|
[Long rant ahead. Didn't edit or read over this, but will probably do so eventually]
Many times I have written in this white space. Filled with multiple paragraphs explaining my view on current subjects, but I almost always erase it. I have a slight fear of exposing my thoughts to an audience that is as ambiguous as the subjects themselves. I also have a lot of contradicting thoughts which has lead people to claim that I am "ignorant" or "spend too much time on my computer." Odd how the computer is the only thing that has connection to a wealth of knowledge.
I don't blame people for not liking what I have to say - It doesn't match with how they see society as it is - and what's worse, is that after I offer a solution, they scoff at me suggesting that not only is my view completely wrong, but the solution I'm proposing would never work.
The problem as I see it is that human society has been around for a long time, ad we've come to the conclusion that the only way to get things done the way we want them done is by oppressing others. People consciously say they're against oppression, but it seems their sub conscious suggests otherwise.
Example: When Person A believes they know better for Person B because the logical conclusion of the oppressive actions Person A will take will lead to a better life for Person B.
This example is not uncommon in our lives. In fact, it's more common for one person to suggest they know the good for a group of people, let alone a single person. We've actually structured governments and various social systems around this idea.
The problem with that though is that if we take the original example with A and B - A will never know what's best for B because they are not B - They do not have B's experiences, or B's thoughts, or B's emotions. How can A say what's best for B when A is not B?
That doesn't mean that A cannot SUGGEST to B what might be a good idea, but the reality is that B will do whatever B believes is the best for him.
I'm sure you can link politics with the idea I've presented - But I must present an addition to my argument before anyone makes the assumption that I believe politics are all bad. The point I would like to add is that while I want people to make their own choices, it would not be surprising to me if there were people who preferred to be controlled by someone like Person A. There are people out there who desire a system to tell them what morals to have, and there's nothing wrong with this. These, what are referred to commonly as "apathetics" play a crucial role in society in that they're the perfect example what a person will be like in the common world without paying much attention to the philosophical or political foundations of any given moral.
Okay, here's where shit is going to get weird: I am no stranger to the fact that everyone knows this is HOW it should work. I've received a lot of responses similar to "No shit Sherlock" in the past when I talk about this. But if "EVERYONE KNOWS" about this, then why do we continue to believe that oppression is the best way to solve any solution?
Example: In recent years, there has been a discussion on income disparity in the US (and likely in other 1st world countries which use a central bank system... different discussion though). People believe that the best thing for everyone would be to tax richer people at a higher percent than everyone else because it would be for the good of our society. Not only that, but if someone can live off less than $100k year, then everyone can!
This is the exact same problem as before - Person A (the "99%") thinks Person B (the "1%") should be giving more of their income based on "moral" reasons which would allow for everyone under the Person A category to prosper. But the problem is that our assumption is that ANYONE in the Person B category should be following our same moral code, and be living our lifestyles. However, the fact remains that they have been brought up in a different lifestyle, with different experiences, different memories, and different ideas - What makes you think that they would even agree to that without the same knowledge and experience? And what makes it right for people to assume that they can take from others based on moral principles?
I can continue ranting on this subject, but I want to stop writing soon. What I'm getting at is that if we believe oppression in any form is good, then that same oppression will come back down on us. The cycle will continue until someone makes a stand (like Ghandi did), and stop using the same oppressive actions and behaviors that are used against them. The unfortunate part about making this change though is that it's going to take a LONG time. Humans have been oppressive creatures for possibly millenniums - Changing that could take just as long, but talking about it is the first step.
 
|
United States15275 Posts
You are somewhat assuming that human being are rational agents dedicated to maximizing utility for themselves.
Also, oppression is too loaded a word to provide a decent analysis. If oppression is equivalent to compromising on values, then there's no point in a structured society.
|
Uhh, this reads like some Hayek article or something.
High taxation of rich people isnt opression.
|
The problem with that though is that if we take the original example with A and B - A will never know what's best for B because they are not B - They do not have B's experiences, or B's thoughts, or B's emotions. How can A say what's best for B when A is not B? You have made an unsupported assertion and have asked for arguments against it. And this is supposed to be at the core of your thinking? You need to actually formulate arguments instead of just saying "x is the case, how can it not be?"
