In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
With a just, Judeo-Christian value system, Catholics in particular. (Volume 1, part 2, chapter 9.). Not an all powerful central government. He also considered culture and morality of utmost importance. So much of his book comes back the idea that America needs a strong moral, religious society.
And people wonder why I mention things like this. After a a tirade on how dangerous equality is, you instead support 'A strong moral and religious society.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever" (John 6:53–58).
Are you really trying to suggest that if only more people worshiped bread and wine as literal 'pieces of Jesus' (as in his body and blood) we would be better off than rational attempts to give people a more fair shot?
Believing 'that' is a core tenet of the Catholic religion and if you don't believe it you're not supposed to take communion and by extension not a very good catholic.
I am just flabbergasted that someone would suggest that Catholicism somehow doesn't suffer at minimum the same problems as any attempt at equality, and find it silly after your tirade on the 'dangers of equality'
Can you not see that social justice accepts despotism
Can you not see that Catholicism accepts despotism?
Nothing patriarchal about Catholicism though right? Can't say a more 'moral and religious' society (particularly in a catholic vein) bodes well for women who want to be represented in leadership though huh?
I guess you would prefer if the congress (and the Science committee) had more "strong moral and religious" type men like this?
Talk about forgetting history do you guys not remember the Crusades? Yeah religions the solution..../sigh
Somehow it was so predictable that you would jump upon this particular point. I don't know if you have actually read DiA, but if you haven't then there is no reason to respond to the bizarre, irrelevant criticism you posited here.
I suppose you disagree, but it's being claimed by Tocqueville that the Christian set of values (which of course you don't believe them to have, e.g., tolerance and care for their fellow man) are a core attribute of the American people that help the republic function, partially because it helps keep people from acting purely from their base desires (IgnE, you listening?). The government cannot enforce this- that's tyranny. But when a people do this of their own free will it fosters openness. He was not the last to claim this, either.
It's not to say Christianity has a perfect past, but your view is, as usual, incredibly narrow (progressivism has never had any failures, right?). It's like all of your opinions are from things you heard from Bill Maher, or something. You consider you opponents so stupid that it's not even worth your time to understand their side. Which is really too bad, because religious discussion is banned in the thread so you can say these things ad nauseum. It's obnoxious to have to pick out the stuff worth reading from your posts.
You may not believe any of the above, but perhaps you should read the thing before you launch into the same tired routine again. I'll bet you didn't even read the section I cited.
I think most reasonable people are open to lots of ideas for peaceful (non-tyrannical) corrective forces; it's only the most stubborn among us who refuse to even see a problem, or try to paint any attempt to address the issue as signs of the apocalypse. (<---You can fill in whatever phrase to this tune you want from conservatives/libertarians.[Inevitable 'soft tyranny', Communism, Socialism, 'despotism', 'killing innovation' etc...])
I have never painted "any attempt" in the way you describe. I just think your solutions are the ones inevitably resulting in some form and degree of tyranny, while you believe mine won't work (perhaps because they are too small), or that what I advocate is some other sinister form of tyranny. But I've never opposed any fix.
partially because it helps keep people from acting purely from their base desires...The government cannot enforce this- that's tyranny.
This is always a balance... We don't expect morals to prevent all the things we have police and security forces for...Are all laws and enforcement of them against things like money laundering or extortion tyrannical too? Perhaps financial disclosure and truth-in-advertising laws are tyrannical too Or maybe if a state wants to make it legal the feds can only prosecute if they do it interstate?
To your point religion is a moral crutch. Particularly religions with heavens, hells, intervention, and vengeful gods. The influence of believing in a potential for an eternal reward or punishment, by an omniscient being sitting in judgment over your every action kind of changes the concept of morality anyway. So when it comes to morality I don't think religion should have anything to do with it (It's actually one of the most dangerous aspects of religion ['immorality'])
Your insinuation toward the necessity of religion is a big deal, and you can't just slip it in passing and assume it will just be ignored. Or pretend that you are not using it to support your position implicitly. (You act as if your just analyzing literature as opposed to using it for an argument)
Trust me if there was no religion in politics it wouldn't come up, but the fact that it is cited almost daily by politicians and constituents as justification for various positions means it's currently inseparable. The video I posted is a member of the damn Science Committee?!? If you don't think that's a bit ridiculous you're probably a lost cause anyway.
I actually haven't specifically said I support any particular 'solution' to the issues of inequality (particularly the oligarchical inheritance area).
It was until a few pages ago unsettled that it was anything more than a pointless talking point to mention anything about the oligarchical nature of our government or the reality of the trends of inequality or various other aspects. (probably still is for Jonny and Danglers) It seems you at least see some of that and see inequality as an issue that needs improvement.
I am sincerely curious as to what you think some solutions could be? I just want to see which ones posted here or elsewhere meet your standards for potential solutions? (I'm not looking for a silver bullet just what you think can/should be on the table) I get you want the federal government limited to tax collection and national defense (maybe some other things) I gather? And just that somehow that leads to more equality?
What forms of redistribution do you think are functional on a federal level? What types of solutions do you have to correct the influence of inherited wealth vs earned wealth? I ask to see if there are some things we can agree on?
have you read Tocqueville? Why should I bother to copy large portions of the book verbatim? We are talking about what he said. I do happen to agree with most of it. But it's harder to interact on the subject when you don't know the source material. it doesn't really matter that you've already dismissed it- if you have then don't say anything.
I'm a conservative not an anarchist- I think I've said that many times. I don't believe in "no laws," nor am I fan of a pure state of nature, that's what these systems we establish are for. I'm not going to run down the list of every little thing. (of course laundering is bad, that's cheating, for example). As for those other issues, we can take those as they show up in the the thread.
Even if your view of religion was accurate, it's doing the same thing you would do. Enforce their values on everyone else. Control their actions for fear of incarceration. Unless you think you actually can fundamentally change human nature. If so, let me know when you do- I want to see it.
We started discussing religion (in a general way) once before and it got shut down. I agree with you- one cannot conduct a proper discussion of American politics without it. Pretty sure I said that weeks ago.
This thread is not the proper place for a discussion of the origin and objectivity of morality. Suffice it to say I disagree with you.
You have shown enough for me to know I disagree with you in the solutions to inequality. You are for a bigger state, higher taxes, more regulation, etc. I am not. But we have both not given some Carteresque, exhaustive policy booklet to the people in the thread. I agree. I'll let Johnny and Whitedog battle it out. They are the people with deeper econ education.
Let me be clear on inequality: I do not find it immoral in and of itself. I do not like the idea of static wealth where classes can develop. The idea for America (even if you think it failed) was that one could just as easily fall from that class as enter it. With the government as big as it is, the cronies get the write the laws. That's one reason I favor smaller government. I have far less respect for the man who is a state-made success and continues to rely on it then I do for someone like Gates or Jobs, who, at least at the start, did it themselves.
I honestly think we under-value the federal nature of our republic. It's the perfect place to see what does and doesn't work, and it's small enough that the people have more say in what happens. But I favor small taxes that are strictly enforced. No favors, no stupid write-offs, etc. Low federal taxes so the states can compete among themselves for business. This helps keep taxes low while giving people options.
I favor almost no redistribution by government. But i say let the states do it because they should have that option, should they desire. So I favor basically zero federal redistribution. I'll give you foodstamps, so long as it doesn't become a permanent crutch. (of course this is the problem- all these programs develop into crutches).
