In a nutshell, this guy is just looking for a way to retreat from the post-war 20th century. He's spring-boarding off the anti-war vote.
In a nutshell, this guy is just looking for a way to retreat from the post-war 20th century.
America's economic needs being what they are, a governmental withdrawal from "imperial" adventurism would leave a vacuum that Amerikkkan capitalism (at its most irresponsible) would have to fill. There'd be an inevitable return of Somoza-Trujillo-Batista clones to rule over whatever parts of Latin America are vulnerable, but I guess the upside would be that Chavez and Castro would be able to take a freer hand to forstall the return of fascism.
At home, just a dog-eat-dog Darwinian society, a kind of pre-New-Deal Amerikkka where the states enforce (or not) their own voting rights and civil rights legislation and what you save on social welfare safety nets gets blown on more policing and prison costs.
Anyone who feels that the government is too oppressive in the US can choose many other places to live where they will be pretty much entirely free, free free of government control.. The Bay Islands of Honduras, many communities in Panama andCosta Rica, parts of Alaska and Northern Canada, Mongolia, and several of the Pacific island nations offer this.
You won't find many of these libertarian assholes in any of these places, because they want socialized police, socialized transportation facilities and decent heatlh care. Lord forbid they would have to learn a foreign language. They are, in a word, hypocrites and not to be taken seriously.
They are, in a word, hypocrites and not to be taken seriously.
And no one does, to be sure.
Except perhaps sirs and UP.
I should point out here that I don't really care if people like Michael Tee want to live in a socialist society. What I care about is that people like Michael Tee want to see that everyone lives in a socialist society whether or not everyone else wants to do so..... If other people want to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler, I don't want to stop them. I just don't want them acting to force everyone else to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler.
I bet that Murray Rothbard is going to cash his Social Security checks.
QuoteThe old people ARE better off when the government takes their money and invests it responsibly.
This never happens , the Social Security Administration was robbed by our Congress , who would have predicted that the congress would be attracted by a big pot of money?QuotePrince is appealing to your ego and fantasizing a world that never was and never will be. In the real world, there are unscrupulous manufacturers, and unscrupulous employers, financial sharks, swindlers and con men. You may or may not navigate the real world successfully on your own. Before the New Deal, many did not. There will still be Triangle Shirtwaist fires in workplaces, poisonous products sold in the marketplace, none of these things can ever be eliminated 100%.
Like conditions in China?
The energy and productivity of China , as well as their seeming contempt for safety , remind one of 19th century America quite a bit. America was not all bad before FDR there was a lot of good going on and now that FDR has had his day whatever good he has done will not be forgotten or abandoned , Trueman said that in the USA no good idea is ever forgotten , of course he was talking about the Populist platform which got replayed in the Democratic platform because you can't patent these good ideas , and ou can't get rid of thm till the people stop likeing the idea.
<<America was not all bad before FDR>>
Whoever said it was ALL bad?
<< . . . there was a lot of good going on >>
Did you ever hear of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? The Crash of 1929? Events like that cried out for regulation. It's kind of funny to hear "conservatives" direfully explain how human nature and greed would guarantee communism's failure. Apparently human nature and greed will not exist in an unregulated economy, though - - employers will make every effort to ensure a safe workplace, bottom line be damned, stockbrokers will sell only the most reliably managed corporate securities, etc. and everyone will be on their best behaviour even without government regulators. LMFAO. What a crock a shit.
<<and now that FDR has had his day whatever good he has done will not be forgotten or abandoned >>
Sounds like somebody's trying to suck and blow at the same time - - ditch FDR, remember FDR. You can't do both. The New Deal is FDR's lasting contribution to the American political landscape. It's either gonna be kept - - as most sane and normal people would want - - or jettisoned to please a fringe group of anarchist lunatics. one. or the other.
QuoteI should point out here that I don't really care if people like Michael Tee want to live in a socialist society. What I care about is that people like Michael Tee want to see that everyone lives in a socialist society whether or not everyone else wants to do so..... If other people want to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler, I don't want to stop them. I just don't want them acting to force everyone else to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler.
I'm against all forms of U.S. imperialism.
But state-sponsored is better than corporate-sponsored.
I'm for a society where the state respects the sovereignty of other nations and also either owns the means of production or closely audits the books of all companies having business interests in foreign states to ensure that the corporations are not doing privately what the fascist Amerikkkan state formerly did publicly for their interests.
Well I guess the people of liberated Venezuela and liberated Cuba aren't as impressed with Orwell's warnings as you are, or they don't see their leaders as the equivalent of Big Brother or Napoleon. But hell, what would they know? They only live there.
Why wouldn't an anti-fascist complain about social Darwinism?
To the extent that fascism provided ANY social welfare benefits, it was only to compete with the appeal of communism to the working class. It was certainly not the social welfare aspects of fascism to which the anti-fascists and/or socialists objected.
<<And what people usually mean by Social Darwinism is some sort of every person for himself society where criminality runs rampant and people (anyone but the absolute wealthiest people) die horrible, lingering deaths all alone with no one to care. >>
Why not just say "pre-New-Deal Amerikkka?"
That's why FDR was able to bring in the New Deal in the first place. The folks had just about had it up the old wazoo with old-fashioned laissez-faire capitalism.
All they have to do is listen to idiots like Murray Rothbard.
My parents, my aunts and uncles all LIVED though those years. I know first-hand what they were like. The Great Depression, the bread lines, the factory closings, the Hoovervilles, the labour violence, "Brother Can You Spare a Dime?, that's all just a figment of my imagination, right?
And before them, Coxey's Army, the Ludlow Massacre, the Pullman Strike, the child labour, the right to hire and fire on racial prejudice alone, the frauds on pension funds, the unregulated workplaces, the unregulated consumer products. You don't know what you are talking about. Plain and simple.
The old people ARE better off when the government takes their money and invests it responsibly. Period.
They are NOT better off when the banking and finance industry is allowed to get their dirty, greedy little fingers into it. One financial scandal after another should prove that conclusively to anyone who has the basic reading skills to handle a daily newspaper.
I hate to bring you back to the real world when you're on such a roll, but the fact is that most of Amerikkka's wealthy are inheritors, and of those who made millionaire or higher "rank" on their own, most of them made it through speculation (i.e., gambling,) mainly in real estate. Their sole contribution to a better world was to needlessly escalate housing prices through their bidding up the market so they could sell early and cash out.
Socialists want the state to serve the people, to protect the people against exploitation, wage slavery, unregulated production of harmful products, unregulated workplaces (i.e. sweatshops, fire traps) and unregulated labour relations, i.e., sexual and other exploitation.
I have laid out for you readers what a socialist state is expected to do for its citizens. Consider what I think a socialist government can and should do for people.
Then consider the way Prince characterizes both (a) what the socialist state can do for you as a citizen and (b) what kind of person you, as a citizen, must be if you wish to accept the services of such a state. Are you really "selfish children" for expecting the state to regulate the production of drugs and food and baby cribs, etc. to reduce harm to the citizens?
Do you really believe that on your own, you can enforce safety in the workplace, adherence to the highest standards of consumer safety, invest your savings wisely and never get ripped off in the world of financial services, thereby guaranteeing yourselves a secure old age?
Prince is appealing to your ego and fantasizing a world that never was and never will be.
In the real world, there are unscrupulous manufacturers, and unscrupulous employers, financial sharks, swindlers and con men.
You may or may not navigate the real world successfully on your own. Before the New Deal, many did not.
There will still be Triangle Shirtwaist fires in workplaces, poisonous products sold in the marketplace, none of these things can ever be eliminated 100%. But the New Deal and its reforms cut back significantly and to a very large degree on all kinds of abuses. It DID provide a safety net. Anyone who thinks in this complex society we live in that he or she can do it all on his or her own is just living in a dreamworld.
| There are two striking aspects of the recovery from the Great Depression in the United States: the recovery was very weak, and real wages in several sectors rose significantly above trend. These data contrast sharply with neoclassical theory, which predicts a strong recovery with low real wages. We evaluate the contribution to the persistence of the Depression of New Deal cartelization policies designed to limit competition and increase labor bargaining power. We develop a model of the bargaining process between labor and firms that occurred with these policies and embed that model within a multisector dynamic general equilibrium model. We find that New Deal cartelization policies are an important factor in accounting for the failure of the economy to recover back to trend. |
<<Is liberty a panacea, a cure-all for society? Absolutely not. I'm not suggesting there would be no problems. I'm merely saying that I think people have a right to their own lives, their own liberty, and their own pursuits of happiness. >>
People had all that before the New Deal, and the New Deal left their right to their own lives and liberty largely intact (except that nobody's free to set his own standards if he manufactures drugs for public consumption or operates a workplace that he or she thinks is "safe enough.") Pretty much everybody can pursue happiness his or her own way. Your argument, to the extent that you imply that a socialist state imperils liberty, the right to pursue happiness, etc. is flagrantly dishonest. The activities that are regulated are largely those that impact upon other people's lives and happiness.
Think of it this way, UP. When we're all living in a socialist society, you can go away somewhere in the woods and have a nice little capitalist utopian society where you FORCE everyone to give up something of theirs in order to get some vital resource
If Libertarians were taken seriously, they would be elected in far greater numbers than just Ron Paul. We would award Ayn Rand the Medal of Freedom posthumously at the very latest. I am not the only one that refuses to take them seriously. I favor some of their views, such as the futility of the war on drugs, and their opposition to government intervention in education, sex and sexual orientation.