In any case, I don't believe one needs to have B's experiences, B's thoughts or B's emotions to know what is best (or at least what is good) for them, and I will gladly support the rights of people to continue "oppressing" their infant children through actions that keep the kids out of harm's reach. We can all gladly agree that it would be bad for a child to fall into a well, even if that child (out of sheer curiosity) was intent on exploring that well, and we don't have to have the child's experiences, thoughts, emotions or whatever to know very well that it would be bad for her to fall into that well.
|
Didn't edit or read over this, but will probably do so eventually
Why should we read this if you didn't?
|
it's about everyone being able to cooperate and make a society function.
very few people prefer to live in isolation - but we need rules when more than one person is around (as you said, we all have different thoughts, emotions and experiences).
someone has to decide the rules. if you don't like them, try to promote change or move.
|
There's a lot of assumption here that's face-valid but not necessarily how the real world plays out. A decent study of psychology and psychopathology immediately destroys some of these arguments. People do not always act in their best interests, or even their own interests. This is easily verified.
Also, there is a significant drive for humans to act in the interests of the group. We are a tribal species. Most people have about 150 close relationships in their life, and there's research which suggests that within these 150 people, there's no need for laws.
|
bro i feel this so hard.... you have to know yourself before anyone else, and thats what people do is project their problems and worries onto other people to "protect" them. its bs for real
|
What makes you think that they would even agree to that without the same knowledge and experience? And what makes it right for people to assume that they can take from others based on moral principles?
What makes it right for people to assume they own anything based on moral principles?
|
On December 08 2014 15:44 32 wrote:Show nested quote +What makes you think that they would even agree to that without the same knowledge and experience? And what makes it right for people to assume that they can take from others based on moral principles? What makes it right for people to assume they own anything based on moral principles?
This is the central question, and your analysis takes it for granted, as is often the case. Taxing the rich has nothing to do with paternalistic notions about their well-being. No one actually says, "we are taxing them so that they will live better lives because they have too much wealth, we know better." Taxation and redistribution is a compromise between upholding the private property regime of western liberal democracy and placating those whom the modern capitalist system exploits.
All great wealth has its origins in theft. Asking what it means to own something should be the starting point. Asking what the difference is between owning capital and and "owning" a toothbrush. Asking what money is anyway.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Tried to think of a sensible critique but I couldn't. It was all just very superficial.
|
On December 08 2014 04:08 batsnacks wrote:Why should we read this if you didn't?
The assumption that I wrote this for everyone else to read is already wrong. Not only that, but I wrote the god damn thing. I know what it says, and I know what I explained. Whether or not I did correctly is less relevant to me at the moment, but will probably more relevant later when I need to recall my thoughts.
I could continue coming up with counter arguments to "Why should I read this if you didn't re-read it?" but they are as ridiculous as your original question.
Not only that, but that's really the only thing you have to say to my blog? You insist on picking apart the fact that I decided not to re-read something I wrote in 10 minutes with no desire to re-use it for publishing? Let me ask you this: Do you read blogs to criticize their structure, or to obtain content out of them? Do you also decide not to read a book if you found out it was never edited? Or comment solely on it's lack of structure?
|
On December 08 2014 21:49 marvellosity wrote:
Tried to think of a sensible critique but I couldn't. It was all just very superficial.
How ironic. You comment on how "superficial" my thoughts are (which they aren't at all), and yet, you only have superficial things to say yourself.
A true critique would have explained what was superficial. If it was so bad, then surely you have a plethora of comments to make?
|
On December 08 2014 20:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2014 15:44 32 wrote:What makes you think that they would even agree to that without the same knowledge and experience? And what makes it right for people to assume that they can take from others based on moral principles? What makes it right for people to assume they own anything based on moral principles? This is the central question, and your analysis takes it for granted, as is often the case. Taxing the rich has nothing to do with paternalistic notions about their well-being. No one actually says, "we are taxing them so that they will live better lives because they have too much wealth, we know better." Taxation and redistribution is a compromise between upholding the private property regime of western liberal democracy and placating those whom the modern capitalist system exploits. All great wealth has its origins in theft. Asking what it means to own something should be the starting point. Asking what the difference is between owning capital and and "owning" a toothbrush. Asking what money is anyway.
No one ACTUALLY says that because it would be ridiculous, but it's exactly what they're doing.