With a just, Judeo-Christian value system, Catholics in particular. (Volume 1, part 2, chapter 9.). Not an all powerful central government. He also considered culture and morality of utmost importance. So much of his book comes back the idea that America needs a strong moral, religious society.
And people wonder why I mention things like this. After a a tirade on how dangerous equality is, you instead support 'A strong moral and religious society.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever" (John 6:53–58).
Are you really trying to suggest that if only more people worshiped bread and wine as literal 'pieces of Jesus' (as in his body and blood) we would be better off than rational attempts to give people a more fair shot?
Believing 'that' is a core tenet of the Catholic religion and if you don't believe it you're not supposed to take communion and by extension not a very good catholic.
I am just flabbergasted that someone would suggest that Catholicism somehow doesn't suffer at minimum the same problems as any attempt at equality, and find it silly after your tirade on the 'dangers of equality'
Can you not see that social justice accepts despotism
Can you not see that Catholicism accepts despotism?
Nothing patriarchal about Catholicism though right? Can't say a more 'moral and religious' society (particularly in a catholic vein) bodes well for women who want to be represented in leadership though huh?
I guess you would prefer if the congress (and the Science committee) had more "strong moral and religious" type men like this?
Talk about forgetting history do you guys not remember the Crusades? Yeah religions the solution..../sigh
Somehow it was so predictable that you would jump upon this particular point. I don't know if you have actually read DiA, but if you haven't then there is no reason to respond to the bizarre, irrelevant criticism you posited here.
I suppose you disagree, but it's being claimed by Tocqueville that the Christian set of values (which of course you don't believe them to have, e.g., tolerance and care for their fellow man) are a core attribute of the American people that help the republic function, partially because it helps keep people from acting purely from their base desires (IgnE, you listening?). The government cannot enforce this- that's tyranny. But when a people do this of their own free will it fosters openness. He was not the last to claim this, either.
It's not to say Christianity has a perfect past, but your view is, as usual, incredibly narrow (progressivism has never had any failures, right?). It's like all of your opinions are from things you heard from Bill Maher, or something. You consider you opponents so stupid that it's not even worth your time to understand their side. Which is really too bad, because religious discussion is banned in the thread so you can say these things ad nauseum. It's obnoxious to have to pick out the stuff worth reading from your posts.
You may not believe any of the above, but perhaps you should read the thing before you launch into the same tired routine again. I'll bet you didn't even read the section I cited.
I think most reasonable people are open to lots of ideas for peaceful (non-tyrannical) corrective forces; it's only the most stubborn among us who refuse to even see a problem, or try to paint any attempt to address the issue as signs of the apocalypse. (<---You can fill in whatever phrase to this tune you want from conservatives/libertarians.[Inevitable 'soft tyranny', Communism, Socialism, 'despotism', 'killing innovation' etc...])
I have never painted "any attempt" in the way you describe. I just think your solutions are the ones inevitably resulting in some form and degree of tyranny, while you believe mine won't work (perhaps because they are too small), or that what I advocate is some other sinister form of tyranny. But I've never opposed any fix.
America needs a strong moral, religious society.
Yeah what could of led me there?
partially because it helps keep people from acting purely from their base desires...The government cannot enforce this- that's tyranny.
This is always a balance... We don't expect morals to prevent all the things we have police and security forces for...Are all laws and enforcement of them against things like money laundering or extortion tyrannical too? Perhaps financial disclosure and truth-in-advertising laws are tyrannical too Or maybe if a state wants to make it legal the feds can only prosecute if they do it interstate?
To your point religion is a moral crutch. Particularly religions with heavens, hells, intervention, and vengeful gods. The influence of believing in a potential for an eternal reward or punishment, by an omniscient being sitting in judgment over your every action kind of changes the concept of morality anyway. So when it comes to morality I don't think religion should have anything to do with it (It's actually one of the most dangerous aspects of religion ['immorality'])
Your insinuation toward the necessity of religion is a big deal, and you can't just slip it in passing and assume it will just be ignored. Or pretend that you are not using it to support your position implicitly. (You act as if your just analyzing literature as opposed to using it for an argument)
Trust me if there was no religion in politics it wouldn't come up, but the fact that it is cited almost daily by politicians and constituents as justification for various positions means it's currently inseparable. The video I posted is a member of the damn Science Committee?!? If you don't think that's a bit ridiculous you're probably a lost cause anyway.
I actually haven't specifically said I support any particular 'solution' to the issues of inequality (particularly the oligarchical inheritance area).
It was until a few pages ago unsettled that it was anything more than a pointless talking point to mention anything about the oligarchical nature of our government or the reality of the trends of inequality or various other aspects. (probably still is for Jonny and Danglers) It seems you at least see some of that and see inequality as an issue that needs improvement.
I am sincerely curious as to what you think some solutions could be? I just want to see which ones posted here or elsewhere meet your standards for potential solutions? (I'm not looking for a silver bullet just what you think can/should be on the table) I get you want the federal government limited to tax collection and national defense (maybe some other things) I gather? And just that somehow that leads to more equality?
What forms of redistribution do you think are functional on a federal level? What types of solutions do you have to correct the influence of inherited wealth vs earned wealth? I ask to see if there are some things we can agree on?
have you read Tocqueville? Why should I bother to copy large portions of the book verbatim? We are talking about what he said. I do happen to agree with most of it. But it's harder to interact on the subject when you don't know the source material. it doesn't really matter that you've already dismissed it- if you have then don't say anything.
I'm a conservative not an anarchist- I think I've said that many times. I don't believe in "no laws," nor am I fan of a pure state of nature, that's what these systems we establish are for. I'm not going to run down the list of every little thing. (of course laundering is bad, that's cheating, for example). As for those other issues, we can take those as they show up in the the thread.
Even if your view of religion was accurate, it's doing the same thing you would do. Enforce their values on everyone else. Control their actions for fear of incarceration. Unless you think you actually can fundamentally change human nature. If so, let me know when you do- I want to see it.
We started discussing religion (in a general way) once before and it got shut down. I agree with you- one cannot conduct a proper discussion of American politics without it. Pretty sure I said that weeks ago.
This thread is not the proper place for a discussion of the origin and objectivity of morality. Suffice it to say I disagree with you.
You have shown enough for me to know I disagree with you in the solutions to inequality. You are for a bigger state, higher taxes, more regulation, etc. I am not. But we have both not given some Carteresque, exhaustive policy booklet to the people in the thread. I agree. I'll let Johnny and Whitedog battle it out. They are the people with deeper econ education.
Let me be clear on inequality: I do not find it immoral in and of itself. I do not like the idea of static wealth where classes can develop. The idea for America (even if you think it failed) was that one could just as easily fall from that class as enter it. With the government as big as it is, the cronies get the write the laws. That's one reason I favor smaller government. I have far less respect for the man who is a state-made success and continues to rely on it then I do for someone like Gates or Jobs, who, at least at the start, did it themselves.
I honestly think we under-value the federal nature of our republic. It's the perfect place to see what does and doesn't work, and it's small enough that the people have more say in what happens. But I favor small taxes that are strictly enforced. No favors, no stupid write-offs, etc. Low federal taxes so the states can compete among themselves for business. This helps keep taxes low while giving people options.
I favor almost no redistribution by government. But i say let the states do it because they should have that option, should they desire. So I favor basically zero federal redistribution. I'll give you foodstamps, so long as it doesn't become a permanent crutch. (of course this is the problem- all these programs develop into crutches).
have you read Tocqueville? Why should I bother to copy large portions of the book verbatim? We are talking about what he said. I do happen to agree with most of it. But it's harder to interact on the subject when you don't know the source material. it doesn't really matter that you've already dismissed it- if you have then don't say anything.