Your logical error was in rolling up a lot of different things under the general term "liberty." So if I object to a manufacturer rolling up horse-shit into cigarette paper and selling his product as tobacco, I'm criticizing "liberty." If I object to racial minorities voting, I'm criticizing "liberty." If I object to the right to criticize the "President" in war-time, I'm criticizing "liberty." If I object to an employer not installing fire-extinguishers and locking every fucking exit from the outside, I'm criticizing "liberty." That's bullshit.
You've just rolled up a hell of a lot of things that socialists object to with a whole bunch of other stuff they don't object to, called the whole package "liberty" and claimed (on the basis of your own definition of "liberty") that socialists are against "liberty." That kind of sloppy thinking just won't fly.
Prince, you gave a pretty thoughtful and detailed exposition of why you're right and why I and old Joe Stalin are all fulla shit, but today is a kinda busy day for me and I gotta break off here and now. (Quitting while I'm ahead) I hope to come back to this in bits and pieces over the next few days (will be in NYC visiting the grandchildren) and otherwise will pick up where I left off next week.
I don't see people telling you to move to Switzerland or Norway or Venezuela or Cuba. You're the hypocrite for suggesting libertarians should all leave if they don't like it here. When you move, then maybe you'll have some grounds to talk about libertarians leaving the country.[/color]
Victor told me to move to Sweden, does that count?
:P
Ah yes, the old Social Darwinism bit. It always pops up when people discuss liberty. And the funny thing is, much of the time, the people who bring it up are the folks to complain about things like fascism (usually from the left) or socialism (usually from the right). And what people usually mean by Social Darwinism is some sort of every person for himself society where criminality runs rampant and people (anyone but the absolute wealthiest people) die horrible, lingering deaths all alone with no one to care. Scary isn't it? The problem is, that whole scenario (that Michael Tee tries to express with "dog-eat-dog Darwinian society" and "Amerikkka") is entirely wrong. Not pre-New Deal, merely a post-New Deal progress that reasonably addresses what is left of a program that hobbled economic and individual progress. The old "people will become financially better off if we just keep taking money away from them" thinking belongs in the dustbin of history along with the geo-centric universe.
Ultimately the problem with Michael Tee's complaint is that it is based on the notion the people need a government to tell them how to live. Otherwise society will devolve into "dog-eat-dog Darwinian society" of chaos and criminals, like some sort of movie version of a bad town in the Old West.
We're supposed to hate people who attain economic wealth by running a company that produces, via the cooperation of many people, something many more people want, but we're supposed to like people who want people to become the servants of the state, i.e. the ruler, and will do what is necessary to support that goal.
Do you see what this means? You're all selfish children who need someone to think of your best interests for you because you cannot be allowed to do that on your own. From this view of society comes the notion that liberty is going to result in Social Darwinism.
I should point out here that I don't really care if people like Michael Tee want to live in a socialist society. What I care about is that people like Michael Tee want to see that everyone lives in a socialist society whether or not everyone else wants to do so. I realize that folks like Michael Tee think of that position as humane and as helping other people. I don't agree with them. What they don't seem to realize is that I think of my position as humane and as helping other people. If other people want to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler, I don't want to stop them.
I just don't want them acting to force everyone else to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler. I see this as little different than, say, Christian fundamentalists deciding they want to have their lives ruled by the Bible and their preachers. I don't care, so long as they don't try to force everyone else to do the same. And if you look at their arguments, the folks like Michael Tee and the fundamentalist Christians, they are quite similar. Without the control of their preferred rulers, society will devolve into the worst possible scenario because there are evil forces that would ruin everything for everyone, and everyone is too selfish to be allowed the liberty to make such decisions for themselves. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. It comes down to the same thing, controlling society.
Is liberty a panacea, a cure-all for society? Absolutely not. I'm not suggesting there would be no problems. I'm merely saying that I think people have a right to their own lives, their own liberty, and their own pursuits of happiness. I'm not calling for no government, just a better one, one that protects the rights of individuals rather than imposing the social desires of some on everyone else. And I can already guess the comeback. Aren't I arguing for the imposition of my social desires on everyone else? No. I'm not arguing for the imposition of anything. The right to freedom of religion does not impose a religion on other people. Arguing for freedom of association does not stop you from deciding to live with Socialists or fundamentalist Christians or anarcho-Capitalists or Wiccans or teetotaler, vegan, free-love Atheists. Nothing is imposed on you, but nothing is imposed on others either.[/color]
There are a great number of people who would be better off if the economic system was geared towards social equity, it isn't a matter of "people will become financially better off if we just keep taking money away from them." It is a matter of redistributing wealth. The problem comes from half-ass attempts to do so. Or, as in the United States, Benthamite attempts to punish people who seek any kind of government assistance.
There are a great number of people who would be better off if the economic system was geared towards social equity,
There are a great number of people who would be better off if the economic system was geared towards social equity, it isn't a matter of "people will become financially better off if we just keep taking money away from them." It is a matter of redistributing wealth. The problem comes from half-ass attempts to do so.
Or, as in the United States, Benthamite attempts to punish people who seek any kind of government assistance.
No. It is the difference between Hobbes and Locke's version of Natural Law. With Locke it is an alpine meadow where Pollyanna runs through barefoot and everyone is happy and laughing freely. The only role for government is to ensure that contracts are enforced by law, otherwise commerce is not feasible. With Hobbes it is a short, brutal, and cold world where man is cruel and the strongest take what they want.
QuoteWe're supposed to hate people who attain economic wealth by running a company that produces, via the cooperation of many people, something many more people want, but we're supposed to like people who want people to become the servants of the state, i.e. the ruler, and will do what is necessary to support that goal.
That is rather patronising. I don't know what Tee's view is, but my view is that people are generally good and therefore they, the working people should own the means of production and run the companies and industries. Works Councils would gradually replace the functions of the state anyway.
QuoteDo you see what this means? You're all selfish children who need someone to think of your best interests for you because you cannot be allowed to do that on your own. From this view of society comes the notion that liberty is going to result in Social Darwinism.
Because the elite respect liberty?
QuoteI should point out here that I don't really care if people like Michael Tee want to live in a socialist society. What I care about is that people like Michael Tee want to see that everyone lives in a socialist society whether or not everyone else wants to do so. I realize that folks like Michael Tee think of that position as humane and as helping other people. I don't agree with them. What they don't seem to realize is that I think of my position as humane and as helping other people. If other people want to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler, I don't want to stop them.
Patronising equine excrement.
The truth is that it will not matter one way or the other how you view it. Capitalism will rise and rule completely for a while, hence the acceptance, even by most of the left of neoliberalism. Then, it will collapse upon itself, destroyed by the very inequality it promotes as "liberty" and "necessary" to economic growth. You can piss on the backs of the peons and tell them it is raining for only so long. Education is coming a long way. It is easier to access. Class consciousness is an inevitability, and the only real question is what the transition will look like.
The latter is mystical, the first concrete.
Liberty is what it is. A feel good word for a concept that mostly exists as an abstract in the mind, not in reality. All of the major declarations and charters of rights come from Governments, revolutionary groups, or organizations like the UN. Of course they sound wonderful, until you see that the social equality and social justice is missing without fail from every one. As I said, they exist on paper...not in reality.
So what is really being suggested? Nothing.
Nothing at all. And that my friends is the real difference. Karl Marx once said, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.? It is easy to promote nothing that resembles the realm of reality. But what is the point?
Everyone is for liberty. Everyone is for integrity. Everyone is for the children.
Socialism, whether you like it or not, is a philosophy that promotes concrete and real changes to bring equity and justice to the people...to ALL of the people. Libertarianism promotes what? An abstract notion that does what? Nothing.
Social equity defined as what and by whom?
I disagree. The problem comes from trying to force a redistribution of wealth that punishes people for surpassing some arbitrary limit of "unfair".
I have to confess, I don't know what you're referring to. I know basically what Benthamite means, but what attempts are you calling Benthamite?
As I understand it, yes, Hobbes has an extremely dismal view of the world and of people, and uses this as a reason why people need a huge, intrusive government to take care of them and control them. I'm not sure your description of Locke's view is accurate, but even if it is, I reject the either/or scenario.
Patronizing to whom? Personally, I think the workers owning the means of production is a nice idea, though I oppose trying to force it. I also think we would get to a place where more workers did own more if we stopped trying to control trade and stopped the vast regulations that essentially marry large, extremely wealthy corporations to the government, and allowed more entrepreneurship. Then people who agree with you can start more businesses and establish them as worker controlled and owned entities, and then various models for that can be tried and the successful one(s) will flourish. As they succeed, more businesses will emulate them. This is something to which I am not at all opposed.
Not what I said. And where I sit, what socialism proposes is making the government the elite who are in control. So if we agree the elite are not going to be trusted to respect liberty, then why would I want to establish socialist control of society?
Did you just call me a liar?
I don't believe you. Capitalism does not promote inequality. Inequality exists and will exist even in a socialist society. Capitalism does not prevent the faster, the smarter, the talented, the stronger from working with those are not. It does not circumscribe a person's place in society and demand he remain there. It allows the person to decide for himself what goals to pursue, how to make use of his time, how to live. There is no demand for economic or social pigeonholing. Yes, sometimes in society people attempt to erect artificial social barriers, but those are not supported by capitalism. Capitalism is a means of breaking down those barriers. Capitalism, for all it's faults, eventually leaves its most potent power in the hands of the peons, as you called them, and we do them no favors by taking that power away by creating partnerships between corporations and the government via onerous regulations that only corporations can meet.
On the contrary, the authoritarianism of the fundamentalist Christians would be just as concrete as authoritarianism by socialists. And both would claim the same goal, the common good of the people.