Taxation and redistribution of wealth are not compromises. You are forcing people to play a certain part in a certain way without considering their own livelihood (though that involves having tons of money). What it means to "own" something is what Socrates and Plato and billions of other fucking philosophers have already talked about. The definition of "ownership" is less relevant if we understand the concept of coercion or oppression. "Owning" something means nothing if you didn't have a choice to own it or not own it to start with.
|
On December 08 2014 15:44 32 wrote:Show nested quote +What makes you think that they would even agree to that without the same knowledge and experience? And what makes it right for people to assume that they can take from others based on moral principles? What makes it right for people to assume they own anything based on moral principles?
Ownership is not what's under discussion here. Other philosophers who are much smarter than I have discussed ownsership to a great length with no real outcome. I'm not here to discuss whether or not someone actually owns something, but the consequences of assuming we can tell people how to live, which includes what things they can or cannot own.
|
On December 08 2014 02:43 Paljas wrote:
Uhh, this reads like some Hayek article or something.
High taxation of rich people isnt opression.
Hayek was a smart dude, and a major influence of mine.
And yes, HIGHER taxation of peopel with more money is very coercion / oppression. You are forcing them to pay MORE of their income than other people simply based on the fact that it some how helps those in need. I know that people will use the excuse that we can do more socially if rich people give more, but there are graver long term consequences that happen if you attempt to force them into paying a higher tax.
If rich people WANT to pay a higher tax, then I'm all for it. But FORCING them to pay a higher tax a different thing entirely.
|
On December 08 2014 03:49 GERMasta wrote:Show nested quote +The problem with that though is that if we take the original example with A and B - A will never know what's best for B because they are not B - They do not have B's experiences, or B's thoughts, or B's emotions. How can A say what's best for B when A is not B? You have made an unsupported assertion and have asked for arguments against it. And this is supposed to be at the core of your thinking? You need to actually formulate arguments instead of just saying "x is the case, how can it not be?" In any case, I don't believe one needs to have B's experiences, B's thoughts or B's emotions to know what is best (or at least what is good) for them, and I will gladly support the rights of people to continue "oppressing" their infant children through actions that keep the kids out of harm's reach. We can all gladly agree that it would be bad for a child to fall into a well, even if that child (out of sheer curiosity) was intent on exploring that well, and we don't have to have the child's experiences, thoughts, emotions or whatever to know very well that it would be bad for her to fall into that well.
How is my assumption unsupported? It's clear that A and B are not the same person, therefore making both their experiences and thoughts.
Any parent will tell you (and I bet my parents would both agree with this) that raising a child isn't as simple as FORCING them to do things. Simple child psychology shows us that in certain incidents, forcing a child to behave a certain way for an extended period amount of time may lead them to rebel against those ideas even if they have a sound moral foundation. I'm not saying a parent should let their child do what they want, but it's not uncommon for parents to let children make their own choices and show them the consequences of those choices without forcing them.
|
The 1% is raised in this society all the same and agrees to live in a society with a progressive tax system for the benefits, real or perceived. You may pay extra taxes because your income is higher, and you choose to stick around and pay them because the advantages are greater than the benefits. And are they not?
Anyway the notion that the 99% is somehow oppressing the 1% is ridiculous. Oppression suggests that they somehow have no way to fight back. Yet we're totally dependent on the wealthy, as they are on us. We can strike, we can boycott their products, we can ask for more equality - they can do lockouts, they can market products to us, they can lobby to prevent their taxes being raised. The disparity between the wealth of the rich and the poor has been RISING, thus suggesting that rather than being oppressed by us, the rich are actually winning a battle... The wealthy can fire people, the wealthy can choose to hire sweatshop workers over locals, the wealthy can favor the election of politicians who are favorable to free market ideals, the wealthy hold the livelihood of their employees in their hands and can decide to snap them at will.
Though the less fortunate are not oppressed (I would argue that using the word oppression is bullshit and the work of a demagogue), we're definitely not winning either.
The constant battle to fight for our interests is a component of capitalism. It just is. The progressive tax is NOT oppression, it's a small way in which the demographic power of poor people can fight back, even if a little bit, against the massive coercive force that's applied on them by the sheer weight and importance of the elites which have the money.