It matters that he was looking at a different America than we live in today.
I've seen some interesting stuff from him but I just view it as one persons nearly 200 y.o. observations, however insightful it might be. I stand firm on the idea that religion is NOT a necessary component of morality (although holy books can be a good reference for ideas they almost uniformly make terrible absolutist arguments which ([literally in the case of the Eastern Orthodox Religion{Catholicism}] by definition is the despotism you fear so much).
Full Definition of DESPOT
1 a : a Byzantine emperor or prince b : a bishop or patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church
I think he points out some legitimate fears of 'equality' and 'individualism' as he defines them but I think he mis-attributes their sources. Considering his work was largely observational/philosophical and less empirical that's not really a surprise. I think you could easily find many of the problems of 'individualism' and 'faux equality' in conservative thought that he attributes to what is now more liberal thought. Voter suppression laws would be an example.
Even if your view of religion was accurate, it's doing the same thing you would do. Enforce their values on everyone else. Control their actions for fear of incarceration. Unless you think you actually can fundamentally change human nature. If so, let me know when you do- I want to see it.
You raise an interesting point here. The problem is human nature. You need some balance of morality and laws relying too heavily on either is a recipe for disaster. I am actually not as much of an advocate for a big government as you think. I don't want morality tyrannically imposed from a religion or a state. I wish companies would see their CEO making 400+ times more than the median employee and put social/stockholder pressure on them to find a more equitable way to share the profits of the entire companies work. Better than that, I wish CEO's saw how much more they were making and felt like it was a moral injustice they would correct themselves. But as you said human nature precludes many from choosing to do that or many other things that would make government intervention or significant taxation at all, unnecessary. (<--just 1 example)
I mean we need taxes because people won't voluntarily pay their completely legitimate share of the cost of maintaining the country (which sometimes means feeding/clothing/sheltering lazy shitty people [a small portion of the people on gov. assistance] so they don't rob citizens on the street to survive, as much as we all may hate it, unless you want to kill them/adopt a prison model that doesn't feed or cloth prisoners and is built by prison labor).
You are for a bigger state, higher taxes, more regulation, etc. I am not.
I'm actually open to solutions that don't include those but I haven't really seen any presented. The generic euphemism of 'less government' is not a solution.
That's one reason I favor smaller government. I have far less respect for the man who is a state-made success and continues to rely on it then I do for someone like Gates or Jobs, who, at least at the start, did it themselves.
The thought that people like Bill Gates is a 'self-made' man goes exactly to what Toc was talking about.
He suggests people are more and more likely to believe that they are "self-made men" - that is that they don't owe anything to anybody and no one owes them, that they solely control their own destinies.
He blames 'democracy/equality' but this is clearly now a conservative principle. I think this points at how conservatism is often used to defend America's modern aristocracy.
I'll give credit where credit is due. Bill got billions by 'shamelessly ripping off peoples ideas' (<-Steve jobs words) and making the smartest deal in the 20th century (for him) with IBM. But the idea he was a 'self-made' man is pretty ridiculous... Unless every 'self' gets a million dollar trust fund I don't know about?
I think Jobs deserves more credit he only had his parents spending their life savings to put him in college before he dropped out 6 months later. So he did more 'on his own' (which kind of sounds silly when you think about it) than about 70% of the Forbes 400 on an average year. However his utilization of FoxxCon is not something I would hope other 'self-made' people would want to or have to emulate in order to reach the peaks of economic success in America.
I think what some conservatives miss about these 'self-made men' is that plenty (the vast majority) of 'selfs' don't start with a $1 million (~<$5 million in today's dollars [I already showed how this meant Bill would have to try pretty hard to mess up being wealthy for generations to come {essentially forever}]). <--Starting to resemble Toc's aristocracy? Many 'selfs' also don't get a 5 star education from a private school costing almost 3x as much as Harvard or even have parents with life savings.
So if you are going to use Bill Gates as an example of a 'self-made man' you better have a plan to get every 'self' a multi-million dollar trust fund and one of the best private educations money can buy. Otherwise every conservative would do themselves and the world a service by stopping that non-sense.
I actually agree with conservatives about personal responsibility. The problem is children. Children don't pick their parents. Bill Gates was no more 'personally responsible' for his gold leafed education and his multi-million $ equivalent trust fund, than a child is 'personally responsible' for being born to drug addicts, child molesters, ignorant towns, poor schools, or just generally bad parents.
If there was some way to put every child on equal footing educationally and social opportunity wise (with different specializations of course) I would be ok with basically abolishing all aid programs for working age adults with limited exceptions. It would be an ~75% cut in that spending. I'd be open in cutting at the senior citizen level too if it was done wisely So that's got to win me some 'smaller government' points right?
By the time the two 'selfs' reach 18-21 they are already on completely different playing fields. While starting conditions are not absolute determiners of where you'll end up they do empirically have a significant influence.
One could turn this a bit around and say Bill Gates is evidence no one has any reasonable need or justification to pass along any more financial head starts than Bill got to reach the pinnacle of wealth in this nation. So that passing on anymore than he is/he got is greedy, irresponsible, destructive, unnecessary, and actually precludes a 'self' from ever being able to be 'self-made' (in the virtuous sense[The very thing Toc warns of]).
So I favor basically zero federal redistribution.
So would that mean no federal disaster relief, and that states that currently receive more from the government than they contribute would be cut off (these are mostly red states)?
Also what would happen to elderly or disabled people who couldn't work and had no family, income, or savings without social security (provided some states chose to get rid of it)?
With a just, Judeo-Christian value system, Catholics in particular. (Volume 1, part 2, chapter 9.). Not an all powerful central government. He also considered culture and morality of utmost importance. So much of his book comes back the idea that America needs a strong moral, religious society.
And people wonder why I mention things like this. After a a tirade on how dangerous equality is, you instead support 'A strong moral and religious society.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever" (John 6:53–58).
Are you really trying to suggest that if only more people worshiped bread and wine as literal 'pieces of Jesus' (as in his body and blood) we would be better off than rational attempts to give people a more fair shot?
Believing 'that' is a core tenet of the Catholic religion and if you don't believe it you're not supposed to take communion and by extension not a very good catholic.
I am just flabbergasted that someone would suggest that Catholicism somehow doesn't suffer at minimum the same problems as any attempt at equality, and find it silly after your tirade on the 'dangers of equality'
Can you not see that social justice accepts despotism
Can you not see that Catholicism accepts despotism?
Nothing patriarchal about Catholicism though right? Can't say a more 'moral and religious' society (particularly in a catholic vein) bodes well for women who want to be represented in leadership though huh?
I guess you would prefer if the congress (and the Science committee) had more "strong moral and religious" type men like this?
Talk about forgetting history do you guys not remember the Crusades? Yeah religions the solution..../sigh
Somehow it was so predictable that you would jump upon this particular point. I don't know if you have actually read DiA, but if you haven't then there is no reason to respond to the bizarre, irrelevant criticism you posited here.
I suppose you disagree, but it's being claimed by Tocqueville that the Christian set of values (which of course you don't believe them to have, e.g., tolerance and care for their fellow man) are a core attribute of the American people that help the republic function, partially because it helps keep people from acting purely from their base desires (IgnE, you listening?). The government cannot enforce this- that's tyranny. But when a people do this of their own free will it fosters openness. He was not the last to claim this, either.
