|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On April 01 2014 05:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
it's not that another has to become poor for one to become rich, it's that for one rich to become mega-rich, another 10000 must stay poor
that number is actually not a hyperbole even though it sounds like it, seeing the earlier cited 67 wealthiest individuals owning as much as the poorest 3.5 billion people I could add three zeroes and it'd still apply.
but anyway, there's obviously no easy fix solution. People from both sides of the political spectrum agree that wealth inequality is a problem, to what degree it is a problem differs sure, but virtually everyone agrees that less global wealth inequality would be ideal. Thus, if there was a way to simply fix it, it would be done.
But that doesn't mean there's no way to alleviate the problem.. And this is where political disagreement shows, and more than anything it shows in preferred taxation rates, as this is the main tool for wealth redistribution (but then, the development of the past 50 years has been that the wealthier you are, the smaller percentage of your income and wealth do you pay in taxes, whereas the poor/middle class have seen no such development.) This is what provokes many of us "liberals/leftists"; I accept some wealth inequality as an inevitability, but I don't understand why we cannot at least try to make it a bit smaller. Why do we make a huge deal out of people making more than $200000 per year having to pay and extra 2% in taxes? Seriously, why is this a big deal? I understand perfectly that some more radical ideas - that I personally could find myself supporting (although seeing as how they are completely impossible to implement I haven't actually studied how viable it could be) - like 95% taxation of all income above $3 million or whatever arbitrary number you wanna suggest, are opposed, but I just don't understand why people are vehemently opposed to an increase from 27% to 29% for the same group of people.
It's like, small stuff like that, small stuff that could move us small steps towards a slightly less unequal world, where public education could receive somewhat better funding resulting in greater equality of opportunity, has to be opposed on the grounds of how this is representative of big government inevitably leading to the tyrannical oppression of man..
That's not true at all. A very powerful portion of the political spectrum sees inequality as a "feature" and not a "bug." That inequality sparks competition and dedication to work harder, while rewarding those that do the best in those regards. Inequality is the badge that demonstrates who is superior and inferior in society, because (supposedly) that inequality is born from good decisions vs bad, good work ethic vs bad, good investments vs bad, etc.
As for the other parts, I'm really more in favor of a strong estate tax on larger sums. It could even be phased in over the course of ~20 years to lessen the blow on families that planned on relying on inheritance for retirement or paying off debt. Couple it with corporate tax reform to reduce the possibility of passing on wealth through that channel, without crippling a family owned small business.
|
Norway28712 Posts
oh, I wasn't trying to argue that everyone agrees that all inequality is bad. even I, as a certified "leftist" think that not all inequality is bad. But I really think that everyone can agree that the gross global inequality we see today IS bad.
|
On April 01 2014 06:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
oh, I wasn't trying to argue that everyone agrees that all inequality is bad. even I, as a certified "leftist" think that not all inequality is bad. But I really think that everyone can agree that the gross global inequality we see today IS bad.
That's what I'm trying to say, really not everybody thinks that. Obviously, there is some good in inequality for motivation and distinction (in fact, I think a lack of inequality between the poor and middle class today causes social unrest). However, some ALWAYS see it and treat it as the outcome of a (mostly) fair system.
|
Some good in inequalities ? There are none. There are good in differences and distinctions.
Inequalities in the mathematic sense =/= social inequalities. Nobody consider that gaining more when you work more is an inequality : in fact it is the opposite, it is justice.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there's no need for inequality to motivate people. that's a posthoc rationalization. absolute life quality rewards and sense of fulfillment drives striving.
the meritocratic rewards are fine with most people, and that system of rewards for doign actual work can exist parallel to a system of rawlsian redistribution for fair start location conditions, or some sort of capabilities approach social infrastructure that provides conditionsi necessary for all people to successfully strive.
again you have to distinguish between wealth due from productivity and wealth due from all sorts of opportunism/lock and rentseeking. rewarding bad behavior will crowd out actually productive behavior.
|
On April 01 2014 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:
Some good in inequalities ? There are none. There are good in differences and distinctions.
Inequalities in the mathematic sense =/= social inequalities. Nobody consider that gaining more when you work more is an inequality : in fact it is the opposite, it is justice.