Rest assured that the 1% is not constituted of helpless little lambs, and to suggest that they are insults everyone's intelligence.
|
Hoby I think you ought to consider the question of utilitarian benefit over such a strict analysis on whether someone is being oppressed. Taxation to an anarchist is certainly a form of theft and oppression, but to most people they accept it because they realize without government financing (and thus any government at all) society devolves into a might-makes-right state of constant aggression, and possibly outright warfare. Thus we have made a practical decision, because it benefits everyone the most, although we also have to suffer through taxation.
Human society is rife with these types of compromises. We agree to give the government power to tax us, to police us, to set laws and regulations that we must all follow, knowing full well that occasionally we will have to live with the laws of a group in power that we don't like. Maybe there is a better alternative (more libertarian government?) - but fundamentally there is always going to be some kind of 'oppression' or injustice occurring because humans fundamentally are not a reasonable, cooperative species; someone is always vying for power and control, whether its directly in terms of government or military power, or in the marketplace. Thus the systems of control we have had to institute are necessarily coercive, because the only way to defend yourself from this type of mentality is with force. These changes often took the form of bloody revolutions as you know.
So its wrong to view it strictly in terms of who is being oppressed. The question is, what is the right amount and type of countervailing force (or you can call it counter-oppression) so as to maximize the lives of everyone involved? If you want to play it your way, then society actually becomes impossible to implement on any practical level. At the end of the day someone is going to be in charge, some decision is going to be made, not everyone will agree with it. By the loose definitional standards we are applying to oppression, that would be a form of oppression, especially if that decision lasts many years.
The other thing is you're ignoring the fundamental ethical correctness of the system itself, you aren't considering any of its flaws. It would be like ignoring any of the flaws of a dictatorship, but then complaining when people try to counter-oppress the dictator to win back their rights.
If there are serious flaws with the system of capitalism itself, it could easily be that progressive taxation is a way to remedy that flaw which naturally occurs, just as (perhaps) central banking is seen as a fix to the instability of markets. So again you have to consider these issues within a broader context and make a practical judgement...which is where all the difficulty lies.
|
On December 09 2014 00:43 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2014 03:49 GERMasta wrote:The problem with that though is that if we take the original example with A and B - A will never know what's best for B because they are not B - They do not have B's experiences, or B's thoughts, or B's emotions. How can A say what's best for B when A is not B? You have made an unsupported assertion and have asked for arguments against it. And this is supposed to be at the core of your thinking? You need to actually formulate arguments instead of just saying "x is the case, how can it not be?" In any case, I don't believe one needs to have B's experiences, B's thoughts or B's emotions to know what is best (or at least what is good) for them, and I will gladly support the rights of people to continue "oppressing" their infant children through actions that keep the kids out of harm's reach. We can all gladly agree that it would be bad for a child to fall into a well, even if that child (out of sheer curiosity) was intent on exploring that well, and we don't have to have the child's experiences, thoughts, emotions or whatever to know very well that it would be bad for her to fall into that well. How is my assumption unsupported? It's clear that A and B are not the same person, therefore making both their experiences and thoughts. Any parent will tell you (and I bet my parents would both agree with this) that raising a child isn't as simple as FORCING them to do things. Simple child psychology shows us that in certain incidents, forcing a child to behave a certain way for an extended period amount of time may lead them to rebel against those ideas even if they have a sound moral foundation. I'm not saying a parent should let their child do what they want, but it's not uncommon for parents to let children make their own choices and show them the consequences of those choices without forcing them. You assumed that it is necessary to have the experiences, thoughts and emotions of someone in order to know what is best for them. You have not given an argument for that at all, just said that this is the case. Therefore your statement was unsupported (and remains so, even in light of your follow up).
The point of my post was to show that it is very easy (and intuitive) to know what is good for a person without having their experiences, thoughts or emotions. Therefore my post was an argument against your (unsupported) assertion to the contrary. Instead of now trying to argue against my point by saying, for example, that although we might know what is good for a child without sharing their mental content, we could not know the same for an adult because of <enter difference here>, you instead are saying that good parenting sometimes has to allow for genuine choices and freedoms, which is perfectly fine and I agree with that.
