|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
The omniscient individual (homo economicus) at the core of the philosophical foundations of the (capitalist) “Western dogma” and its relation to this part: I agree with the idea that individualism as an ethic has gotten way out of hand, and that’s made us peculiarly ill-suited to addressing the pandemic, or climate change, or any of the other big issues threatening massive human cost up up and including societal collapse. When the facts indicate we must all make difficult sacrifices for the common good, people simply choose to ignore or disbelieve those facts. was what I was hoping to inspire consideration of fwiw.
|
On August 29 2021 06:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2021 06:28 IgnE wrote:On August 29 2021 06:03 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2021 05:51 IgnE wrote:On August 29 2021 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2021 05:41 ChristianS wrote:
I think the “Western dogma” we’re getting at is the harm principle, usually stated as some version of “everyone should be able to do what they want unless it harms someone else.” There’s a sort of libertarian economist-type philosophy wherein everybody should be able to do whatever they want, and the government should just calculate the externality generated by each person’s actions and tax/fine them appropriately. “Garnish the unvaccinated’s wages “ sounds like a version of that, which is actually extremely compatible with the harm principle-based “Western dogma.”
The widely-acknowledged problem with the harm principle, practically speaking, is that everybody is constantly causing various harms to others that are essentially impossible to enumerate, let alone quantify and convert to a dollar figure to be fined or taxed. The less-talked-about problem is that the harm principle doesn’t account for politics; the obvious solution in this framework to carbon emissions, for instance, is a carbon tax. But carbon taxes are generally extremely unpopular, so democratic governments can’t really tax carbon as much as the externalities would dictate.
Putting aside policy for a moment, I agree with the idea that individualism as an ethic has gotten way out of hand, and that’s made us peculiarly ill-suited to addressing the pandemic, or climate change, or any of the other big issues threatening massive human cost up up and including societal collapse. When the facts indicate we must all make difficult sacrifices for the common good, people simply choose to ignore or disbelieve those facts. But fantasizing about seizing authoritarian control and forcing everyone to do what you think they should do strikes me as, at best, unhelpful escapism. The “at worst” scenarios for that kind of talk are pretty graphic, and probably don’t require elaboration at present. How do you see capitalism fitting into this analysis? Could the foundational belief of capitalism in rational choice theory play an important role? It certainly played a role in getting us all to the point that we can talk about “preventable” and “curable” disease. So, this may not be appropriate for me to say, of course do what you wanna do, but I want to caution: Discussions where we try to determine how much scientific progress is due to capitalism rather than due to the natural scientific inclination of humans is generally not productive. It is way too fuzzy to figure out or determine. I will say that I strongly disagree with the perspective you are describing and I still don't have any desire to explain why. I generally blab without notice or reason. It just hasn't been a topic that can reach a good answer, in any circumstance, IMO. It is like trying to determine if capitalism/communism are good or bad because everyone has wildly different definitions and whatnot. Discussions where we ask how much “capitalism” has to do with the state of a pandemic are no more productive, which was my point. Invoking “capitalism” to explain the complex dynamics between ideology, sociology, politics, and economy is just as reductive. What does anyone here even mean by such a term? In any case insofar as GH was asking about “individualism,” one might as well ask what individualism has to do with science. Or what agriculture has to do with government has to do with money has to do with property has to do with “capitalism.” I would argue comparing capitalism to individualism is significantly more appropriate than comparing scientific advancement to capitalism. But you are right that both are dicey topics.
What about comparing scientific advancement to individualism? and, by the transitive property, to capitalism?
Was Francis Bacon an individualist?
|
On August 29 2021 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:The omniscient individual (homo economicus) at the core of the philosophical foundations of the (capitalist) “Western dogma” and its relation to this part: Show nested quote +I agree with the idea that individualism as an ethic has gotten way out of hand, and that’s made us peculiarly ill-suited to addressing the pandemic, or climate change, or any of the other big issues threatening massive human cost up up and including societal collapse. When the facts indicate we must all make difficult sacrifices for the common good, people simply choose to ignore or disbelieve those facts. was what I was hoping to inspire consideration of fwiw.
Maybe democracy is the problem, then. Wouldn’t absolute monarchy be the best most effective way to handle big issues like climate change that suffer from coordination problems?
|
|
|
On August 29 2021 07:15 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2021 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:The omniscient individual (homo economicus) at the core of the philosophical foundations of the (capitalist) “Western dogma” and its relation to this part: I agree with the idea that individualism as an ethic has gotten way out of hand, and that’s made us peculiarly ill-suited to addressing the pandemic, or climate change, or any of the other big issues threatening massive human cost up up and including societal collapse. When the facts indicate we must all make difficult sacrifices for the common good, people simply choose to ignore or disbelieve those facts. was what I was hoping to inspire consideration of fwiw. Maybe democracy is the problem, then. Wouldn’t absolute monarchy be the best most effective way to handle big issues like climate change that suffer from coordination problems?