Inequality means in the mathematical sense. Whether it is justified or not is a large part of the political discussion.
|
On April 01 2014 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 05:04 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 18:43 Introvert wrote:
There is something to be said for "exploitation" in the sense that I'm not someone advocating no laws at all, I just don't think people are to be seen as so hampered by their starting situation (as hampered as you portray them). And it's certainly exploitation when large corporations and interests lobby and pay off government officials into making the rules in their favor. But when you talk of "extracting" surplus value, that's where the disagreement occurs. Someone most likely gets the better end of the deal- but that doesn't mean the other person gets a bad deal, either. One may just come out better relative to the first. Nor is that perfect either, but I don't see any workable alternatives, especially ones that don't reduce the rights of the populace. This is where, instead of continuing to objectively analyze the situation by removing your emotions from the analysis, you fall back into what feels right. But wait! you say. Employment contracts feel like they are fair because that's how almost everyone around does me it. That's what I've been taught is fair. They must be fair because they feel fair and the earth is still spinning and I can't imagine a world that does anything differently. Look at this way though. Purely by virtue of birth and station in life, most people are completely excluded from participating in decisions that affect the conditions of their work, what is done with the profits earned from their labor, and whether they have a job at all. Purely by chance, the vast majority of people in the world have no other recourse but to be an employee, a person who must sell his labor at a discounted rate to an employer who controls anything and everything he wants about the job, including what to do with what the employee makes. And purely by chance, a tiny minority of people in this world are given the power to control the labor power of hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of people. This is intrinsic to the system, domination of man by man, systematic exclusion of people from choices that affect their survival and life's work. Then we have a story spun and peddled to us about how hard work and perseverance can lift anyone up from poverty to be his own man, to run his own business. He too can dominate other men, in fact, everyone can if they just worked hard enough. It's an aspiration that every decent person should aim for. Most people earn more selling their labor than if they employed themselves. I find it awkward to call that a 'discount'...
As usual, you chime in with a fatuous comment. That is not the comparison. You are either being willfully ignorant or disingenuous.
|
On April 01 2014 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:
Some good in inequalities ? There are none. There are good in differences and distinctions.
Inequalities in the mathematic sense =/= social inequalities. Nobody consider that gaining more when you work more is an inequality : in fact it is the opposite, it is justice.
Inequality by definition means things are not equal. Things can certainly be unequal in a lateral sense, where one is not the same as the other, but neither can be seen as "greater" than the other. The letter F is not equal to the letter H, but neither is greater than the other, unless you assign sorting value to both (Like alphabetical order).
|
On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening.
Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas"
|
On April 01 2014 08:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 05:04 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 18:43 Introvert wrote:
There is something to be said for "exploitation" in the sense that I'm not someone advocating no laws at all, I just don't think people are to be seen as so hampered by their starting situation (as hampered as you portray them). And it's certainly exploitation when large corporations and interests lobby and pay off government officials into making the rules in their favor. But when you talk of "extracting" surplus value, that's where the disagreement occurs. Someone most likely gets the better end of the deal- but that doesn't mean the other person gets a bad deal, either. One may just come out better relative to the first. Nor is that perfect either, but I don't see any workable alternatives, especially ones that don't reduce the rights of the populace. This is where, instead of continuing to objectively analyze the situation by removing your emotions from the analysis, you fall back into what feels right. But wait! you say. Employment contracts feel like they are fair because that's how almost everyone around does me it. That's what I've been taught is fair. They must be fair because they feel fair and the earth is still spinning and I can't imagine a world that does anything differently. Look at this way though. Purely by virtue of birth and station in life, most people are completely excluded from participating in decisions that affect the conditions of their work, what is done with the profits earned from their labor, and whether they have a job at all. Purely by chance, the vast majority of people in the world have no other recourse but to be an employee, a person who must sell his labor at a discounted rate to an employer who controls anything and everything he wants about the job, including what to do with what the employee makes. And purely by chance, a tiny minority of people in this world are given the power to control the labor power of hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of people. This is intrinsic to the system, domination of man by man, systematic exclusion of people from choices that affect their survival and life's work. Then we have a story spun and peddled to us about how hard work and perseverance can lift anyone up from poverty to be his own man, to run his own business. He too can dominate other men, in fact, everyone can if they just worked hard enough. It's an aspiration that every decent person should aim for. Most people earn more selling their labor than if they employed themselves. I find it awkward to call that a 'discount'... As usual, you chime in with a fatuous comment. That is not the comparison. You are either being willfully ignorant or disingenuous.