The problem with this is that (at worst) it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since even though being allowed a certain amount of freedom might be good for a child, a parent would never let their kids play with the wall socket, even if they wanted to. But at best, your post supports my argument that we can know what is good for others without sharing their mental content, because the reason why we provide kids with freedom and genuine choices is exactly because we believe it is good for them to have those things and not because we are somehow unsure and thereby give them a degree of freedom out of a paralyzing sense of ignorance.
EDIT: I just picked on the most obvious problem with your OP, but there are of course others that are not as significant. You for example claim that judgements about what is best for a person are necessarily moral judgements. You claim that shared lifestyles and experiences are necessary for moral agreement (this doesn't follow even on the most non-cognitivist take on morality). You misuse the word oppression to normatively charge your points and most importantly, you claim people criticize your posts because "[they] don't match with how they see society", instead of following the principle of charity and considering that maybe it is your thinking that errs somewhere.
|
On December 09 2014 00:30 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2014 20:04 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2014 15:44 32 wrote:What makes you think that they would even agree to that without the same knowledge and experience? And what makes it right for people to assume that they can take from others based on moral principles? What makes it right for people to assume they own anything based on moral principles? This is the central question, and your analysis takes it for granted, as is often the case. Taxing the rich has nothing to do with paternalistic notions about their well-being. No one actually says, "we are taxing them so that they will live better lives because they have too much wealth, we know better." Taxation and redistribution is a compromise between upholding the private property regime of western liberal democracy and placating those whom the modern capitalist system exploits. All great wealth has its origins in theft. Asking what it means to own something should be the starting point. Asking what the difference is between owning capital and and "owning" a toothbrush. Asking what money is anyway. No one ACTUALLY says that because it would be ridiculous, but it's exactly what they're doing. Taxation and redistribution of wealth are not compromises. You are forcing people to play a certain part in a certain way without considering their own livelihood (though that involves having tons of money). What it means to "own" something is what Socrates and Plato and billions of other fucking philosophers have already talked about. The definition of "ownership" is less relevant if we understand the concept of coercion or oppression. "Owning" something means nothing if you didn't have a choice to own it or not own it to start with.
On December 09 2014 00:38 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2014 15:44 32 wrote:What makes you think that they would even agree to that without the same knowledge and experience? And what makes it right for people to assume that they can take from others based on moral principles? What makes it right for people to assume they own anything based on moral principles? Ownership is not what's under discussion here. Other philosophers who are much smarter than I have discussed ownsership to a great length with no real outcome. I'm not here to discuss whether or not someone actually owns something, but the consequences of assuming we can tell people how to live, which includes what things they can or cannot own.
No, marvellosity was right. If your starting assumption is that the private property regime of western liberal democracy, a regime wherein the individual has absolute power against the world over his property, is obviously the best and most moral, then all of your conclusions trivially follow. This inane "oppression" argument you have tacked on top of the underlying issue of what it means to own something is superfluous.
You've gone from posting an open question and seeking discussion to Hayek-spewing, libertarian foaming-at-the-mouth. You clearly have no philosophical background, and are uninterested in talking about the real issues at stake. You cite Plato and a "billion other philosophers" as if they all concluded that the modern liberal democratic property regime was the best, yet Plato himself said that collective ownership of property was necessary to promote the common interest.
As you said, "[ownership] means nothing if you didn't have a choice to own it or not own it to start with." Exactly. That's what 99% of the world says in response to those who claim arbitrary ownership of most of the world's land and goods.
|
On December 09 2014 00:40 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2014 02:43 Paljas wrote:
Uhh, this reads like some Hayek article or something.
High taxation of rich people isnt opression.
Hayek was a smart dude, and a major influence of mine. And yes, HIGHER taxation of peopel with more money is very coercion / oppression. You are forcing them to pay MORE of their income than other people simply based on the fact that it some how helps those in need. I know that people will use the excuse that we can do more socially if rich people give more, but there are graver long term consequences that happen if you attempt to force them into paying a higher tax. If rich people WANT to pay a higher tax, then I'm all for it. But FORCING them to pay a higher tax a different thing entirely.
Posts like this betray your argument's incoherence. What does it even mean to have a government that levies taxes? What makes one tax legitimate and another "oppressive"? It's schizophrenic to talk about "FORCING" them to pay a higher tax, rather than simply declaring that all taxation is oppression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