Some people favor the struggle for a dictatorship of the proletariat driven by scientific socialism and I tend to find myself agreeing with a lot of what they have to say.
But yeah, a benevolent omnipotent god dictator would be pretty convenient if you know one you could call?
|
Norway28892 Posts
The Spanish flu was very different from other influenza strains at the time, and indeed, very different from Covid, in that it targeted healthy young adults at a completely different rate. It is generally assumed that this is due to it triggering a 'cytokine storm', causing an overreaction in people's immune systems. This resulted in healthy adults, the group most likely to survive regular influenza strains, being killed at way, way higher rates than normal.
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/W_curve.png)
You can see that the mortality for very old people was actually lower than regular influenza strains, while the mortality for 25 year olds was like.. 100 times higher?
Whether COVID targeting the old and frail while the Spanish flu targeted the young and healthy should matter in terms of how aggressively we fight the disease is a fair topic of discussion, but there's no question that the two pandemics actually do differ in just this aspect.
|
On August 29 2021 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2021 07:15 IgnE wrote:On August 29 2021 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:The omniscient individual (homo economicus) at the core of the philosophical foundations of the (capitalist) “Western dogma” and its relation to this part: I agree with the idea that individualism as an ethic has gotten way out of hand, and that’s made us peculiarly ill-suited to addressing the pandemic, or climate change, or any of the other big issues threatening massive human cost up up and including societal collapse. When the facts indicate we must all make difficult sacrifices for the common good, people simply choose to ignore or disbelieve those facts. was what I was hoping to inspire consideration of fwiw. Maybe democracy is the problem, then. Wouldn’t absolute monarchy be the best most effective way to handle big issues like climate change that suffer from coordination problems? Some people favor the struggle for a dictatorship of the proletariat driven by scientific socialism and I tend to find myself agreeing with a lot of what they have to say. But yeah, a benevolent omnipotent god dictator would be pretty convenient if you know one you could call?
You don’t need a benevolent, omnipotent god to have a monarch who can act. Presumably you think there are things we can and should be doing to stop climate change. I’m saying wouldn’t it be more effective to have one person in charge, invested with the power to do those things? Isn’t it democracy, not capitalism, that is the major roadblock? Even if we got rid of capitalism what makes you think people are going to give up their cars and stop using fossil fuels for electricity?
Or to put this another way: isn’t democracy that which maintains the legal and material conditions of possibility for capitalism?
|
On August 29 2021 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2021 07:15 IgnE wrote:On August 29 2021 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:The omniscient individual (homo economicus) at the core of the philosophical foundations of the (capitalist) “Western dogma” and its relation to this part: I agree with the idea that individualism as an ethic has gotten way out of hand, and that’s made us peculiarly ill-suited to addressing the pandemic, or climate change, or any of the other big issues threatening massive human cost up up and including societal collapse. When the facts indicate we must all make difficult sacrifices for the common good, people simply choose to ignore or disbelieve those facts. was what I was hoping to inspire consideration of fwiw. Maybe democracy is the problem, then. Wouldn’t absolute monarchy be the best most effective way to handle big issues like climate change that suffer from coordination problems? Some people favor the struggle for a dictatorship of the proletariat driven by scientific socialism and I tend to find myself agreeing with a lot of what they have to say. But yeah, a benevolent omnipotent god dictator would be pretty convenient if you know one you could call?
“Dictatorship of the proletariat”=how does this qualify as remotely possible enough to be a be a thing worth fighting for? What for you pushes this concept into the realm of the possible?
|
On August 29 2021 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2021 05:41 ChristianS wrote:
I think the “Western dogma” we’re getting at is the harm principle, usually stated as some version of “everyone should be able to do what they want unless it harms someone else.” There’s a sort of libertarian economist-type philosophy wherein everybody should be able to do whatever they want, and the government should just calculate the externality generated by each person’s actions and tax/fine them appropriately. “Garnish the unvaccinated’s wages “ sounds like a version of that, which is actually extremely compatible with the harm principle-based “Western dogma.”