It's not to say Christianity has a perfect past, but your view is, as usual, incredibly narrow (progressivism has never had any failures, right?). It's like all of your opinions are from things you heard from Bill Maher, or something. You consider you opponents so stupid that it's not even worth your time to understand their side. Which is really too bad, because religious discussion is banned in the thread so you can say these things ad nauseum. It's obnoxious to have to pick out the stuff worth reading from your posts.
You may not believe any of the above, but perhaps you should read the thing before you launch into the same tired routine again. I'll bet you didn't even read the section I cited.
I think most reasonable people are open to lots of ideas for peaceful (non-tyrannical) corrective forces; it's only the most stubborn among us who refuse to even see a problem, or try to paint any attempt to address the issue as signs of the apocalypse. (<---You can fill in whatever phrase to this tune you want from conservatives/libertarians.[Inevitable 'soft tyranny', Communism, Socialism, 'despotism', 'killing innovation' etc...])
I have never painted "any attempt" in the way you describe. I just think your solutions are the ones inevitably resulting in some form and degree of tyranny, while you believe mine won't work (perhaps because they are too small), or that what I advocate is some other sinister form of tyranny. But I've never opposed any fix.
America needs a strong moral, religious society.
Yeah what could of led me there?
partially because it helps keep people from acting purely from their base desires...The government cannot enforce this- that's tyranny.
This is always a balance... We don't expect morals to prevent all the things we have police and security forces for...Are all laws and enforcement of them against things like money laundering or extortion tyrannical too? Perhaps financial disclosure and truth-in-advertising laws are tyrannical too Or maybe if a state wants to make it legal the feds can only prosecute if they do it interstate?
To your point religion is a moral crutch. Particularly religions with heavens, hells, intervention, and vengeful gods. The influence of believing in a potential for an eternal reward or punishment, by an omniscient being sitting in judgment over your every action kind of changes the concept of morality anyway. So when it comes to morality I don't think religion should have anything to do with it (It's actually one of the most dangerous aspects of religion ['immorality'])
Your insinuation toward the necessity of religion is a big deal, and you can't just slip it in passing and assume it will just be ignored. Or pretend that you are not using it to support your position implicitly. (You act as if your just analyzing literature as opposed to using it for an argument)
Trust me if there was no religion in politics it wouldn't come up, but the fact that it is cited almost daily by politicians and constituents as justification for various positions means it's currently inseparable. The video I posted is a member of the damn Science Committee?!? If you don't think that's a bit ridiculous you're probably a lost cause anyway.
I actually haven't specifically said I support any particular 'solution' to the issues of inequality (particularly the oligarchical inheritance area).
It was until a few pages ago unsettled that it was anything more than a pointless talking point to mention anything about the oligarchical nature of our government or the reality of the trends of inequality or various other aspects. (probably still is for Jonny and Danglers) It seems you at least see some of that and see inequality as an issue that needs improvement.
I am sincerely curious as to what you think some solutions could be? I just want to see which ones posted here or elsewhere meet your standards for potential solutions? (I'm not looking for a silver bullet just what you think can/should be on the table) I get you want the federal government limited to tax collection and national defense (maybe some other things) I gather? And just that somehow that leads to more equality?
What forms of redistribution do you think are functional on a federal level? What types of solutions do you have to correct the influence of inherited wealth vs earned wealth? I ask to see if there are some things we can agree on?
have you read Tocqueville? Why should I bother to copy large portions of the book verbatim? We are talking about what he said. I do happen to agree with most of it. But it's harder to interact on the subject when you don't know the source material. it doesn't really matter that you've already dismissed it- if you have then don't say anything.
I'm a conservative not an anarchist- I think I've said that many times. I don't believe in "no laws," nor am I fan of a pure state of nature, that's what these systems we establish are for. I'm not going to run down the list of every little thing. (of course laundering is bad, that's cheating, for example). As for those other issues, we can take those as they show up in the the thread.
Even if your view of religion was accurate, it's doing the same thing you would do. Enforce their values on everyone else. Control their actions for fear of incarceration. Unless you think you actually can fundamentally change human nature. If so, let me know when you do- I want to see it.
We started discussing religion (in a general way) once before and it got shut down. I agree with you- one cannot conduct a proper discussion of American politics without it. Pretty sure I said that weeks ago.
This thread is not the proper place for a discussion of the origin and objectivity of morality. Suffice it to say I disagree with you.
You have shown enough for me to know I disagree with you in the solutions to inequality. You are for a bigger state, higher taxes, more regulation, etc. I am not. But we have both not given some Carteresque, exhaustive policy booklet to the people in the thread. I agree. I'll let Johnny and Whitedog battle it out. They are the people with deeper econ education.
Let me be clear on inequality: I do not find it immoral in and of itself. I do not like the idea of static wealth where classes can develop. The idea for America (even if you think it failed) was that one could just as easily fall from that class as enter it. With the government as big as it is, the cronies get the write the laws. That's one reason I favor smaller government. I have far less respect for the man who is a state-made success and continues to rely on it then I do for someone like Gates or Jobs, who, at least at the start, did it themselves.
I honestly think we under-value the federal nature of our republic. It's the perfect place to see what does and doesn't work, and it's small enough that the people have more say in what happens. But I favor small taxes that are strictly enforced. No favors, no stupid write-offs, etc. Low federal taxes so the states can compete among themselves for business. This helps keep taxes low while giving people options.
I favor almost no redistribution by government. But i say let the states do it because they should have that option, should they desire. So I favor basically zero federal redistribution. I'll give you foodstamps, so long as it doesn't become a permanent crutch. (of course this is the problem- all these programs develop into crutches).
have you read Tocqueville? Why should I bother to copy large portions of the book verbatim? We are talking about what he said. I do happen to agree with most of it. But it's harder to interact on the subject when you don't know the source material. it doesn't really matter that you've already dismissed it- if you have then don't say anything.
It matters that he was looking at a different America than we live in today.
I've seen some interesting stuff from him but I just view it as one persons nearly 200 y.o. observations, however insightful it might be. I stand firm on the idea that religion is NOT a necessary component of morality (although holy books can be a good reference for ideas they almost uniformly make terrible absolutist arguments which ([literally in the case of the Eastern Orthodox Religion{Catholicism}] by definition is the despotism you fear so much).
I think he points out some legitimate fears of 'equality' and 'individualism' as he defines them but I think he mis-attributes their sources. Considering his work was largely observational/philosophical and less empirical that's not really a surprise. I think you could easily find many of the problems of 'individualism' and 'faux equality' in conservative thought that he attributes to what is now more liberal thought. Voter suppression laws would be an example.
Even if your view of religion was accurate, it's doing the same thing you would do. Enforce their values on everyone else. Control their actions for fear of incarceration. Unless you think you actually can fundamentally change human nature. If so, let me know when you do- I want to see it.
You raise an interesting point here. The problem is human nature. You need some balance of morality and laws relying too heavily on either is a recipe for disaster. I am actually not as much of an advocate for a big government as you think. I don't want morality tyrannically imposed from a religion or a state. I wish companies would see their CEO making 400+ times more than the median employee and put social/stockholder pressure on them to find a more equitable way to share the profits of the entire companies work. Better than that, I wish CEO's saw how much more they were making and felt like it was a moral injustice they would correct themselves. But as you said human nature precludes many from choosing to do that or many other things that would make government intervention or significant taxation at all, unnecessary. (<--just 1 example)
I mean we need taxes because people won't voluntarily pay their completely legitimate share of the cost of maintaining the country (which sometimes means feeding/clothing/sheltering lazy shitty people [a small portion of the people on gov. assistance] so they don't rob citizens on the street to survive, as much as we all may hate it, unless you want to kill them/adopt a prison model that doesn't feed or cloth prisoners and is built by prison labor).
