US Politics Mega-thread - Page 230

On May 10 2013 00:20 Shiori wrote:

Actually modern psychology and sociology make it pretty easy to construct a fairly impartial standard of living that would result in contentment for most people insofar as they wouldn't be struggling.

People who work every day and barely make ends meet are not in an enviable position. The fact is that our society can do a lot better, therefore it should.

On May 10 2013 00:29 Kimaker wrote:

Okay fine, fuckit, let's pull out the mystical "appeal to authority" and see where that gets us:
It has also been psychologically proven...

Happiness normalizes over time.

So yes, there may be a way to objectively determine an acceptable "standard of living" which would result in contentment for most people, but that only considers their happiness as of now or within a given range of norms. There is no overarching principle which says, "X is the ultimate standard of living and when it is attained, people won't have to reach anymore." Bullshit. You're advocating Brave New World. You're advocating post-scarcity. Nothing would disgust me more.

Also, you're acting like society can actively "do better". Only individuals can do that, society is constructed out of individuals pursuing their independent interests. We can't lose sight of that fact when we're theory-crafting society here, otherwise you're just a Utopian Hope-monger, no better than a fear monger.

On May 10 2013 00:29 Kimaker wrote:

Okay fine, fuckit, let's pull out the mystical "appeal to authority" and see where that gets us:
It has also been psychologically proven...

Happiness normalizes over time.

So yes, there may be a way to objectively determine an acceptable "standard of living" which would result in contentment for most people, but that only considers their happiness as of now or within a given range of norms. There is no overarching principle which says, "X is the ultimate standard of living and when it is attained, people won't have to reach anymore." Bullshit. You're advocating Brave New World. You're advocating post-scarcity. Nothing would disgust me more.

Also, you're acting like society can actively "do better". Only individuals can do that, society is constructed out of individuals pursuing their independent interests. We can't lose sight of that fact when we're theory-crafting society here, otherwise you're just a Utopian Hope-monger, no better than a fear monger.

On May 10 2013 01:13 aksfjh wrote:

There is real meaning in the phrase, "Greater than the sum of their parts." Not only do people pursue interests that benefit a group more than themselves, but that actually is the norm. If people did act on pursuing only independent interests, the fields of economics, psychology, sociology, et al would be elementary school level courses.

On May 10 2013 00:52 Shiori wrote:

I'm not advocating BNW; I'm advocating a society in which people have essentially opportunity as a result of equal distribution of resources and an elimination of classes. In short, I'm a socialist. I probably should have read your signature before replying to you. Didn't realize you were a follower of Mises.

I like to think that some of the individuals in society pursue the interests of others. If that makes me a hope-monger, it's a label I gladly accept.

On May 10 2013 01:13 aksfjh wrote:

There is real meaning in the phrase, "Greater than the sum of their parts." Not only do people pursue interests that benefit a group more than themselves, but that actually is the norm. If people did act on pursuing only independent interests, the fields of economics, psychology, sociology, et al would be elementary school level courses.

On May 10 2013 01:35 Kimaker wrote:

The burning question then remains: How do you fit men into a society at odds with their very nature?

It's all well and good that you have the "moral" answers, but answer the question of implementation please? I'll admit, Capitalism (broadly speaking since the word encompasses a number of variations on the theme) is without a precise moral doctrine. But we know it works. We know it generates growth, we know it meets the needs of those who exist under it, we know that it is the system which most readily generates innovation and is responsible for the greatest material gain amongst the lower classes in human history.

How does equal distribution of wealth do any of that? How do you get men to agree to such a society? "Talk to them"? Convince them? Some men will not be convinced. You're begging a moral question, and not all men have the same morals as you do. What then? Kill them? (no, you're not a Communist). Limit their political power? (no, you'd cut your own legs out from under yourself by just creating a different permutation of classes.)

What then?

How do you fit a square peg, into a round hole?

On May 10 2013 01:40 Shiori wrote:


Can you define human nature for me, please? I've always found that this concept of "human nature" is an abstraction employed whenever one wishes to make a point without substantiating it they defer to human nature or "common sense" or something like that. I don't mean that as a dig, but I do want to know what you think human nature is, and I'd like to know if it's objective.