That should be the comparison. What you wrote sounds like trying to shoehorn theoretical feces into reality.
Tom's a wage slave being exploited because he's getting paid more than he could earn doing the same labor on his own? The horror!
|
On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas"
No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable.
|
On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable.
"One person taking a bigger slice doesn't make someone else's piece smaller" or any of the common conservative variations...? It implies an unlimited pie. I mean if you are oblivious to all the reasons what you're suggesting is totally impossible I'm not going to hold your hand through it. It's pretty obvious why it wouldn't work with any basic understanding of earth's resources and current consumption patterns...
But sure we can just go with your fantasy capitalism...
|
On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable.
That is predicated by the sentence preceding it...
|
Such a revival of Malthusianism, and such support for neo-Malthusian ideas. We can't support this consumption, so quickly, collapse the system! Only then can the species survive!
I've seen the suggestions--these new smarter ways to redistribute resources. They all tend towards an increase of poverty. The side effects also rival or surpass those they pretend to fix. If we're facing scarce resources, the last thing you want is to allocate them in a grossly negligent manner. Yet, it's pounded again and again here that capitalism has failed in this. Please toss the utopian hogwash out and invite criticism between earth-bound systems. If Malthus is the new hero, he's followed quickly by Voltaire and the enlightened despot with the power to find and right consumption wrongs.
|
On April 01 2014 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 08:46 IgnE wrote:On April 01 2014 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 05:04 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 18:43 Introvert wrote:
There is something to be said for "exploitation" in the sense that I'm not someone advocating no laws at all, I just don't think people are to be seen as so hampered by their starting situation (as hampered as you portray them). And it's certainly exploitation when large corporations and interests lobby and pay off government officials into making the rules in their favor. But when you talk of "extracting" surplus value, that's where the disagreement occurs. Someone most likely gets the better end of the deal- but that doesn't mean the other person gets a bad deal, either. One may just come out better relative to the first. Nor is that perfect either, but I don't see any workable alternatives, especially ones that don't reduce the rights of the populace. This is where, instead of continuing to objectively analyze the situation by removing your emotions from the analysis, you fall back into what feels right. But wait! you say. Employment contracts feel like they are fair because that's how almost everyone around does me it. That's what I've been taught is fair. They must be fair because they feel fair and the earth is still spinning and I can't imagine a world that does anything differently. Look at this way though. Purely by virtue of birth and station in life, most people are completely excluded from participating in decisions that affect the conditions of their work, what is done with the profits earned from their labor, and whether they have a job at all. Purely by chance, the vast majority of people in the world have no other recourse but to be an employee, a person who must sell his labor at a discounted rate to an employer who controls anything and everything he wants about the job, including what to do with what the employee makes. And purely by chance, a tiny minority of people in this world are given the power to control the labor power of hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of people. This is intrinsic to the system, domination of man by man, systematic exclusion of people from choices that affect their survival and life's work. Then we have a story spun and peddled to us about how hard work and perseverance can lift anyone up from poverty to be his own man, to run his own business. He too can dominate other men, in fact, everyone can if they just worked hard enough. It's an aspiration that every decent person should aim for. Most people earn more selling their labor than if they employed themselves. I find it awkward to call that a 'discount'... As usual, you chime in with a fatuous comment. That is not the comparison. You are either being willfully ignorant or disingenuous. That should be the comparison. What you wrote sounds like trying to shoehorn theoretical feces into reality. Tom's a wage slave being exploited because he's getting paid more than he could earn doing the same labor on his own? The horror!
Wow you are dumber than I thought. Jonny on slavery: "Being a runaway slave in the South with no land is worse than being a slave on Epps's farm. Therefore slavery is fine."