You are for a bigger state, higher taxes, more regulation, etc. I am not.
I'm actually open to solutions that don't include those but I haven't really seen any presented. The generic euphemism of 'less government' is not a solution.
That's one reason I favor smaller government. I have far less respect for the man who is a state-made success and continues to rely on it then I do for someone like Gates or Jobs, who, at least at the start, did it themselves.
The thought that people like Bill Gates is a 'self-made' man goes exactly to what Toc was talking about.
He suggests people are more and more likely to believe that they are "self-made men" - that is that they don't owe anything to anybody and no one owes them, that they solely control their own destinies.
He blames 'democracy/equality' but this is clearly now a conservative principle. I think this points at how conservatism is often used to defend America's modern aristocracy.
I'll give credit where credit is due. Bill got billions by 'shamelessly ripping off peoples ideas' and making the smartest deal in the 20th century (for him) with IBM. But the idea he was a 'self-made' man is pretty ridiculous... Unless every 'self' gets a million dollar trust fund I don't know about?
I think Jobs deserves more credit he only had his parents spending their life savings to put him in college before he dropped out 6 months later. However his utilization of FoxxCon is not something I would hope other 'self-made' people would emulate.
I think what some conservatives miss about these 'self-made men' is that plenty of 'selfs' don't start with a $1 million (~<$5 million in today's dollars [I already showed how this meant Bill would have to try pretty hard to mess up being indefinitely wealthy for generations to come.]) Many 'selfs' also don't get a 5 star education from a private school costing almost 3x more expensive than Harvard.
So if you are going to use Bill Gates as an example of a 'self-made man' you better have a plan to get every 'self' a multi-million dollar trust fund and the best private education money can buy. Otherwise every conservative would do themselves and the world a service by stopping that non-sense.
I actually agree with conservatives about personal responsibility. The problem is children. Children don't pick their parents. Bill Gates was no more 'personally responsible' for his gold leafed education and his multi-million $ equivalent trust fund, than a child is 'personally responsible' for being born to drug addicts, child molesters, ignorant towns, poor schools, or just shitty parents.
By the time the two 'selfs' reach 18-21 they are already on completely different playing fields. While starting conditions are not absolute indicators of where you'll end up they do empirically have a significant influence.
One could turn this a bit around and say Bill Gates is evidence no one has any reasonable need or justification to pass along any more financial head starts than Bill got to reach the pinnacle of wealth in this nation. So that passing on anymore than he is/he got is greedy, irresponsible, destructive, unnecessary, and actually precludes a 'self' from ever being able to be 'self-made' (in the virtuous sense[The very thing Toc warns of]).
So would that mean no federal disaster relief, and that states that currently receive more from the government than they contribute would be cut off (these are mostly red states)?
Also what would happen to elderly or disabled people who couldn't work and had no family, income, or savings without social security (provided some states chose to get rid of it)?
I'm afraid for such a long post you didn't say a whole lot. Nonetheless...
I've seen some interesting stuff from him but I just view it as one persons nearly 200 y.o. observations, however insightful it might be.
You haven't read it. You can say that, you know. Much of what he says is derived from looking at human nature, and at times he is actually quite pessimistic about the future. The editor's introduction explicitly mentions that as a matter of fact. It was actually the philosopher John Stuart Mill who viewed the future much more enthusiastically- and he loved DiA. But that's a side point. I suppose people from Montesquieu to Locke are also worth ignoring. All of human thought now comes from a narrow period starting around the dawn of the 20th century. Well, except for Marx- yea he had some good insights. None of those other guys though!
This is the strangest thing about the left. You dismiss what he wrote because of when it was written. It's like history or ideas before Teddy Roosevelt are not worth studying. By the way, what's mildly interesting is that the progressive movement was started in large part by rich white women who had their husbands (or their own) money to spend in advocating all their changes.
It matters that he was looking at a different America than we live in today (that is true) -so we can summarily dismiss him. Of course when you read what he predicted and warned about, it seems he may be worth reading. The man was quite prescient.
I've seen some interesting stuff from him but I just view it as one persons nearly 200 y.o. observations, however insightful it might be. I stand firm on the idea that religion is NOT a necessary component of morality (although holy books can be a good reference for ideas they almost uniformly make terrible absolutist arguments which ([literally in the case of the Eastern Orthodox Religion{Catholicism}] by definition is the despotism you fear so much).
There has been religious despotism (it continues today in some places) But the "Godless" Soviet Union was just that- godless. It didn't help them any, so it seems that maybe there's more to it? And Tocqueville is not unique in claiming that Christian values really helped spur democracy and general freedom (even if the Church didn't always embrace them). But that's off topic.
You prove you still haven't read even the section you decided you disagree with. At least the other person in this thread who was challenging my assertions actually planned on reading the thing first.
I think he points out some legitimate fears of 'equality' and 'individualism' as he defines them but I think he mis-attributes their sources. Considering his work was largely observational/philosophical and less empirical that's not really a surprise. I think you could easily find many of the problems of 'individualism' and 'faux equality' in conservative thought that he attributes to what is now more liberal thought. Voter suppression laws would be an example.
You are speaking in such broad terms- how am I supposed to respond to that? What do you think he is wrong about? He described the general way of despotism through equality, but what I posted by no means talks about it's sources. Do you doubt that men are generally willing to give up freedom for security, for example?
There are flaws in everything because humans are flawed. So this whole section is meaningless.
You raise an interesting point here. The problem is human nature. You need some balance of morality and laws relying too heavily on either is a recipe for disaster. I am actually not as much of an advocate for a big government as you think. I don't want morality tyrannically imposed from a religion or a state. I wish companies would see their CEO making 400+ times more than the median employee and put social/stockholder pressure on them to find a more equitable way to share the profits of the entire companies work. Better than that, I wish CEO's saw how much more they were making and felt like it was a moral injustice they would correct themselves. But as you said human nature precludes many from choosing to do that or many other things that would make government intervention or significant taxation at all, unnecessary. (<--just 1 example)
I mean we need taxes because people won't voluntarily pay their completely legitimate share of the cost of maintaining the country (which sometimes means feeding/clothing/sheltering lazy shitty people [a small portion of the people on gov. assistance] so they don't rob citizens on the street to survive, as much as we all may hate it, unless you want to kill them/adopt a prison model that doesn't feed or cloth prisoners and is built by prison labor).
I'm not anti-tax. I'm anti-tax-because-you-have-too-much.
So you are for big government. I don't know anyone who likes big government for its own sake. So saying that you aren't for it, but that you don't see any other way, is saying you are for it.
So do you not like his riches because you think them ill earned more often than not? For what besides moral grounds do you want all these things tightly controlled?
You seem to dismiss the potential damage that could come from the state getting to decide more and more of these things. I disagree. For me at least, that's based on my thought about systems always trending towards oppression. There will always be a new crisis. CEO pay will not magically be equalized and then the ground spouts a lollipop field. They will find new injustice to be enraged about. Let unions deal with it (i'm not anti-union in principle, but eventually they too become far too large and powerful).
From the New Deal to the Great Society to the War on Drugs, every time the government sticks it's head in "for the people" it fails or costs way too much for what it's gained. it has a long history of failure, so I don't trust it.
