragmatic question, it also trespasses on the issue, whether it is right or wrong. I believe capitalism is the choice if you want to do things the right way, and socialism is the way if you want to milk people (obviously this option is only available to those who already have enough power to implement it e.g. the central bankers). One reason I love capitalism and hate socialism is that in the former I can indulge my aggressive and acquisitive nature in a positive sum manner whereas in the later I would have to choose between becoming a sheep and playing hardball politics (which in many cases means dealing in death). The analogy I like to offer is this: if marriage were banned I would be forced to choose between abstinence and fornication (or killing the enforcers of the law). I prefer that marriage be allowed. keda wrote: For us commoners, capitalism is the way if we want to survive at all. This is essentially Rand's argument and it is a reasonable one but it really is a long-term argument. It seems inevitalbe that North Korea will go the way of East Germany but it has taken decades to get where they are today and it may take decaades more before it finally collapes in ruin. For more moderate socialist societies it is an even slower bleed. This is why the best solution to socialism is emmigration and why the character of immigrants to America is always very different from those they left behind. Edited by cortes on 04/30/08 - 08:54 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: 22
Total Posts: 2279

Posted 04/30/08 - 09:15 AM:	#150
cortes wrote: I don't see how you can honestly defend this. By what measure is a capitalist society more equal than a socialist one? (Certainly it is true that socialism requires big government which requires politicians who become very powerful indeed but for the most part, poverty is shared equally.) Well among the poor of course there will be equality, but the wealth will be less spread out than in capitalism, in which everyone has a chance to get climb. In any case that was not the sense I meant, I meant we are all equal before the law, as opposed to in socialism which is partisan. Still, everyone should realize that a society where one entity parasiting on another is simply not stable, but all wealth ultimately ends up in the wrong hands. One reason I love capitalism and hate socialism is that in the former I can indulge my aggressive and acquisitive nature in a positive sum manner whereas in the later I would have to choose between becoming a sheep and playing hardball politics (which in many cases means dealing in death). True. There are not much options in socialism, but as it has been said, rather dead than red. The analogy I like to offer is this: if marriage were banned I would be forced to choose between abstinence and fornication (or killing the enforcers of the law). I prefer that marriage be allowed. This is essentially Rand's argument and it is a reasonable one but it really is a long-term argument. It seems inevitalbe that North Korea will go the way of East Germany but it has taken decades to get where they are today and it may take decaades more before it finally collapes in ruin. For more moderate socialist societies it is an even slower bleed. You have a point there. Incrementalism is the trick being pulled. It's the same reason the concept of marriage is under attack, because people are so selfish they can't think beyond their own generation. In such cases pragmatic arguments have not much pull, but one must rely on moral arguments. This is why the best solution to socialism is emmigration and why the character of immigrants to America is always very different from those they left behind. The current problem is globalism, and since the world government will be socialist there is nowhere to run.
_____________________ Free Europe Now CFR candidates 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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.