As you might say, JS, "Patronising equine excrement." Equity? Equity according to whom? Socialists. Ideas of equity with which people will be forced to comply whether they agree or not. Equity decided for you by people who insist they know better. Equity which leaves little protection for those who dissent. Equity which is, by my way of thinking, not equity at all.
Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party ? though they are quite numerous ? is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. The essence of political freedom depends not on the fanatics of "justice", but rather on all the invigorating, beneficial, and detergent effects of dissenters. If "freedom" becomes "privilege", the workings of political freedom are broken.
If the world is a brutal place where the strong abuse the weak, if people are so awful that liberty and laissez faire capitalism are sure to result in misery, suffering and abuse, then what does socialism bring to the table that changes people into trustworthy and charitable folks who only look out for their neighbor's best interest? Nothing. The same weaknesses and vices of human nature that exist now will exist in a socialist society.
Bourgeois class domination is undoubtedly an historical necessity, but, so too, the rising of the working class against it. Capital is an historical necessity, but, so too, its grave digger, the socialist proletariat.[/i]
The socialist offers social equity and social justice. Sounds really great, doesn't it? They complain that liberty is just a concept but you're supposed to accept that their ideas about social equity and social justice are concrete terms that cannot be disputed. Except of course that this is not so. Yes, liberty is a concept. But ask someone freed from jail or slavery if liberty is nothing. Ask them is liberty is not a reality. If liberty is not a reality, then neither is confinement or slavery. And yet, we know this is not so. The concepts of freedom and enslavement exist because they reflect reality, not because some dreamers with wild ideas invented them.
Does liberty mean the same thing to all people? No. Some people find relationships with a strong leader to be liberating. JS asks "Libertarianism promotes what?" The power of the individual to choose for himself. Is that nothing, as JS claims? Is it nothing for you to have the liberty to choose your own life? Do you see the tactic here? Liberty is proclaimed to be nothing. Liberty leaves you with nothing, you're adrift, with nothing concrete, so the idea goes. And then the socialist says "Here, I offer you something concrete, social justice, social equity," and you're expected to cling to this as secure footing, solid ground. But is it?
The socialist will talk about social equity in terms of everyone having the same of everything. Me, I see social equity as people being free to find their own place in society. Some people want to be rich. Some people like a simple middle class life. Allowing them both to decide, that makes them socially equal.
Now mind you, I may have an odd sense of justice. I think not taking what belongs to others and punishing those who do is justice. I think trying to have what other people have by forcing them to comply with one's personal desires is not justice. I don't believe forcing McDonald's to pay millions to a person who spilled hot coffee on herself is justice, but some people do. So whose notion of social justice are the socialists talking about? Their own obviously.
So when socialists offer social equity and social justice, they mean compliance with their preferences, not some brotherly, let's-all-get-along love.
When people talk about liberty and equality and justice, by all means you should question what people mean when they talk about these things. And when people talk about things like "wealth redistribution" as part of their explanation, rest assured they mean making other people comply. You may or may not agree with that, but let's not deny the reality of what is being discussed.
and electricity...
and internet connections...
and phone service...
and cable...
and health care...
etc.
Why is it a punishment to be forced to come together and help your fellow man by developing a nation, a world, free of poverty? Free of hunger? With healthcare, education, and guaranteed employement for all?
Who has real freedom and authority? George Bush, John Kerry, Vladimir Putin, or you?
I'm rather enjoying this. This is the best discussion I've had here in some time.
Let me say that I am rather enjoying this as well.Quote
It is wonderfull to see the discussion become a fun sort of sparring .
Social Equality is a system of relationships where everyone has equivalent privileges and status, which can only exist in a classless society.
Social Justice is concerned with two primary areas: the Life and Diginity of the human person, and the development of a classless society to eradicate poverty.
These are taken from Marxist and Christian traditions.
QuoteI disagree. The problem comes from trying to force a redistribution of wealth that punishes people for surpassing some arbitrary limit of "unfair".
Why is it a punishment to come together and help your fellow man by developing a nation, a world, free of poverty? Free of hunger? With healthcare, education, and guaranteed employement for all?
The problem there is with Nietzschean concepts of individualism that disregard society.
There are some very successful companies owned by the customers and others owned by the employees. I agree with you, of course, on the issue of trade, labor, and the relationship of mega-corporations with the government. Yet, I'm realistic too. That is democracy. It may not be textbook democracy for wide-eyed high school American History students, but it is the grotesque reality whether one is a Democrat, Republican, Labour Party, Conservative Party, SPD, or CDU/CSU, Liberal, NDP, or Tories. That is part of the Neoliberal Consensus. That is part of Capitalism's reign.
Socialism promotes that the people establish control within a classless society. There is no ruling elite or bourgeoisie. (In fairness there are different schools of socialism, as with libertarianism, so I'm going to address my views as I suspect you will do with your own views.) The works councils will govern and democracy will be paramount, without the hindrances placed on it by social status.
Capitalism most certainly promotes inequality. The data has proven this with the rising Gini Coefficients over time for most western nations (with the exception of Scandinavia). The United States ranks with Cameroon and Uruguay. Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Norway are the top in equality by Gini Coefficient standards and notably have larger welfare states than the United States (or Cameroon or Uruguay).
Your comparison is still flawed. The former is based on mysticism, the latter on scientific socialism. Claiming the same goal is irrelevant in your attempt to make the two equivalent. You could say that a shaman and a medical doctor are both trying to heal a patient. That does not make the two equivalent to one another, though their goal is identical. Your logic is flawed and you're better than smear tactics.
Who says there is no room for dissent?
I'd suggest reading much more from Rosa, who at the time (from around 1911 to 1920) wrote some amazing works and was anathema to the German junker establishment and the rising Fascists, who viewed women's role as something much less than what Rosa had achieved. Writings of Rosa Luxemburg (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/index.htm)
Socialism removes the system by which the elite attain their advantages. It also removes the system by which the bourgeoisie live what Pink Floyd would call a "comfortably numb" existence. It removes any reason for nationalism and the wars that erupt from that. People are people. They are no longer their assets, their vehicles, their possessions, their ability to delegate power over other people.
Sure, liberty is real to those who have been locked away or enslaved. But we're not really talking the same "liberty" there, are we? This is a bit disengenuous of the libertarian. In fact, this only goes to prove the point more. The Government of our time can grant liberty, or it can take it away (jail, slavery). That was my point above. There is no, what Thomas Jefferson called, "self-evident truths." There is no liberty that exists for all men. So long as class exists, there is no real freedom for the majority of mankind. Who has real political power? Who has real freedom and authority? George Bush, John Kerry, Vladimir Putin, or you?
Socialism does offer something concrete, but I admit it is the more difficult path. Libertarianism is the easy route. It is individualistic. If you like you can take Nietzsche's and Ayn Rand's view that selfishness is good, everything you do is and should be for you, alone.
It is not much different than hedonism. "But that isn't libertariansim" comes the protest, ah - but it is! Ultimately it is the liberty to do as you please with the most minor of caveats. Everyone does as they please and the invisible hand of the market will fill all your needs.
On the other hand, if we only band together in times of sheer adversity, like wolves, then something like Libertarianism should work best.
Socialism offers the cold truth of reality.
Without classlessness, without social justice, social equality...we keep going the same direction. What is that direction? Inequality becomes greater and greater. Wealthy nations dominate poor nations. The wealthy class dominates the poor as the middle class feeds off the scraps and thanks the wealthy for it. Democracy continues to promote the elite, who continue to promote what is best for them and their class. Liberty shrinks as class consciousness grows and more and more people begin to understand that society is falling apart.
QuoteThe socialist will talk about social equity in terms of everyone having the same of everything. Me, I see social equity as people being free to find their own place in society. Some people want to be rich. Some people like a simple middle class life. Allowing them both to decide, that makes them socially equal.
That isn't social equity...see above.
It isn't about "making other people comfy." It is about removing class from society and establishing social equity and social justice. It is about eradicating poverty. It is about establishing work for everyone. It is about world class education, universal health care, top of the line scientific research, not allowing anyone to go hungry, not allowing anyone to go cold, establishing a safety net with no cracks, top of the line infrastructure, etc.
It is a society for everyone and not for the few and priveleged.
The silverback gorilla has far more power in a band of apes than the Alpha wolf in a pack of timber wolves.
The wolfpack is largely voluntary and temporary. The gorilla band is neither.
So, you think that human political behavior is unrelated to genetics?
I never said it wasn't. But humans are more like apes than like wolves, anyway.
How about the Chinese and Japanese being more conducive to cooperative behavior than, say Africans or Caucasians?
Socialism promotes that the people establish control within a classless society. There is no ruling elite or bourgeoisie. [...] Socialism removes the system by which the elite attain their advantages. It also removes the system by which the bourgeoisie live what Pink Floyd would call a "comfortably numb" existence. It removes any reason for nationalism and the wars that erupt from that. People are people. They are no longer their assets, their vehicles, their possessions, their ability to delegate power over other people.
Ch?vez is clearly a nationalist. He is a great admirer of Sim?n Bol?var, a fellow Venezuelan, known as the "George Washington of South America", one of three people in the world that currently has a country (Bolivia) named after him. [The others are El Salvador, named for the Savior, ie Jesus, and Saudi Arabia, named for In al Saud.]
Cecil Rhodes had two nations named after him at one time: Northern Rhodesia, named after his northern part, and Southern Rhodesia. named after his nether regions. But history has cruelly changed both to Zambia and Zimbabwe, and alphabetization has moved them to the end of the Roster.
It is not easy to implement massive societal reform without great political power. Rebvolutions that tried to change their societies without it have been doomed to change very little (Bolivia, 1952, Chile under Allende in the 1970's, Mexico in the period before Obregon took over.