I'm actually open to solutions that don't include those but I haven't really seen any presented. The generic euphemism of 'less government' is not a solution.
As I said above, you are. I think smaller government is a good way. but it must be small enough that these rich that everyone hate so much can't use the mechanisms of government to their advantage. That's what I see in the end. I place the blame of where we are squarely on the fact that government pokes it's nose in all these places, giving those at the top reason to try and control it.
I gave Gates and Jobs as random examples. I didn't say they were angles.
Of course some will start out better. I don't think you can fix that though. Not everyone can go to Harvard, not everyone could even handle it. I don't believe government can fix it by pulling those at the top down, you substitute one "problem" for another. Those people who are elected are not saints, but they have more power than any corporation. I do not view these things as static, if you "fix" inequality through strongarm tactics, where does that end?
So would that mean no federal disaster relief, and that states that currently receive more from the government than they contribute would be cut off (these are mostly red states)?
Also what would happen to elderly or disabled people who couldn't work and had no family, income, or savings without social security (provided some states chose to get rid of it)?
No state would entirely get rid of it. Their reps would be voted out of office.
FEMA really sucks at its job. But I could live with that as well, because it's a one time deal. No disaster means no FEMA nearby. So far you have FEMA and unemployment temp help. Notice a theme? These things are on the lower end of dependency creation, though it still creates it. (FEMA means states put less in their disaster fund)
Those old people/poor people can live in states that offer those things. If they want that in their old age, move there! This is getting off topic from what was originally being discussed. I'm not going now to launch into the separate discussion over this- besides to reiterate that all these programs will do is grow until people are dependent upon them not just for temporary help, but as a permanent addition to their lives. Fix poverty by growing the economy, not by handing out cash.
But seriously I am getting bored of discussing this with someone who doesn't even know the work we are discussing. Too bad IgnE hasn't replied (I honestly wanted to read what he had to say). We should at least start from the same place. I shouldn't have to explain in an inferior fashion what Tocqueville said and then also defend it.
EDIT: what do you have against trying some of your ideas in individual states first? Surely California could try, yes? 38 million people is enough, is it not?
i'm sorry but i can't even begin to understand this obsession with 'federal' when it comes to an issue where the precise problem is that even individual states is too small to effectively be on top of permeable capital. picketty proposed a global tax
On April 27 2014 21:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think you can really make the claim that someone's knowledge is timeless because it's based around human nature. Human nature is not static.
Maybe, but dismissing Tocqueville for bejng outdated while not having actually read him is silly.
Edit: it's even silly when you have read him but at least then you can have a real argument about why you think so.
On April 27 2014 21:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think you can really make the claim that someone's knowledge is timeless because it's based around human nature. Human nature is not static.
Maybe, but dismissing Tocqueville for bejng outdated while not having actually read him is silly.
Edit: it's even silly when you have read him but at least then you can have a real argument about why you think so.
Tocqueville wrote his book in 1831. It is no philosophy, it was the result of a journey in the US in order to watch the penitentiary system in the US. What he made clear was that democracy is, first and foremost, a desire for equality. Sure he made warning about the possibility of a degradation of freedom because of the desire for equality, but at that time the US had less inequality than Europe - now the US is one of the most inequal land on the planet. Introvert use Tocqueville work to actually criticise the desire of equality, which he can be right to (it is a basic thing, every work I've read on equality always call Tocqueville to say blablabla full equality is bad) but he is just taking aside the entire historical context of the US at that time : a land with great equality (among white men).
How is that relevant for today's policy ? A society where the top 1% possess what 30% of the national income ? How can you quote a work about america in 1831-1835 to criticize an increase in marginal taxation rate in 2014 ?
On April 27 2014 21:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think you can really make the claim that someone's knowledge is timeless because it's based around human nature. Human nature is not static.
Maybe, but dismissing Tocqueville for bejng outdated while not having actually read him is silly.
Edit: it's even silly when you have read him but at least then you can have a real argument about why you think so.
Tocqueville wrote his book in 1831. It is no philosophy, it was the result of a journey in the US in order to watch the penitentiary system in the US. What he made clear was that democracy is, first and foremost, a desire for equality. Sure he made warning about the possibility of a degradation of freedom because of the desire for equality, but at that time the US had less inequality than Europe - now the US is one of the most inequal land on the planet. Introvert use Tocqueville work to actually criticise the desire of equality, which he can be right to (it is a basic thing, every work I've read on equality always call Tocqueville to say blablabla full equality is bad) but he is just taking aside the entire historical context of the US at that time : a land with great equality (among white men).
How is that relevant for today's policy ? A society where the top 1% possess what 30% of the national income ? How can you quote a work about america in 1831-1835 to criticize an increase in marginal taxation rate in 2014 ?
I was just kind of following the debate, seeing if there was any place I could contribute. I assumed maybe Tocqueville had been from the 1950-1960s, or maybe the 1890-1910s from the talk about his work being irrelevant in our time. If we're seriously talking about a man's writings on equality and America from pre-civil war, that's a really, really poor basis for an argument in the inequality topic at hand now.
He made so many predictions that, at least in my opinion, are coming/have come true. That's why it's useful. If you look at his concerns they seem to be fulfilling themselves. If everything he said turned out to be a baseless fear than of course no one would read him. I think there is a reason that the work has remained a classic for so long.
It's not Piketty- it wasn't meant to be. It's more political philosophy arising from observation than it is economics or pure theory of government.
Moreover, I think society has changed in that time, but basic human nature really hasn't.
i'm sorry but i can't even begin to understand this obsession with 'federal' when it comes to an issue where the precise problem is that even individual states is too small to effectively be on top of permeable capital. picketty proposed a global tax
what i don't even
We can try things one state at a time, is the point. Don't take one economist's (or even lots of them) at their word and institute some far-reaching policy. For instance, if state-run healthcare really works, let California try it. With a population of 38 million it ought to be sustainable. I don't know why you oppose slow and steady.
The issue is not that human nature has changed, rather that the manner in which we understand human nature has.
You can disagree but I don't think what we've learned really invalidates what he wrote. That's why I bring him up. I don't know how many people here criticizing him even read him or remember what they read, judging by the dismissal based on age. At least whitedog displays some understanding of it. Though I'm not sure I view Toc as "whining abut the end of aristocracy" or whatever it was he said exactly.
The mere fact that we have inequality now doesn't really change his concerns, because they are based on the future desire for MORE equality. At the very least the left could read it and maybe take some warnings. "ok, let's try to avoid this and this."
But I know, the only person pre-1900 worth reading is Marx.
the problem is a state has not enough power to levy a tax like what is being proposed without obviouus shopping issues. certain reforms like overseas shell entities are also necessarily federal in scope
Introvert you dismissed everything I said. I never said he was not worth reading, I said the way you used is misleading. Plus just reading Tocqueville to discuss on human nature and the question of the state but not Hobbes, not Rousseau ? Not Machiavel ? And then basically refute the idea of a taxation on high income and wealth because of Tocqueville ? Don't you see how your arguments are just irrelevant ?
On April 28 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote: Introvert you dismissed everything I said. I never said he was not worth reading, I said the way you used is misleading. Plus just reading Tocqueville to discuss on human nature and the question of the state but not Hobbes, not Rousseau ? Not Machiavel ? And then basically refute the idea of a taxation on high income and wealth because of Tocqueville ? Don't you see how your arguments are just irrelevant ?
I didn't dismiss you, I gave you credit for actually having read the thing before disagreeing with it. I've read many different people, but Danglers brought up the Tocqueville quote so that's what was being discussed. I wasn't going to do a survey of all philosophical thought on human nature.