If people won't be convinced by argumentation, then they are perfectly free not to be a part of the entirely voluntary socialist society. I think that real socialism/communism must be essentially voluntary if it's going to succeed, and so I have absolutely no qualms with giving people discretion as to whether they wish to be a part of it or not.

I'd also say that your claim that capitalism "meets the needs of those who exist under it" is sort of specious at best. There are plenty of poor people that, arguably, aren't being particularly well-served by capitalist principles.


As an aside, the implication that communism = killing dissenters is rather telling and completely ridiculous.The Soviet Union does not define communism.

On May 10 2013 01:57 Kimaker wrote:

That's precisely it. The Definition of human nature, eludes definition. Capitalism doesn't require such a definition to function. It doesn't attempt to make moral claims about peoples actions. Socialism does, since it claims certain actions undertaken by humans are "bad" or at least not desirable (it creates a universal system of morality). In it's most basic form human nature would include the aggregation of human activity, an impossibility. It is non-quantifiable since the variables are floating and exponential. Your request for a definition is...not possible I'm sorry. At least not in categorical terms. Relationally, I got this, but then you don't seem like someone who is a fan of relational thinking in terms of definition.



Also, I respect the anarcho-socialist stance, even if I think it's impossible. As for the "needs" bit, that's your perspective, "needs" can only be known by the individual who has the "needs". You can't eat for a starving person. So, yes, that was a fallacious statement on my part. I apologize.

The Communism part: The very doctrinal difference between a Socialist and a Communist is the Communists advocation for the necessity of violent revolution. I'd call that killing dissenters since the targets were to be the Bourgeoise.

On May 10 2013 01:57 Kimaker wrote:
It is non-quantifiable since the variables are floating and exponential.

On May 10 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:

So would I be correct in saying that you think morality is ultimately subjective?

On May 10 2013 02:45 Hitch-22 wrote:

Is it not? Name a single time in history where morality wasn't subjective to the human experience at that time. There is nothing concrete with morality; that is to say it is what we decide to make it and whatever we, as humans, decide as a majority at a certain time pertains to the current moral compass.

On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:

To the bold section: that is precisely what I'm saying. You're acting like discrimination is bad in this case. Choosing who can come into your house is a fairly intelligent form of "discrimination" I'd say. I'm just suggesting we up the criteria from where it currently sits.

Also, the unskilled labor demand?
1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes.

2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions.

3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth.

We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture.

On May 10 2013 02:54 Shiori wrote:


I'm not really sure what this means. There are multitudes of moral systems which are based on very elementary axioms; I would characterize these as being attempts at objective systems. Now, if your objection is that all systems are artificial/axiomatic, then I'm afraid you'll find that that's true of literally every system, moral or otherwise. But I don't think that implies subjectivity in any damaging sense. For example, the scientific method is based on axioms; provided one accepts those axioms, the scientific method is essentially objective.

Would you say that logic is subjective, by the way? Obviously logic and moral systems are different things, but your objection seems to apply equally to logical axioms as it does to moral ones. For example, accepting the law of non-contradiction is essentially axiomatic/self-evident. Do you think this implies that logic is subjective?

On May 10 2013 02:58 renoB wrote:


But you're kind of contradicting yourself though. You're saying we have degree inflation on the one hand, and so we need unskilled labor, but that we should only allow skilled or intelligent immigrants and disallow unskilled workers. So maybe the question isn't about accepting people based on IQ (which I feel is kind of a dumb idea) but accepting people based on labor demands. This way its not discriminatory in saying "you're not good enough for America", its saying "you may come here if you're willing to work in the place where there's demand".

It seems you're putting words in my mouth when it comes to 2, 3 and your last comment. I never said anything about those topics. I simply said there is a demand for unskilled labor, I don't care where it comes from, but there's demands for it and it makes goods cheaper to have it. If American's aren't going to work it, then someone needs to do it. The fact of the matter is, and despite me telling people in America they don't have to go to college and that teenagers should work these jobs (which I agree with), they aren't doing it and I can't force them to. But here we have large populations who want to work these jobs that others don't and we're keeping them from doing it. I never suggested we need immigrant labor, I suggested it would be extremely helpful given the circumstances of high demand for unskilled labor and low (legal) supply.