I am late coming back to this because I've had a lot going on, and this reply will have to be relatively brief for the same reason.
Social Equality is a system of relationships where everyone has equivalent privileges and status, which can only exist in a classless society.
Okay, that would be one definition, and it is a good one. On the surface, ideally speaking, I like it. However, I think in practice it would be impractical to try to enforce this. If everyone were the same, wanted the same things in the same amounts to the same degree, it would work, but this is not the reality of human nature and human relationships.
Social Justice is concerned with two primary areas: the Life and Diginity of the human person, and the development of a classless society to eradicate poverty.
Life, dignity and the eradication of poverty, these are things with which I am also concerned, and which I think are addressed better with liberty and trade than with socialism. Personally, I am less concerned with the existence of classes than I am with making them barrier-less. I don't care if there is a wealthy class so long as there is nothing to stop people from getting there, which to me, is the same thing as having no classes, because then there will be a range of financial levels and there will be no single distinct class. We are, as a society, slowly getting to that point. I'm not saying there are not problems or that there are no poor. There are, but I think those problems will be better addressed by more liberty not less and by more trade not less.
QuoteI disagree. The problem comes from trying to force a redistribution of wealth that punishes people for surpassing some arbitrary limit of "unfair".
Why is it a punishment to come together and help your fellow man by developing a nation, a world, free of poverty? Free of hunger? With healthcare, education, and guaranteed employement for all?
Heh. Cute. I did not say punishing people for coming together to help others. I'm not against that and you know it. I am 100% for people coming together to help others, and if I like your group of people coming together to help others I'll even join you and help if possible. The problem is not people coming together, is not even persuading people to come together to help others. The problem is forcing other people who disagree with you to participate in your agenda whether or not they want to do so. The problem is punishing people for surpassing some arbitrary limit of "unfair" economic success.
The problem there is with Nietzschean concepts of individualism that disregard society.
That might be a problem for some, but not for me. I do not hold concepts of individualism that disregard society. My concepts of individualism embrace the notion of society, of people working together, of protecting society by protecting the individual. I'm not out to strengthen in individual at the expense of society. I believe that if we strengthen the individual, meaning not one person only but all individuals as individuals, then we will by extension strengthen society. Society is, after all, a collection of individuals.
There are some very successful companies owned by the customers and others owned by the employees. I agree with you, of course, on the issue of trade, labor, and the relationship of mega-corporations with the government. Yet, I'm realistic too. That is democracy. It may not be textbook democracy for wide-eyed high school American History students, but it is the grotesque reality whether one is a Democrat, Republican, Labour Party, Conservative Party, SPD, or CDU/CSU, Liberal, NDP, or Tories. That is part of the Neoliberal Consensus. That is part of Capitalism's reign.
I do not agree. Corporations partnering with government to control industry and business is not democracy. And frankly, imo, it is not capitalism either. I support capitalism, but I do not support the anti-capitalistic, competition and market stifling partnership between corporations and government. We do not have it because it part of capitalism. We have it because it is part of what happens when people cede power to the government. When we demand government regulate to the degree that we have, the partnering of corporations and government is inevitable. We will not solve this by demanding government do more, the partnership will only grow stronger.
Socialism promotes that the people establish control within a classless society. There is no ruling elite or bourgeoisie. (In fairness there are different schools of socialism, as with libertarianism, so I'm going to address my views as I suspect you will do with your own views.) The works councils will govern and democracy will be paramount, without the hindrances placed on it by social status.
Okay, but I do not see how we get there by giving the government more power. That seems the opposite of giving power to the people. Giving the government more power and authority, with less and less in the hands of individuals seems to me the opposite of empowering the workers.
Capitalism most certainly promotes inequality. The data has proven this with the rising Gini Coefficients over time for most western nations (with the exception of Scandinavia). The United States ranks with Cameroon and Uruguay. Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Norway are the top in equality by Gini Coefficient standards and notably have larger welfare states than the United States (or Cameroon or Uruguay).
Okay, that would be income inequality, which, to my thinking, is not the same as social inequality. Apparently you equate the two. I do not. Which is why, when we speak of social inequality and/or social equity, I think pointing out that there are different ideas about what that means is important.
Your comparison is still flawed. The former is based on mysticism, the latter on scientific socialism. Claiming the same goal is irrelevant in your attempt to make the two equivalent. You could say that a shaman and a medical doctor are both trying to heal a patient. That does not make the two equivalent to one another, though their goal is identical. Your logic is flawed and you're better than smear tactics.
You say this after claiming that your definitions of social equality and social justice come, at least in part, from Christian tradition. So think perhaps the comparison is not so far off as you would make out. And from my perspective, to keep this comparison according to my thinking, the shaman and the medical doctor do not have the same goal. The shaman wants to get rid of evil spirits while the medical doctor is going to treat physical problems. The Christian fundamentalist and the socialist (the Michael Tee style socialist at least) want to do the same thing. It's like two medical doctors having different approaches to the same problem. They both want to fix society through control even if their ideas about how are somewhat different. The fundamentalist Christians, at least the kind I'm talking about this discussion, are not looking to shake talismans and shout evil spirits away from society. They want to enact practical (in the sense of actual rather than mystical) controls on society to correct the problems they believe exist in society. The socialists (again, the Michael Tee style socialist at least) want to enact practical controls on society to correct the problems they believe exist in society. And I oppose both for the same basic reason, I don't believe society can be fixed by trying to strictly control it. So from my perspective, the comparison is valid.
Who says there is no room for dissent?
When you call or at least imply that disagreeing with socialism is somehow not wanting to "to come together and help your fellow man by developing a nation, a world, free of poverty" that doesn't really leave a lot of room for dissent. So you tell me, is there room for a capitalist dissent in a socialist society? Is there room for libertarianism in a socialist society? Doesn't a socialist society depend a great deal upon everyone agreeing with (at least in general) socialism?
Socialism removes the system by which the elite attain their advantages. It also removes the system by which the bourgeoisie live what Pink Floyd would call a "comfortably numb" existence. It removes any reason for nationalism and the wars that erupt from that. People are people. They are no longer their assets, their vehicles, their possessions, their ability to delegate power over other people.
I confess, I have hard time believing it could accomplish all that. That sounds altogether utopian to me. So tell me why it isn't.
Sure, liberty is real to those who have been locked away or enslaved. But we're not really talking the same "liberty" there, are we? This is a bit disengenuous of the libertarian. In fact, this only goes to prove the point more. The Government of our time can grant liberty, or it can take it away (jail, slavery). That was my point above. There is no, what Thomas Jefferson called, "self-evident truths." There is no liberty that exists for all men. So long as class exists, there is no real freedom for the majority of mankind. Who has real political power? Who has real freedom and authority? George Bush, John Kerry, Vladimir Putin, or you?
"The Government of our time can grant liberty, or it can take it away (jail, slavery)." Indeed. But it can also make laws that confine human action. A slave that has free movement and self will on the plantation is still a slave. A citizen who must conform his actions to the regulations of government (beyond those laws that protect basic human rights) or the worker council is not living in liberty. Okay, so you don't agree that Jefferson's self-evident truths are self-evident. But Jefferson was one of many men who felt their liberty was unduly confined by their government. Do all people have the same degree of liberty? No. In some ways I have more liberty than the people you named because I don't have the responsibilities of government. I have more liberty than people in the military, but then right now we have a volunteer military, so those people chose to be in the military. Should the rest of society be made to live at the military to be fair, to keep those of us not in the military from having more liberty? But what about the poor? Don't think I want to see them limited. And I'm not saying all poor people choose to be poor. Certainly I want to see poor get help to improve their financial states and to have access to health care and decent shelter and all that, but I also think people ought to have the liberty to choose a level of financial achievement that suits them. Some people want a lot. Some people want a little. Some want something in between. I see no reason to interfere in that liberty. If you take that away, that is not social equality or social justice, imo.
Okay, back to JS's post.
Socialism offers the cold truth of reality.
Does it? From what I've seen, I don't think so. I think it offers a really nice sounding idea that might work if the world was one single homogeneous culture with everyone in agreement philosophically, but that is not the case, so I have to question that what socialism offers for society as a whole is reality.
Without classlessness, without social justice, social equality...we keep going the same direction. What is that direction? Inequality becomes greater and greater. Wealthy nations dominate poor nations. The wealthy class dominates the poor as the middle class feeds off the scraps and thanks the wealthy for it. Democracy continues to promote the elite, who continue to promote what is best for them and their class. Liberty shrinks as class consciousness grows and more and more people begin to understand that society is falling apart.
In a way I agree, and in another I disagree. As you mean classlessness and social justice and social equality, I disagree. As I mean classlessness and social justice and social equality, I agree. Eliminate subsidies, tariffs, artificial barriers to trade and allow capitalism to do for others what it has done for us. Allow the farmers in the poorer countries to trade their cheaper foods and the price of food goes down and the farmers' economic status is raised, improving life for them, their families and their communities. Stop allowing government and corporations to partner up to restrict competition and to make entering the market as difficult as possible, and allow people to innovate in the market and take risks. Create a chance for the little guy to challenge the larger business without having to be a huge corporation and you'll see more wealth redistribution, and it'll happen naturally, without forcibly taking money away from people. What was that you said about removing nationalism and the wars that arise from that? Open trade if that is what you want. The more people seek to get along with trading partners in other cultures, the more understanding between cultures there will be, and the less likely people will be to make war on their neighbor. Trade goods, not bullets.
QuoteThe socialist will talk about social equity in terms of everyone having the same of everything. Me, I see social equity as people being free to find their own place in society. Some people want to be rich. Some people like a simple middle class life. Allowing them both to decide, that makes them socially equal.