My argument was that there is danger in this seeming obsession with inequality. Don't be so eager to fix it that you ignore the dangers of a more centralized state. I was making a point about principles. I don't think the existence of inequality today invalidated anything that was written. I think there IS a problem with what we have going on now, not because being rich is immoral, but because so many of these corporations have the ear of governments that they use to inoculate themselves and hold down others. it has nothing to do with CEO wage (still something I think is merit based). There is less and less natural movement. So I agree there is a problem, I just don't view it as you do, nor do I agree with your solution.
But if we are done with Tocqueville than I am done with the thread for now. I need to see more Johnny/Whitedog back-and-forths.
On April 28 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote: Introvert you dismissed everything I said. I never said he was not worth reading, I said the way you used is misleading. Plus just reading Tocqueville to discuss on human nature and the question of the state but not Hobbes, not Rousseau ? Not Machiavel ? And then basically refute the idea of a taxation on high income and wealth because of Tocqueville ? Don't you see how your arguments are just irrelevant ?
I didn't dismiss you, I gave you credit for actually having read the thing before disagreeing with it. I've read many different people, but Danglers brought up the Tocqueville quote so that's what was being discussed. I wasn't going to do a survey of all philosophical thought on human nature.
My argument was that there is danger in this seeming obsession with inequality. Don't be so eager to fix it that you ignore the dangers of a more centralized state. I was making a point about principles. I don't think the existence of inequality today invalidated anything that was written. I think there IS a problem with what we have going on now, not because being rich is immoral, but because so many of these corporations have the ear of governments that they use to inoculate themselves and hold down others. it has nothing to do with CEO wage (still something I think is merit based). There is less and less natural movement. So I agree there is a problem, I just don't view it as you do, nor do I agree with your solution.
Then I guess we're okay. I completly agree that the state is, by nature, an institution of power design to dominate people, and criticizing the state is important. But I disagree that it has anything to do with the desire for equality as Tocqueville thought. I think the opposition between equality and freedom is theorical, and from an empirical standpoint the problem does not lie there.
But if we are done with Tocqueville than I am done with the thread for now. I need to see more Johnny/Whitedog back-and-forths.
To be fair, talking about Tocqueville is more interesting
On April 28 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote: Introvert you dismissed everything I said. I never said he was not worth reading, I said the way you used is misleading. Plus just reading Tocqueville to discuss on human nature and the question of the state but not Hobbes, not Rousseau ? Not Machiavel ? And then basically refute the idea of a taxation on high income and wealth because of Tocqueville ? Don't you see how your arguments are just irrelevant ?
I didn't dismiss you, I gave you credit for actually having read the thing before disagreeing with it. I've read many different people, but Danglers brought up the Tocqueville quote so that's what was being discussed. I wasn't going to do a survey of all philosophical thought on human nature.
My argument was that there is danger in this seeming obsession with inequality. Don't be so eager to fix it that you ignore the dangers of a more centralized state. I was making a point about principles. I don't think the existence of inequality today invalidated anything that was written. I think there IS a problem with what we have going on now, not because being rich is immoral, but because so many of these corporations have the ear of governments that they use to inoculate themselves and hold down others. it has nothing to do with CEO wage (still something I think is merit based). There is less and less natural movement. So I agree there is a problem, I just don't view it as you do, nor do I agree with your solution.
Then I guess we're okay. I completly agree that the state is, by nature, an institution of power design to dominate people, and criticizing the state is important. But I disagree that it has anything to do with the desire for equality as Tocqueville thought. I think the opposition between equality and freedom is theorical, and from an empirical standpoint the problem does not lie there.
But if we are done with Tocqueville than I am done with the thread for now. I need to see more Johnny/Whitedog back-and-forths.
To be fair, talking about Tocqueville is more interesting
Yea, I have no beef with you Even if I disagree you bring a lot of educated and sourced material to the discussion, I like reading the back and forth between you and Johnny.
Agree to disagree on equality then. I don't think they are opposed either, I just think that the latter can be lost in pursuit of the former, espeically when equality of result is over-emphasized and made into a moral issue. I just don't have a problem with there being extremely wealthy people if I think they earned it more or less fair and square. What is fair? Well, that varies from person to person (based largely on your view of rights).
I view the state as more dangerous, but reasonable people can disagree.
And I think philosophy in general is more interesting, that's why I leave econ to the economists
As a thinker, Tocqueville is of a different class from Hobbes and Rousseau, and more immediately relevant than Machiavelli. Ideologues ignore him, because his ideas are not so easily categorisable, and do not lend themselves to gross simplification.
Although Tocqueville was concerned with the encroachment of equality upon liberty, the emphasis of his thought was not focused upon this cleavage, but that between aristocracy and democracy. He was more liberal than he was either aristocratic or democratic, but he was neither a doctrinaire, nor was he much concerned with the industrialist notion of profit and progress. He defies easy categorisation; he was an aristocrat who lamented the decline of aristocracy, but unlike many liberal-conservatives of his generation, he did not see democracy as incompatible with a civilised order.
The concept of "tyranny of the majority" was innovative in the early 19th century, because the standard critique of democracy was still operating under the paradigm of the French revolution, with its turn and tumble of bloodshed and anarchy. Tocqueville was the first to see that democracy did not foster a culture of uncontrollable and dangerous novelty, but one of mass conformity. The movement of opinions, habits, tastes and mores do not accelerate in democratic ages; they slow down. Consequently, he exuded the then-novel belief that democratic societies would become less revolutionary, not more, as democracy became more universal. This is both Marx and his critics turned upside down.
In the 20th century he has been utilised by critics of democracy to point out its defects, but I think that understood in his own time, and upon his own circumstances, Tocqueville's grand achievement was to reconcile many of democracy's critics to not only the inevitability of democracy, but the possibility for the continuity of civilised life under such a society.
As for Tocqueville's outdatedness, I think those who levy that charge at his work need to re-read him, because what is remarkable about Tocqueville is the contrary; how few of his observations are outdated after 180 years. His judgements about the American constitution, and the relationship between executive and legislative power are now outdated, but most of the observations in his weightier second book are more relevant today than they were at the time of his writing. His social and psychological insights into the democratic man should be required reading for anyone who pretends to comment on democracy and the democratic age.
On April 28 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote: Introvert you dismissed everything I said. I never said he was not worth reading, I said the way you used is misleading. Plus just reading Tocqueville to discuss on human nature and the question of the state but not Hobbes, not Rousseau ? Not Machiavel ? And then basically refute the idea of a taxation on high income and wealth because of Tocqueville ? Don't you see how your arguments are just irrelevant ?
I didn't dismiss you, I gave you credit for actually having read the thing before disagreeing with it. I've read many different people, but Danglers brought up the Tocqueville quote so that's what was being discussed. I wasn't going to do a survey of all philosophical thought on human nature.
My argument was that there is danger in this seeming obsession with inequality. Don't be so eager to fix it that you ignore the dangers of a more centralized state. I was making a point about principles. I don't think the existence of inequality today invalidated anything that was written. I think there IS a problem with what we have going on now, not because being rich is immoral, but because so many of these corporations have the ear of governments that they use to inoculate themselves and hold down others. it has nothing to do with CEO wage (still something I think is merit based). There is less and less natural movement. So I agree there is a problem, I just don't view it as you do, nor do I agree with your solution.
