I don't think [social equality 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.
I'm going to try and be more patient and explain a little better this time. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Jefferson didn't even mean race, so I'd hardly call him an authority.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
Who is claiming to give the government more power?
Are you not one who advocates more wealth redistribution by the government?
Sure, but that isn't really socialism. 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.
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.
I'm sorry Prince, but that sounds like a cop-out more than anything.
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.
I don't see where I can convince you otherwise, to be honest.
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.
Division of labor? Really? You don't honestly believe that socialists haven't thought of that one, do you? *sigh*
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.
I don't see why. Goods and services would still be produced.
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.
I'm going to say something that I normally would not. I think you very much need to read up on the economics of agriculture, especially in third world countries. Look at the agriculture of Canada and Mexico after NAFTA. Of course there are costs to running a farm, including fees, but it is a competitive industry. Start by looking at the
real price of agricultural commodities since the mid 80's or so. You may very well be surprised.
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.
No, the right obviously does the opposite and keeps the artificial wage floor as low as possible. It is a wonderful tool for capitalists as it doesn't have to reflect economic reality of the working class in any way. Ideally this should be handled by Trade Unions, not politicians.
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.
And yet, my final statement gets attacked as being a common and trite attack on libertarians, but this is different? *sigh*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[/quote]
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. Socialism won't cure everything and it isn't perfect. Nor will it look the same in every society, but it will have common traits, including social equality, justice, and classlesness.
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.