That isn't social equity...see above.
It may not be social equity to you. But it is social equality in my opinion. People free to pursue their own happiness, each as they choose without artificial barriers in the way, this is social equality. I don't equate wealth to class, and I don't need a lot of money to be happy. Some people want a lot of money and all that. Some people like living simply, with as few possessions as possible. I'm somewhere in the middle of that. I also believe in the whole love your neighbor as yourself and as you want others to do to you so do likewise to them. So since I don't want someone else deciding for me how I should live deciding what and how much I can have, essentially deciding for me what sort of life I should have, I do not desire to decide that for others. The rich business man, if he is honest, takes nothing from me unless I choose to exchange for his goods or services. I take nothing from others unless they choose to give it to me. How is this not social equality?
Yes, I know many poor people need help. I want them to get that help, and I contribute to that whenever I can reasonably do so. But I see things done in the name of social equality or social justice that harm the poor. Socialist ideas, for example minimum wage laws, get enacted and, as best I can determine, contribute not to the alleviation but the entrenchment of poverty. And so I cannot help but question why more socialism is the solution.
[/quote]
It isn't about "making other people comfy." It is about removing class from society and establishing social equity and social justice. It is about eradicating poverty. It is about establishing work for everyone. It is about world class education, universal health care, top of the line scientific research, not allowing anyone to go hungry, not allowing anyone to go cold, establishing a safety net with no cracks, top of the line infrastructure, etc.
It is a society for everyone and not for the few and privileged.
It's about establishing a utopia where everyone is safe and cared for. I don't believe you can do it. Not to the degree that you seem to be claiming.
Don't get me wrong. I like your goals. I read that paragraph of yours though, and I am reminded of all the times you accused me of of ivory tower thinking. Because that is what I think you have there. You're trading liberty for safety to remove the bad consequences from the world. While I admire the goal of eliminating suffering, I don't believe you have presented, as you promised, the cold hard truth of reality. I think you're trying to escape it.
I don't fault you for wanting a better world. I want a better world too. But I don't believe socialism can deliver what you say it can. I don't claim liberty as a panacea for the world's problems. But I think it is the best way to get to the long term solutions that will do the most good for the most people. Trying to define for other people what should make them happy is, I think, not a solution with long term beneficial results. It is, in point of fact, a source of many of the world's problems.
"Whenever there is a massive accumulation of wealth then there is also deprivation. There is only so much capital possible at any given time."
Both of these statements are totally in error.
Where there is a lot of capitol creation ,deprivation is lessened.
Patiently no , it is not, there is no reason to think so."Whenever there is a massive accumulation of wealth then there is also deprivation. There is only so much capital possible at any given time."
Both of these statements are totally in error.
Where there is a lot of capitol creation ,deprivation is lessened.
1. At any given moment in time (t) there is only so much capital. That is true.
2. Show me one state that has had a very wealthy upper class and does not have a very deprived lower class.
The United States? We don't have deprived poor?
So at any time (t) there is an infinite amount of capital?Infinate no . Fixed no. Capittal is a product of labor , a product of harvest , a product of seervice and a product of organisation. The amount availible is in constant flux and depends a lot on who is creating it and how many are creating it.
The United States? We don't have deprived poor?
How do you think poor people live, Plane?
I coped but didn't blame the wealthy , how would anyb wealthy person consumeing one iota less have helped me or any of my neighbors?.\
==================================================\
Surely you jest. A wealthy person might contribute money to a church or a charity that would, in turn, pay your heating and cooling bills.
For what it is worth, I am relatively prosperous, but my house has no furnace or central air. I use plug-in circulating oil radiators when it is cold (usually only in February) and a single window AC in the Summer. But of course, Miami is warmer than Georgia by far.
Specific rich people are not the cause of specific poverty. However, if you had lived in Norway instead of Georgia, the government would have provided you with both adequate housing and heat. It would find money to do this by taxing the wealthy more than they do here (15% on capital gains, typically here, and 40% in Norway), and by spending money from the nationally owned Northsea oil wells to subsidize your housing and heat.
In Socialist nations, the equalizer of living standards is the government. In the US the government does very little of this. I think these days Hugo Chavez will sell home heating oil via Citgo to poor Americans in some states.
If General Motors did not pay their executives salaries in the millions, they could pay their assembly line workers more, of course.
Roger Smith was president of GM for a number of years in the 1980's, and every year the quality of GM cars declined and the company lost market share, but Roger got a fat, juicy raise, while line workers got thrown out of jobs.
I don't think [social equality (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=4439.msg41341#msg41341) as defined by JS] is against human nature at all. I think that it tends to go against White Anglo-Saxon Protestant modern thinking, acting, and structural beliefs about the way society "has" to be ordered. Yet, many cultures are far more comfortable with with my view of Social Equality and WASP's would be as well, if they would look beyond the short-term and really begin to see society as important.
Whenever there is a massive accumulation of wealth then there is also deprivation. There is only so much capital possible at any given time.
The point being that there is only so much wealth to be had at any given time. So the barriers exist whether you wish they didn't or not.
With democracy, as we have it those with the most accumulated wealth also have the most influence. Sure we need more liberty, but until we achieve a socialist, classless society - that liberty is nothing but the scraps that the elite wishes to grant us.
Look at Jefferson's "self-evident" truths! All men are created equal? In this country? It wasn't true when he wrote it and it is not the case now. Not only is it not self-evident, it was pure unadulterated horse shite.
QuoteThe problem is forcing other people who disagree with you to participate in your agenda whether or not they want to do so. The problem is punishing people for surpassing some arbitrary limit of "unfair" economic success.
What punishment? Either we are equal or we are not. My problem is that you are calling it punishment, and I don't see it as that. In a classless society this idea of accumulating wealth at the expense of society becomes an irrelevancy. It is not punishment because it is not there's, yours, or mine any longer.
QuoteI believe that if we strengthen the individual, meaning not one person only but all individuals as individuals, then we will by extension strengthen society. Society is, after all, a collection of individuals.
That is a paraphrase of a famous quote by Maggie Thatcher, and more wrong a person could not be. Though, I will credit you for not entirely dismissing the notion of society completely. It is interesting that you breakdown society into the components of individuals. I tend to think of individuals as a reflection of society, among other factors.
No, this is capitalism and the democracy it has created. Even worse is the horrible discrimination that on your best day you must admit has been a serious black eye to capitalist nations. Still today, both in the public and private sectors an individual is limited in her advancement for no other reason than she is a woman, or black, or came from a poor background. In this very country!
Who is claiming to give the government more power?
As I said above, it is more than income inequality. Capitalism has given monumental strength to racial, gender, and other types of inequalities.
Some believe the government (commune, works councils, whatever form it is) should have absolutely no role in private individual lives. Others, like myself, believe that it is the responsibility of the works councils to ensure that some basic principles and societal norms are maintained.
The problem with your explanation is that you place every individual in a vacuum as if one's actions has no consequences on another. Slavery in the United States had consequences that still exist to this very day. The mega-wealthy living opulent lifestyles have consequences. The modern notion of individualism and low taxation has consequences, especially on the poor. Someone "reaching the level of financial achievement that suits them" sounds nice on its face, but is it really? What are the consequences? Who did he step on and over?
You seem to think that I am against freedom of trade and I am not.
The problem of course is that farmers in poorer countries will never be allowed to compete, because they cannot.
Look at Mexico and their poor farmers. They were swallowed up and destroyed by ADM after NAFTA. They simply cannot compete with American agribusiness, so a few large landowners in poor third world countries get wealthy by selling their land to American Agribusiness. Then it can either be used for agriculture, or allowed to lie fallow forevermore. You paint a nice little David & Goliath scenario, but in the real world it doesn't happen like that. Our own small farmers in this nation cannot compete with ADM (and the other major companies) even with both being subsidised.
Minimum wage laws are not a socialist idea and in fact, if you read British history you'll see that in the UK the Trade Unions vehemently opposed the wage floor (until the so-called "moderate" union leaders came in the 90's with Tony Blair). If the United States had decent Trade Unions a minimum wage would not be necessary and it is by no means a socialist notion, at least not in my book. It is your typical bourgeoisie tool, used very effectively by the right and center.
I'm not trading liberty for safety at all. Again, I think you misunderstand socialism to a great degree.
For example, you use the phrase: "trying to define for other people what should make them happy" and that isn't even close to what socialism does. Social Equality and Social Justice are what they are. Happiness is an internal emotion, it has nothing to do with socialism (or capitalism, or any political philosophy for that matter).
What I see in liberty is just the status quo of promises that democracy and capitalism continue to make and break on a daily, monthly, yearly basis. Yet, still we have the growing gap between rich and poor. Still we have terrible discrimination. Still we have a society, not only content, but even some are damned proud that we disregard our poor, starving, homeless, sick.
And you offer empty promises of more liberty? To do what? Starve more freely? Die of preventable disease with more liberty? Bourgeoisie noise.
I don't think [social equality (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=4439.msg41341#msg41341) as defined by JS] is against human nature at all. I think that it tends to go against White Anglo-Saxon Protestant modern thinking, acting, and structural beliefs about the way society "has" to be ordered. Yet, many cultures are far more comfortable with with my view of Social Equality and WASP's would be as well, if they would look beyond the short-term and really begin to see society as important.
I don't agree. Even in primitive cultures there are leaders and followers, there are those who want many things and those who want little, those who will work more and those who will work less. There may be cultures in the world where this is not so, but I do not know of one. In addition, I think you sell WASPs short by implying that they do not see society as important. Some may not, but many more do. There are numerous charities that support this, and think the issue is not WASPs not seeing society as important, but that a majority don't really agree that socialism is the way to go.