The comparison was never between an isolated man without capital trying to make money by himself compared with an isolated man who has accepted his benevolent employer who generously pays him more than he could make as a homeless person on the streets. The comparison is and always has been between a person who has ownership in the means of production and a person who does not.
|
On April 01 2014 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable. "One person taking a bigger slice doesn't make someone else's piece smaller" or any of the common conservative variations...? It implies an unlimited pie. I mean if you are oblivious to all the reasons what you're suggesting is totally impossible I'm not going to hold your hand through it. It's pretty obvious why it wouldn't work with any basic understanding of earth's resources and current consumption patterns... But sure we can just go with your fantasy capitalism...
Actually it's pretty obvious why it could work with a basic understanding of the Earth's resources and consumption patterns. For example, the amount of energy we use is extremely small compared to the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth.
As for the conservative comments, they usually aren't commenting in terms of a particular finite resource and use over an extremely long time horizon...
|
On April 01 2014 10:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:46 IgnE wrote:On April 01 2014 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 05:04 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 18:43 Introvert wrote:
There is something to be said for "exploitation" in the sense that I'm not someone advocating no laws at all, I just don't think people are to be seen as so hampered by their starting situation (as hampered as you portray them). And it's certainly exploitation when large corporations and interests lobby and pay off government officials into making the rules in their favor. But when you talk of "extracting" surplus value, that's where the disagreement occurs. Someone most likely gets the better end of the deal- but that doesn't mean the other person gets a bad deal, either. One may just come out better relative to the first. Nor is that perfect either, but I don't see any workable alternatives, especially ones that don't reduce the rights of the populace. This is where, instead of continuing to objectively analyze the situation by removing your emotions from the analysis, you fall back into what feels right. But wait! you say. Employment contracts feel like they are fair because that's how almost everyone around does me it. That's what I've been taught is fair. They must be fair because they feel fair and the earth is still spinning and I can't imagine a world that does anything differently. Look at this way though. Purely by virtue of birth and station in life, most people are completely excluded from participating in decisions that affect the conditions of their work, what is done with the profits earned from their labor, and whether they have a job at all. Purely by chance, the vast majority of people in the world have no other recourse but to be an employee, a person who must sell his labor at a discounted rate to an employer who controls anything and everything he wants about the job, including what to do with what the employee makes. And purely by chance, a tiny minority of people in this world are given the power to control the labor power of hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of people. This is intrinsic to the system, domination of man by man, systematic exclusion of people from choices that affect their survival and life's work. Then we have a story spun and peddled to us about how hard work and perseverance can lift anyone up from poverty to be his own man, to run his own business. He too can dominate other men, in fact, everyone can if they just worked hard enough. It's an aspiration that every decent person should aim for. Most people earn more selling their labor than if they employed themselves. I find it awkward to call that a 'discount'... As usual, you chime in with a fatuous comment. That is not the comparison. You are either being willfully ignorant or disingenuous. That should be the comparison. What you wrote sounds like trying to shoehorn theoretical feces into reality. Tom's a wage slave being exploited because he's getting paid more than he could earn doing the same labor on his own? The horror! Wow you are dumber than I thought. Jonny on slavery: "Being a runaway slave in the South with no land is worse than being a slave on Epps's farm. Therefore slavery is fine."
... the fuck?
The comparison was never between an isolated man without capital trying to make money by himself compared with an isolated man who has accepted his benevolent employer who generously pays him more than he could make as a homeless person on the streets. The comparison is and always has been between a person who has ownership in the means of production and a person who does not. But I want to discuss reality...
|
On April 01 2014 09:53 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable. That is predicated by the sentence preceding it...
The sentence with an "if" in front of it?
|
On April 01 2014 10:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 09:53 Roe wrote:On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable. That is predicated by the sentence preceding it... The sentence with an "if" in front of it?
"Well, we tried to be greedy and obstinate and the whole of humanity payed for it, but at least we tried" -- that's a write off if I've seen one.
|
On April 01 2014 10:28 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 10:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 09:53 Roe wrote:On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable. That is predicated by the sentence preceding it... The sentence with an "if" in front of it? "Well, we tried to be greedy and obstinate and the whole of humanity payed for it, but at least we tried" -- that's a write off if I've seen one.
That's quite melodramatic, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