Then I guess we're okay. I completly agree that the state is, by nature, an institution of power design to dominate people, and criticizing the state is important. But I disagree that it has anything to do with the desire for equality as Tocqueville thought. I think the opposition between equality and freedom is theorical, and from an empirical standpoint the problem does not lie there.
But if we are done with Tocqueville than I am done with the thread for now. I need to see more Johnny/Whitedog back-and-forths.
To be fair, talking about Tocqueville is more interesting
Yea, I have no beef with you Even if I disagree you bring a lot of educated and sourced material to the discussion, I like reading the back and forth between you and Johnny.
Agree to disagree on equality then. I don't think they are opposed either, I just think that the latter can be lost in pursuit of the former, espeically when equality of result is over-emphasized and made into a moral issue. I just don't have a problem with there being extremely wealthy people if I think they earned it more or less fair and square. What is fair? Well, that varies from person to person (based largely on your view of rights).
I view the state as more dangerous, but reasonable people can disagree.
I personally believe that we would be way happier as a society if success did not revolved around money - with "social" gratifications and the like. The problem is money is not only a way to measure success, it is also necessary to live in good conditions. If the success of one man needs someone else to be poor, then I think it is unfair and more than that problematic for our society.
And I think philosophy in general is more interesting, that's why I leave econ to the economists
I come from a sociological / philosophical background first and foremost so I love philosophy . I only learned economy for professionnal purposes (in France, from 16 to 18 years old, there are no economic class per say, but a specific type of class called Social and Economical Sciences, or SES, that mix both sociology and economy, and the competitive exam needed to enter has two different exam, one in sociology one in economy).
On April 28 2014 05:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: As a thinker, Tocqueville is of a different class from Hobbes and Rousseau, and more immediately relevant than Machiavelli. Ideologues ignore him, because his ideas are not so easily categorisable, and do not lend themselves to gross simplification.
What do you mean by different class ? Machiavelli is a monster, easily on par with Hobbes and Rousseau (I guess I should add Montaigne for the question of the state). Tocqueville is a dwarf in front of them (judging from the impact of their work, not the work in itself). I guess we have a complete different point of view on Tocqueville. I remember some years ago, I was in Algeria, and saw one of Tocqueville's book (I think it was Democracy in America) just lying there, in a familly with no scholar education at all ! I was amazed, then they told me that he was, during his lifetime, for the independance of Algeria and thus that he was very respected. His work in the US might shape the differencies in our point of view.
it is not that tocqueville is outdated rather it is how some people use yocqueville, at a level that does not engage with new realities. tocqueville would likely see more tyranny in corporate lobbies than an updated and patched up tax code.
the greater part of change to tocqueville's america is not due to the expansion of federal government. many government functions coevolve with the economy which is in turn structured by dominsnce of modern capitalism. an empirically driven thinker surely would be the first to oppose an ideological appropriation of his work.
and how do you in one part cite the christian cultural core of tocqueville america and then not realize the displacement of this with the spirit of capitalism. get yourself some gatsby
On April 28 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote: Introvert you dismissed everything I said. I never said he was not worth reading, I said the way you used is misleading. Plus just reading Tocqueville to discuss on human nature and the question of the state but not Hobbes, not Rousseau ? Not Machiavel ? And then basically refute the idea of a taxation on high income and wealth because of Tocqueville ? Don't you see how your arguments are just irrelevant ?
I didn't dismiss you, I gave you credit for actually having read the thing before disagreeing with it. I've read many different people, but Danglers brought up the Tocqueville quote so that's what was being discussed. I wasn't going to do a survey of all philosophical thought on human nature.
My argument was that there is danger in this seeming obsession with inequality. Don't be so eager to fix it that you ignore the dangers of a more centralized state. I was making a point about principles. I don't think the existence of inequality today invalidated anything that was written. I think there IS a problem with what we have going on now, not because being rich is immoral, but because so many of these corporations have the ear of governments that they use to inoculate themselves and hold down others. it has nothing to do with CEO wage (still something I think is merit based). There is less and less natural movement. So I agree there is a problem, I just don't view it as you do, nor do I agree with your solution.
Then I guess we're okay. I completly agree that the state is, by nature, an institution of power design to dominate people, and criticizing the state is important. But I disagree that it has anything to do with the desire for equality as Tocqueville thought. I think the opposition between equality and freedom is theorical, and from an empirical standpoint the problem does not lie there.
But if we are done with Tocqueville than I am done with the thread for now. I need to see more Johnny/Whitedog back-and-forths.
To be fair, talking about Tocqueville is more interesting
Yea, I have no beef with you Even if I disagree you bring a lot of educated and sourced material to the discussion, I like reading the back and forth between you and Johnny.
Agree to disagree on equality then. I don't think they are opposed either, I just think that the latter can be lost in pursuit of the former, espeically when equality of result is over-emphasized and made into a moral issue. I just don't have a problem with there being extremely wealthy people if I think they earned it more or less fair and square. What is fair? Well, that varies from person to person (based largely on your view of rights).
I view the state as more dangerous, but reasonable people can disagree.
I personally believe that we would be way happier as a society if success did not revolved around money - with "social" gratifications and the like. The problem is money is not only a way to measure success, it is also necessary to live in good conditions. If the success of one man needs someone else to be poor and uneducated, then I think it is unfair and more than that problematic for our society.
And I think philosophy in general is more interesting, that's why I leave econ to the economists
I come from a sociological / philosophical background first and foremost so I love philosophy . I only learned economy for professionnal purposes (in France, from 16 to 18 years old, there are no economic class per say, but a specific type of class called Social and Economical Sciences, or SES, that mix both sociology and economy, and the competitive exam needed to enter has two different exam, one in sociology one in economy).
On April 28 2014 05:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: As a thinker, Tocqueville is of a different class from Hobbes and Rousseau, and more immediately relevant than Machiavelli. Ideologues ignore him, because his ideas are not so easily categorisable, and do not lend themselves to gross simplification.
What do you mean by different class ? Machiavelli is a monster, easily on par with Hobbes and Rousseau. Tocqueville is a dwarf in front of them (judging from the impact of their work, not the work in itself).
By different class I mean that his ideas are both more immediate and more specific than the ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau. He was more interested in the historically incarnated man than in abstractions founded in natural law. As for his reputation, Tocqueville did not evoke much interest prior to the 1960s, and was virtually ignored in France for over a century. But I think the bigger problem with Tocqueville is that he does not lend himself to a quick ideological fix, and has been more consistently misunderstood than figures who project their sentiments directly off the page.
it is not that tocqueville is outdated rather it is how some people use yocqueville, at a level that does not engage with new realities. tocqueville would likely see more tyranny in corporate lobbies than an updated and patched up tax code.
These are not "new realities", they are extremely old and pre-date Tocqueville. "Corporate lobbies" were there in England since the beginning of modern age; first with the Turkey merchants, then the sugar colonists, then with the parliamentary "nabobs" against whom Burke railed his famous denunciations. Madison in the Federalist No. 10 used the argument of interested factions to justify the diffusion of factional interest over the scope of a large republic. They have been a problem in modern political thought since the beginning. I also think Tocqueville would have abhored Madison's general argument; Guizot never managed to prevail upon Tocqueville to accept that the loss of the local was a necessary sacrifice for general progress. Tocqueville does not need to be updated to be applicable to these basic tenants of political thinking; he helps you transcend them, if you are willing to spend a little time and effort.
EPT
Even if I disagree you bring a lot of educated and sourced material to the discussion, I like reading the back and forth between you and Johnny. 