Whenever there is a massive accumulation of wealth then there is also deprivation. There is only so much capital possible at any given time.
But this is not a zero-sum situation. At any given time there may be a specific amount of capital available, but that does not mean that more cannot be created.
The point being that there is only so much wealth to be had at any given time. So the barriers exist whether you wish they didn't or not.
No one said making more capital or more money was easy. But it is not impossible, and generally not restricted to class or education level. Thomas Edison, J. C. Watts, Martha Stewart, et cetera. It can be done, and there are things we can do to make it easier. But Martha Stewart's success is not a barrier to someone else attempting a similar success.
With democracy, as we have it those with the most accumulated wealth also have the most influence. Sure we need more liberty, but until we achieve a socialist, classless society - that liberty is nothing but the scraps that the elite wishes to grant us.
If we are going to lay the blame for this on democracy, then the blame lies with people who support and vote for policies that tie business and government together. Which is to say, all those policies intended to regulate the market and correct for "market failures". Socialist policies, imo, have brought us to this point, so I have a hard time seeing this as a detriment of capitalism. Possibly one could argue against democracy, but that seems like a whole other topic best left for another time.
Look at Jefferson's "self-evident" truths! All men are created equal? In this country? It wasn't true when he wrote it and it is not the case now. Not only is it not self-evident, it was pure unadulterated horse shite.
That depends on what one means by equal. You seem to be thinking of equal in terms of wealth. I doubt that is what Jefferson meant.
QuoteThe problem is forcing other people who disagree with you to participate in your agenda whether or not they want to do so. The problem is punishing people for surpassing some arbitrary limit of "unfair" economic success.
What punishment? Either we are equal or we are not. My problem is that you are calling it punishment, and I don't see it as that. In a classless society this idea of accumulating wealth at the expense of society becomes an irrelevancy. It is not punishment because it is not there's, yours, or mine any longer.
Very few people if any ever consider their accumulation of wealth to be done at the expense of society. And in many cases the accumulation of wealth occurs because someone is contributing to society. The person who runs the grocery store, the baker, the barber, and more are all contributing to society. If, say, the baker is successful, has he succeeded at the expense of society? Has he deprived someone else? I think it is not so. But what about the extremely wealthy? What does some scion of some wealthy business owner contribute? Maybe something, maybe nothing. But I don't find it a push toward equality to say to the business owner that he is wrong for making a more comfortable life for his family. I think part of the problem I have with your thinking is that you seem to be wanting to define for everyone else what is and is not a contribution to society. Again, I come back to the impression that what you want is everyone living according to your ideals of social behavior, and I simply cannot agree with that.
QuoteI believe that if we strengthen the individual, meaning not one person only but all individuals as individuals, then we will by extension strengthen society. Society is, after all, a collection of individuals.
That is a paraphrase of a famous quote by Maggie Thatcher, and more wrong a person could not be. Though, I will credit you for not entirely dismissing the notion of society completely. It is interesting that you breakdown society into the components of individuals. I tend to think of individuals as a reflection of society, among other factors.
I don't dismiss the notion of society at all. I guess you're talking about Thatcher's statement that society does not exist. I do think that is a stupid comment in and of itself because clearly society does exist. Personally, I just don't place society over the individual. And society does not exist before individuals. Society exists because of individuals. The thing is, society is never the same for all people. The Goths, the Goreans, the Wiccans, the Baptists, et cetera all live in sections of society that are in many ways different from one another. What is important to one group is not important to another. This sort of decentralized order arises because society is a collection of individuals. To impose an order from the top down is to disregard individuals as individuals. And I agree, to an extent, that individuals are in many ways influences by the society in which they live, but individuals can also influence the society. Menlo Park, Civil Rights marches, the Founding Fathers, I could go on and on about individuals and groups of individuals who changed society. I have a difficult time seeing society as something other than a collection of individuals, because to be, that is the reality of the situation, To try to claim something else would be, imo, trying to claim something that simple is not so.
No, this is capitalism and the democracy it has created. Even worse is the horrible discrimination that on your best day you must admit has been a serious black eye to capitalist nations. Still today, both in the public and private sectors an individual is limited in her advancement for no other reason than she is a woman, or black, or came from a poor background. In this very country!
I don't know how one can blame racism, sexism or other similar discrimination on capitalism. Capitalism doesn't make discrimination happen, individuals do.
Who is claiming to give the government more power?
Are you not one who advocates more wealth redistribution by the government?
As I said above, it is more than income inequality. Capitalism has given monumental strength to racial, gender, and other types of inequalities.
On the contrary, while I agree capitalism has resulted in people having some power of discrimination, I think it allows people of various groups to find success anyway. I'm not saying capitalism as it functions is perfect. People are involved, so it can't be perfect. And I'm not saying there is not more to be done to fight racism and the like, but as I said before, such discrimination is the fault of individuals, not of capitalism.
Some believe the government (commune, works councils, whatever form it is) should have absolutely no role in private individual lives. Others, like myself, believe that it is the responsibility of the works councils to ensure that some basic principles and societal norms are maintained.
Again, what I see is you wanting to see society controlled. But what I don't see is how you can possibly achieve that and have a classless society where no one is discriminated against and everyone is socially equal according to your definition. I think your means are at odds with your goals.
The problem with your explanation is that you place every individual in a vacuum as if one's actions has no consequences on another. Slavery in the United States had consequences that still exist to this very day. The mega-wealthy living opulent lifestyles have consequences. The modern notion of individualism and low taxation has consequences, especially on the poor. Someone "reaching the level of financial achievement that suits them" sounds nice on its face, but is it really? What are the consequences? Who did he step on and over?
I have no idea why you would think that I'm placing every individual in a vacuum. In point of fact, I am recognizing that people live in a society where the actions of one or some can have impact on the lives of others. This is part of the reason why I oppose things like corporate welfare, socialist programs, and closed borders. It also part of the reason I support things like capitalism, the protection of individual rights and helping others in need. Yes, the consequences of slavery are still playing out, and the proper response, imo, is not to make the individual the drone of society but to protect better the rights and liberty of the individual.
Your apparent assumption that financial achievement requires someone to "step on and over" other people is not correct. You're ignoring that I'm not talking about everyone wanting to be "mega-wealthy" because in reality, not everyone does. Many people are satisfied with a level that we would currently call middle class living. Even small business owners are not generally looking to be the next Bill Gates. They just want to do something they enjoy and to live with reasonable financial comfort. If someone sells a lot of a good or service that people are willing to buy then he's not stepping on anyone. He is merely making an exchange a good or service for money. This is part of how people cooperate. I don't have to grow my own vegetables or make my own shoes or find my own medical treatments. I can cooperate with others who do those things by exchanging something I have for something they have. People working together, contributing to society. Is this system perfect? Of course not because people are involved. But it is getting better.
You seem to think that I am against freedom of trade and I am not.
No, I just have trouble reconciling trade with a removal of the notion of property from society.
Look at Mexico and their poor farmers. They were swallowed up and destroyed by ADM after NAFTA. They simply cannot compete with American agribusiness, so a few large landowners in poor third world countries get wealthy by selling their land to American Agribusiness. Then it can either be used for agriculture, or allowed to lie fallow forevermore. You paint a nice little David & Goliath scenario, but in the real world it doesn't happen like that. Our own small farmers in this nation cannot compete with ADM (and the other major companies) even with both being subsidised.
You seem be assuming that the only thing holding the small farmer down is larger farms and businesses. Part of this picture is also tariffs, subsidies, regulations and assorted laws and fees that the government has imposed. I'm arguing that we get rid of all or most of that. If we did I think you would see that taking down the artificial barriers would help the poorer farmers accomplish more.
Minimum wage laws are not a socialist idea and in fact, if you read British history you'll see that in the UK the Trade Unions vehemently opposed the wage floor (until the so-called "moderate" union leaders came in the 90's with Tony Blair). If the United States had decent Trade Unions a minimum wage would not be necessary and it is by no means a socialist notion, at least not in my book. It is your typical bourgeoisie tool, used very effectively by the right and center.
I certainly don't see it as a tool of the capitalists. And I don't see the right pushing for minimum wage increases.
I'm not trading liberty for safety at all. Again, I think you misunderstand socialism to a great degree.
That is entirely possible. However, socialism as you present it looks to me a lot like trading liberty for safety.
For example, you use the phrase: "trying to define for other people what should make them happy" and that isn't even close to what socialism does. Social Equality and Social Justice are what they are. Happiness is an internal emotion, it has nothing to do with socialism (or capitalism, or any political philosophy for that matter).
I disagree. My political philosophy has much to do with allowing people the liberty to pursue happiness. Your version of socialism, with lack of all property and worker councils to enforce social behavior rules seems to me to be exactly about defining for other people what should make them happy. Contributing to society according to the rules of socialism and as enforced by socialists is what people are supposed to want to do, apparently. You leave no room for the individual because you have taken away something that is fundamental, the right to property. The right to property is not just about owning land and cars and such. It applies to the individual as well in that the individual owns himself. He owns his body, his labor, his time and his mind. Socialism takes that away. The individual is then owned by society and the worker councils. Why is this desirable? For the sake of social equality and social justice you tell me. Not so the individual can find his own happiness but so we can supposedly protect society. Safety for liberty. Controlling society to prevent individuals from behaving differently, having different social opinions, et cetera. This is intimately connected with happiness for the individual. And this goes back to me recognizing that people live in a society where the actions of one or some can have impact on the lives of others.