On May 10 2013 02:24 nunez wrote:


'floating' variables and exponential growth are not necessarily insurmountable obstacles when it comes to mathematical modelling. i don't see anything comparatively more difficult when it comes to modelling since they both seek to control the same system.

On May 10 2013 02:00 Shiori wrote:

So would I be correct in saying that you think morality is ultimately subjective?

On May 10 2013 03:42 frogrubdown wrote:
"Subjective to" isn't English. Maybe you're thinking of "subject to" while also thinking of "subjective".

I say this not just to be pedantic (though the repeated use of that phrase is grating) but because your use of it exacerbates the problem of interpreting your position. This is a problem that is quite large to begin with, as no one seems to have any clear idea in mind when they call something "subjective", at least not on the internet.

On May 10 2013 03:46 Kimaker wrote:

Which would be a recommendation. Which is synonymous with suggestion. Don't pretend you weren't suggesting immigrant labor could solve the unskilled labor shortage, it could. I actually agree with you. I'm simply saying that the externality costs make this an undesirable solution. In purely economic terms, yes, it works. In terms of culture? It's damaging to the identity of the nation and results in a schizophrenic society, paralyzed by disagreement and introspection.


As to your first point, it is not a contradiction. It's a structural argument. I'm advocating the same general "solution" but through a different configuration of the pieces available, which happens to include the exclusion of certain pieces aka: teeming masses of unskilled labor.

2 and 3 were provided to show that there are alternative and less problematic pools of unskilled labor that don't require a cultural dilution. It all comes back to the point where you claim you weren't recommending immigrant labor, when in fact you were. I'm actually really hung up on this:
"There's huge demands for unskilled labor, so why would we try to cap the amount of unskilled labor coming in? It could only be beneficial"

You are clearly advocating immigration as a solution. And it is. But it's a shitty one. We already have a glut of "skilled labor" that is ill-defined since large swaths of these people are only capable of unskilled work (which would be financially in their interest as well).

It's the difference between moving around the contents of an unbalanced boat to avoid capsize, or bringing in new weight to re-balance it. The second solution works, but it still puts the boat lower in the water.

We both want to re-balance the boat, but we're doing it in different ways.

On May 10 2013 01:57 Kimaker wrote:

That's precisely it. The Definition of human nature, eludes definition. Capitalism doesn't require such a definition to function. It doesn't attempt to make moral claims about peoples actions. Socialism does, since it claims certain actions undertaken by humans are "bad" or at least not desirable (it creates a universal system of morality). In it's most basic form human nature would include the aggregation of human activity, an impossibility. It is non-quantifiable since the variables are floating and exponential. Your request for a definition is...not possible I'm sorry. At least not in categorical terms. Relationally, I got this, but then you don't seem like someone who is a fan of relational thinking in terms of definition.



Also, I respect the anarcho-socialist stance, even if I think it's impossible. As for the "needs" bit, that's your perspective, "needs" can only be known by the individual who has the "needs". You can't eat for a starving person. So, yes, that was a fallacious statement on my part. I apologize.

The Communism part: The very doctrinal difference between a Socialist and a Communist is the Communists advocation for the necessity of violent revolution. I'd call that killing dissenters since the targets were to be the Bourgeoise.

On May 10 2013 04:11 Hitch-22 wrote:


Isn't subjective generally a synonym of 'bias' such that 'bias to' would fit so why doesnt subjective to also fit? Just curious since I meant it as subjective or bias rather then 'subject' why it doesn't work, no one ever told me this before hahaha and I use it in my psyc and phil essays in university at times and never got docked on it (must be bad professors or not noticing etc).

Thanks : D

On May 10 2013 04:47 frogrubdown wrote:


Well, I'd mark it if I saw it on a paper. :p

Are you using "bias to" to mean "biased in favor of"? I've never heard "subjective" used like that, and I'm not sure how it fits in with your point. You say "morality is subjective to ones human experience" which it would be hard to understand as meaning "morality is biased in favor of ones human experience", whatever that would mean.