What I see in liberty is just the status quo of promises that democracy and capitalism continue to make and break on a daily, monthly, yearly basis. Yet, still we have the growing gap between rich and poor. Still we have terrible discrimination. Still we have a society, not only content, but even some are damned proud that we disregard our poor, starving, homeless, sick.
I don't know any of those proud people, and I think possibly you're being unfair. What I see in liberty is the hope of changing the society for the better rather than being forced into a top down pattern of control. What I see in socialism is stagnation and social mediocrity.
[/quote]
And you offer empty promises of more liberty? To do what? Starve more freely? Die of preventable disease with more liberty? Bourgeoisie noise.
Come on, JS. I expect more of you than this. Here we are, back the same old tried and tired notion that wanting liberty means wanting people to suffer and dies in misery and alone. You could not be more wrong. I could talk about how liberty for the individual involves freedom to cooperate with others for common goals. I've done that many times before. But I want to focus on something else for the moment. The implication of the wanting liberty means wanting people to suffer and dies in misery and alone notion is that somehow socialism is the answer to all of society's ills. Socialism will make everyone equal. No one will starve and no one will suffer from preventable disease. And so on. The general idea being that socialism will protect people from the bad things that happen in life. Safety in exchange for liberty.
Supposedly socialism is inevitable because capitalism will peak and then collapse in on itself and the masses will then demand socialism. I don't buy it. One of the things that makes capitalism work is that it is a decentralized and adaptable system. The more people try, generally via the government, to move away from that decentralized and adaptable system to something more centrally structured and rigid, which in my opinion would be socialism, the more problems will arise. And if the goal is more power in the hands of the people, then a decentralized and adaptable system is exactly what we need. Will it solve all of society's problems. No. But will be better able to respond to problems and progress toward effective, long-term solutions.
I have nothing against people choosing for themselves to live in a socialist community. But I do have a problem with trying to force all of society to do so. The reason is that I don't believe much in one-size-fits-all solutions. People fault liberty for not addressing all of society's needs, but I think that is unfair. I don't believe it is up to liberty or any single ideology to address all of the problems in society. I think that is up to people. And not all people need or want the same solution. And I think we fail society if we try to enforce one solution on everyone. Some people may need a lot of help. Some folks just need to have others get out of their way. In my opinion, liberty allows people to find their own way to address the needs of others and allows people in need to find the sort of help that suits them best. Socialism, as best I can tell, says there is one way and all people must adhere to it.
Something Sirs said once has stuck with me, not because I want to pick on Sirs, but because I think it is a common modern attitude with WASP American culture. He said, "I don't want to pay for other people's mistakes." We were talking about welfare at the time. I think Sirs, like most Americans is a decent person. In fact, he may have a bit more common decency than most folks. Yet, to me that is the essence of individualism.
Quote
Quote from: _JS on November 14, 2007, 03:04:35 PM
Whenever there is a massive accumulation of wealth then there is also deprivation. There is only so much capital possible at any given time.
But this is not a zero-sum situation. At any given time there may be a specific amount of capital available, but that does not mean that more cannot be created.
It is a finite number. Yes, over time more can be created through untapped capital but a lot of people mistake pecuniary benefits for expansion. Plane is a good example.
Quote
Quote from: _JS on November 14, 2007, 03:04:35 PM
Whenever there is a massive accumulation of wealth then there is also deprivation. There is only so much capital possible at any given time.
But this is not a zero-sum situation. At any given time there may be a specific amount of capital available, but that does not mean that more cannot be created.
It is a finite number. Yes, over time more can be created through untapped capital but a lot of people mistake pecuniary benefits for expansion. Plane is a good example.
I wonder if we are talking about the same thing.
Consider that if all of humanity were stricken with amnesia, there would be no capitol at all.
Most of Capitol is produced day by day and one use of capitol is to increase the capitol producers ability to produce capitol.
I imagine you as a relatively well educated person , gaining this education cost someone some capitol , but , after you gained the education your ability to produce capitol was greater than it was before you got educated.
If you are an artisan the you may use some of your capitol to buy supply's or infastrucure for yourself such as clay or a kiln, paint or an easel, thereby continuing or improving your ability to produce capitol.
If you are an employer , you want to make money from the efforts of each employee , this doesn't only motivate you to minimize unproductive employees , it motivates you to increase the number of employees you employ productively.
If you are running a productive enterprise , you have a great motive to produce more and better and to expand improving your plant and hiring more .Perhaps i you can afford it doubling your production by building a sister to your first factory.
I could make this a very long list of things that can be done with capitol to increase capitol , but you are probably getting my point by now, to consider Capitol as a fixed quantity is to ignore the nature of Capitol.
Taxes tend to reduce the capitol available for the production of capitol , lower taxes therefore do not necessarily reduce the tax receipts if the total result is less restriction on the throat of the Economy.
Socialism is espoused by people who do not understand that the socailism itself depends on the portion of the economy that is not yet socialized , which is the part that is allowed to grow , the part that can produce the tax.
To the extent that we can afford Socialism and still have a viable economy , and the expense is tolerable, it can be a good thing in small doses , but to try to achieve a just and fair society through the use of socialism is self defeating . It becomes a process of seeking out the very people and processes that produce the most capitol and stopping them.
Socialism is espoused by people who do not understand that the socailism itself depends on the portion of the economy that is not yet socialized , which is the part that is allowed to grow , the part that can produce the tax.
Capital is finite at any given time (t). There is no such thing as infinite capital.
It becomes a process of seeking out the very people and processes that produce the most capitol and stopping them.
===========================================================================
All societies do this. It is called "crime prevention".
Who has a better way of acquiring capital than the thief?
Multi-level marketing comes close to extorting the highest possible profit on cheapo goods, but it only borders on illegality.
Capitol is not Infinate I did not say that it was.
Capitol is not finite either .
One point at a time , Infinte and finite are not the only states a number can have.
I've been about as patient as I could be in explaining this. Was it really so difficult to understand? Your response is nonsensical.
Capitol is not Infinate I did not say that it was.
Capitol is not finite either .
One point at a time , Infinte and finite are not the only states a number can have.
Dear Lord.
Seriously?
I've been about as patient as I could be in explaining this. Was it really so difficult to understand?
Your response is nonsensical.
?For the Maths, the answer?s ?No, but.? In set theory, a set is finite if there is a one to one correspondence between the set and a proper subset of the set of natural numbers, with the empty set being given as finite. From there, the definition of infinite is a set that is not finite (you then get this definition subdivided into 2, with countably infinite being a set with a one to one correspondence between the set and the natural numbers and uncountably infinite being everything else). This definition doesn?t take into account proper classes http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ProperClass.html (e.g., the class of all sets), but proper classes are bigger than sets, so would automatically be classed as infinite. That, however, looks at just sets, and not things with mathematical structure on them. To look at things with mathematical structure on them, the obvious ideas that spring to mind concern Measure Theory http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Measure.html. I don't really know much about this at all (I know quite a bit about Lebesgue Integration mentioned in the link, but nothing about Lebesgue measure, for example). The essence of measure theory is to put measure on things, giving you a concept of quantity, but as the functions all fall into the real numbers, your measure of quantity will always be finite (infinity is not a real number). Going back to the mathematical structure setup, the standard way to work with something in maths is to work in a Category http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CategoryTheory.html, or if your being really crazy, you work in higher categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-category. From there, you have the notion of small category, where the objects are sets rather than a proper class, and there are lots and lots of ways to count and put quantity on categories, objects in categories, morphisms in categories etc, but 99.9% of these are useless, don't tell you anything, and are just you (you in general, not you in particular) just making up bullshit that no one would care about. Categories are something I know a lot about (my PHD is currently based around working with something called the stable homotopy category of equivariant spectra), but I know nothing about classing categories by size (except for classifying k-tuply monoidal n-categories, which you really, REALLY, don't want to know about). Finally, you can obviously classify (weak) n-Categories by the n, and this leads onto lots of cool stuff being developed at the moment on infinity categories, and the theory there is tending towards classifying them in the form (infinity,1), (infinity,2) etc, suggesting that actually, although these things are in a sense "infinite", there's a lot more to it than that. Sorry if this answer makes no sense!?
This is not about leaders and followers and who will work less or who will work more.
My point is that Social Equality, as I defined it, is not against human nature at all. Before Calvinism and the development of the "Protestant work ethic" and WASP culture in the modern west, the importance of society, family, and the view of the poor were vastly different than they are today. It was an historical shift towards placing value in accumulating wealth.
QuoteBut this is not a zero-sum situation. At any given time there may be a specific amount of capital available, but that does not mean that more cannot be created.
It is a finite number. Yes, over time more can be created through untapped capital but a lot of people mistake pecuniary benefits for expansion.
There you go again.
This is not about easy or difficult.
You don't think Martha Stewart's success is a barrier to others? How many people would be lifted out of poverty with the money Martha Stewart makes? How many families with no housing could live in one of Martha's homes?
Sure, to her and you it is just a sign of her success and her "right to own property" but it is a true testament to society that there are homeless children, while Martha Stewart (and others like her) have numerous multi-million dollar mansions spread around the country or even around the world. That is her individual right, you'd say. I'd say that is to society's detriment.
Don't even pretend like this nation has a real left. We once did when Eugene V. Debs was alive and there was a small but dedicated socialist movement, but the United States left is a joke.
We have no socialist policies.
This is your capitalism at work spending millions on the coming election. Just watch those corporations spend on the campaigns - now do you think they are doing so with no planned ROI?
There is no butcher, baker, grocer, or candlestick maker any longer. (OK, before some asshole responds, there are some left - but those who are are generally protected by laws despite the libertarian medieval utopic vision).
The largest grocer in the United States is Wal-Mart or Kroger, I haven't checked recently. I'm guessing one of those two is also the largest "baker." The largest barber is probably some chain, I apologize for not being up on chain barber/salons. You don't think Wal-Mart can have a negative impact on society? We're not talking about the small European village where people really still go to the baker, the butcher, and the grocer everyday (my Oma did this every day, but again, these were protected from chains by German law).
What I dislike about your response is that I am somehow not permitted to discuss what is and is not good for society. As if we cannot come together and say, "let's not use lead paint on children's toys." But no, now I'm determining something for the sake of society at the expense of the individual who may want his or her children to suck on lead paint loaded toys all day because he can save a few bucks. Accumulating wealth while others live in deprivation may be your idea of "contributing to society" but it is not mine. I really don't care if you dislike my definition or not.
I place society over the individual. Of course society is not the same and it will and must change. Civil Rights was about the power of a collective group. Trade Unions and the changes they brought were about the power of a collective group. I don't see where you are going with this at all.
Now you are separating capitalism from the society that uses it when it is convenient.
Discrimination is used all the time, in a passive and an active form in the public and private sectors of this very country. Those scions of wealth, the people in places of power, the elite, still use their economic tools (i.e. capitalism) to keep barriers in place. You may not like it, but it is the way of things. And even if you chalk it up to individuals - isn't that what individualism is about?
I'd prefer a Swedish style system here and I've even provided good data to back it up, but socialism itself only comes from the working class after capitalism collapses upon itself.
I don't see where I can convince you otherwise, to be honest.
Division of labor? Really?
You don't honestly believe that socialists haven't thought of that one, do you? *sigh*
QuoteNo, I just have trouble reconciling trade with a removal of the notion of property from society.
I don't see why. Goods and services would still be produced.
I think you very much need to read up on the economics of agriculture, especially in third world countries.
And yet, my final statement gets attacked as being a common and trite attack on libertarians, but this is different? *sigh*
No. You are forgetting the first part of my definition of Social Justice. Socialism absolutely does not remove what you say it does. But it does remove class, poverty, and discrimination and all of the humiliation and degradation that comes with those. If you call that a loss of liberty in exchange for safety then so be it. I'll plead guilty every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
As little as I have apparently convinced you of socialism's merits, you have really provided nothing to persuade me of libertarianism's positive aspects.
As long as there is no social equality, no social justice, and there is class struggle there will always exist a multitude of problems in every society.
Something Sirs said once has stuck with me, not because I want to pick on Sirs, but because I think it is a common modern attitude with WASP American culture. He said, "I don't want to pay for other people's mistakes." We were talking about welfare at the time. I think Sirs, like most Americans is a decent person. In fact, he may have a bit more common decency than most folks. Yet, to me that is the essence of individualism.
You think no one is hurt by ownership of property? Ask yourself how many people died so you, a white man, can own the land you live on today. How many people die in ridiculous wars over what? Land, to obtain minerals, water, oil, or other valuable resources. People are willing to kill another human being to protect their "property rights." But you say it doesn't hurt anyone?
Hunger kills millions in this world, many, many, many, MANY times more than will ever die from international terrorism will die in one year from hunger. Yet, how much food and agricultural products are simply wasted? But - that is an individual's property right, correct?
A famous man said the quote in my signature and it is likely someone many people would not expect it to be. I find the right to property to be sinister at best.
You think no one is hurt by ownership of property? Ask yourself how many people died so you, a white man, can own the land you live on today.
This is an unbelievably dumb thing to have to argue Plane. It is common sense that when dealing with economics, a number is either finite or infinite. But, for your pleasure I had an Oxon friend provide a more detailed explanation:Quote?For the Maths, the answer?s ?No, but.? In set theory, a set is finite if there is a one to one correspondence between the set and a proper subset of the set of natural numbers, with the empty set being given as finite. From there, the definition of infinite is a set that is not finite (you then get this definition subdivided into 2, with countably infinite being a set with a one to one correspondence between the set and the natural numbers and uncountably infinite being everything else). This definition doesn?t take into account proper classes http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ProperClass.html (e.g., the class of all sets), but proper classes are bigger than sets, so would automatically be classed as infinite. That, however, looks at just sets, and not things with mathematical structure on them. To look at things with mathematical structure on them, the obvious ideas that spring to mind concern Measure Theory http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Measure.html. I don't really know much about this at all (I know quite a bit about Lebesgue Integration mentioned in the link, but nothing about Lebesgue measure, for example). The essence of measure theory is to put measure on things, giving you a concept of quantity, but as the functions all fall into the real numbers, your measure of quantity will always be finite (infinity is not a real number). Going back to the mathematical structure setup, the standard way to work with something in maths is to work in a Category http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CategoryTheory.html, or if your being really crazy, you work in higher categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-category. From there, you have the notion of small category, where the objects are sets rather than a proper class, and there are lots and lots of ways to count and put quantity on categories, objects in categories, morphisms in categories etc, but 99.9% of these are useless, don't tell you anything, and are just you (you in general, not you in particular) just making up bullshit that no one would care about. Categories are something I know a lot about (my PHD is currently based around working with something called the stable homotopy category of equivariant spectra), but I know nothing about classing categories by size (except for classifying k-tuply monoidal n-categories, which you really, REALLY, don't want to know about). Finally, you can obviously classify (weak) n-Categories by the n, and this leads onto lots of cool stuff being developed at the moment on infinity categories, and the theory there is tending towards classifying them in the form (infinity,1), (infinity,2) etc, suggesting that actually, although these things are in a sense "infinite", there's a lot more to it than that. Sorry if this answer makes no sense!?
My point is easily made that his point that everything is either finite or its not, in which case it?s called infinite, is what I was saying! Especially when he says ?infinity is not a real number?! I knew that one! His use of infinity 1, etc, is done not to confuse the non-mathematicians where aleph-hull, aleph-one, etc would be used instead.
From there, you have the notion of small category, where the objects are sets rather than a proper class, and there are lots and lots of ways to count and put quantity on categories, objects in categories, morphisms in categories etc, but 99.9% of these are useless, don't tell you anything, and are just you (you in general, not you in particular) just making up bullshit that no one would care about.How true!
This is an unbelievably dumb thing to have to argue Plane. It is common sense that when dealing with economics, a number is either finite or infinite. But, for your pleasure I had an Oxon friend provide a more detailed explanation:Quote?For the Maths, the answer?s ?No, but.? In set theory, a set is finite if there is a one to one correspondence between the set and a proper subset of the set of natural numbers, with the empty set being given as finite. From there, the definition of infinite is a set that is not finite (you then get this definition subdivided into 2, with countably infinite being a set with a one to one correspondence between the set and the natural numbers and uncountably infinite being everything else). This definition doesn?t take into account proper classes http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ProperClass.html (e.g., the class of all sets), but proper classes are bigger than sets, so would automatically be classed as infinite. That, however, looks at just sets, and not things with mathematical structure on them. To look at things with mathematical structure on them, the obvious ideas that spring to mind concern Measure Theory http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Measure.html. I don't really know much about this at all (I know quite a bit about Lebesgue Integration mentioned in the link, but nothing about Lebesgue measure, for example). The essence of measure theory is to put measure on things, giving you a concept of quantity, but as the functions all fall into the real numbers, your measure of quantity will always be finite (infinity is not a real number). Going back to the mathematical structure setup, the standard way to work with something in maths is to work in a Category http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CategoryTheory.html, or if your being really crazy, you work in higher categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-category. From there, you have the notion of small category, where the objects are sets rather than a proper class, and there are lots and lots of ways to count and put quantity on categories, objects in categories, morphisms in categories etc, but 99.9% of these are useless, don't tell you anything, and are just you (you in general, not you in particular) just making up bullshit that no one would care about. Categories are something I know a lot about (my PHD is currently based around working with something called the stable homotopy category of equivariant spectra), but I know nothing about classing categories by size (except for classifying k-tuply monoidal n-categories, which you really, REALLY, don't want to know about). Finally, you can obviously classify (weak) n-Categories by the n, and this leads onto lots of cool stuff being developed at the moment on infinity categories, and the theory there is tending towards classifying them in the form (infinity,1), (infinity,2) etc, suggesting that actually, although these things are in a sense "infinite", there's a lot more to it than that. Sorry if this answer makes no sense!?
My point is easily made that his point that everything is either finite or its not, in which case it?s called infinite, is what I was saying! Especially when he says ?infinity is not a real number?! I knew that one! His use of infinity 1, etc, is done not to confuse the non-mathematicians where aleph-hull, aleph-one, etc would be used instead.
This guy would be interesting to talk to.
I am not entirely up on his jargon but he makes some good points.
QuoteThis guy would be interesting to talk to.
I am not entirely up on his jargon but he makes some good points.
He is a very interesting individual, and I'm not up on all the jargon either. In fact, he purposefully tried to put this in layman's terms so that I could better discuss it. This is what an Oxford Mathematician sounds like. I know a little about his statement on categorizing infinities and in this case he simplified it for us by not using the terms aleph-null, aleph-one, etc (he simply used "infinity,1...").
I wasn't really hung up on this aspect of our discussion Plane, in fact I think we agree more than we disagree. I think it is more a matter of how we apply the terms to it. Obviously I'm not arguing that there does not exist untapped capital. The existence of untapped capital does not make it a non-finite number. It simply makes it a variable, just simple algebra. Also, I'm well aware that there does exist real-term growth - one of the questions is who benefits from that growth and by what degree?
I apologize if I've done a poor job debating, and I feel that I have. Honestly, I have a lot going on in life right now and I just don't have the time or inclination at the moment.