The widely-acknowledged problem with the harm principle, practically speaking, is that everybody is constantly causing various harms to others that are essentially impossible to enumerate, let alone quantify and convert to a dollar figure to be fined or taxed. The less-talked-about problem is that the harm principle doesn’t account for politics; the obvious solution in this framework to carbon emissions, for instance, is a carbon tax. But carbon taxes are generally extremely unpopular, so democratic governments can’t really tax carbon as much as the externalities would dictate.
Putting aside policy for a moment, I agree with the idea that individualism as an ethic has gotten way out of hand, and that’s made us peculiarly ill-suited to addressing the pandemic, or climate change, or any of the other big issues threatening massive human cost up up and including societal collapse. When the facts indicate we must all make difficult sacrifices for the common good, people simply choose to ignore or disbelieve those facts. But fantasizing about seizing authoritarian control and forcing everyone to do what you think they should do strikes me as, at best, unhelpful escapism. The “at worst” scenarios for that kind of talk are pretty graphic, and probably don’t require elaboration at present. How do you see capitalism fitting into this analysis? Could the foundational belief of capitalism in rational choice theory play an important role?
As it relates to the harm principle and individualism, I think capitalism is supposed to function as an abstraction that takes care of a lot of types of harm so we can have a fairly limited definition of “harm” that is legally actionable. There’s a lot of types of “harm” (e.g. selling something for cheaper and stealing business, or out-competing someone else for a job opening) that the free market is supposed to take care of; no laws necessary. For other types of harm, it’s the government’s job to identify them and fine me or tax me or something; I’m not supposed to have to worry about it. That leaves me to just worry about myself and let the market and government take care of any detriment I cause to others.
That sounds bad (and it is), but you kind of need something like this, because actually enumerating all of the direct and indirect consequences of an action on other people is almost impossible. If I want to build a house, or plant a crop, or start a business, there’s a dizzying number of side effects - legal, economic, ecological, cultural, etc. Free market capitalism promises, in most contexts, that I can just worry about myself (while abiding by applicable laws) and trust the abstraction to deal with all those side effects. If what I’m doing is an inefficient use of societal resources, I’ll lose money. And if it has some other detrimental effect on the town (e.g. I’m polluting the town’s drinking water with chemical waste or something), it’s the government’s job to figure that out and regulate it.
Obviously the abstraction leaks. I can give examples, but I’m sure everyone reading this can think of plenty of times the market didn’t do its job, or the government failed to identify and appropriately regulate harmful behavior. How it relates in this context, though, is that the abstraction gives people license to act selfishly. The individualism we’re complaining about is possible because people have grown up in an ideological environment where it’s considered admissible to act exclusively out of self-interest, because some invisible hand is supposed to magically make that work out best for society without anybody having to give a second thought to how our actions affect other people.
Worth mentioning, I don’t think honest advocates of free market capitalism ever actually argued that the invisible hand meant nobody had moral obligations or should think about side effects of their actions. It was always immoral to dump your chemical waste in the river, whether the government has a law about it or not. But systems which abstract responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions away from the individual are, I think, directly responsible for the modern individualism which insists on individual liberty free from consequences in any form for harming others.
|
|
|
United States44286 Posts
On August 29 2021 07:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2021 06:20 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2021 05:34 JimmiC wrote:On August 29 2021 05:08 BlackJack wrote:On August 29 2021 04:51 JimmiC wrote:On August 29 2021 04:40 BlackJack wrote:On August 29 2021 04:08 JimmiC wrote:On August 28 2021 19:40 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2021 08:24 JimmiC wrote:
The thing is that mohdoo understands that he is being extreme, you apparently think it is being reasonable stating that people dying over 65 are less valueable. Do you really think it was not the old and vulnerbale dying in the spanish flu? But now these people are less valuable? Will you feel this way at 65?
I think you should look into the Spanish Flu if you think it was primarily the old and vulnerable dying. The vast majority of deaths from the Spanish Flu were under 65 years old. In other words, basically the complete opposite of COVID. But yes I think a disease that kills primarily people past retirement age that lived a full life is much better than a disease that kills primarily people under 50. I think most people agree with me. If you disagree, I don't think it makes you morally superior, I just think it makes you irrational. You need to look at your own logic here. In one post you are saying that covid is not that bad because the people are dying over 65 and most of the time people didn't live that long and pointing out that lots of people under 65 died in the spanish flu, when there simply was not that many people left over 65. I mean duh? You are using %'s for the things that help your point and raw numbers when it does not, it is quite nonsensical. I think if you reread my post you will see that I said vulnerable and was pointing out how there were far more vulnerable young people because of the conditions (hello ww1). Not to mention just general health/diet lack of food and so on. And a far more robust health care system that is way more advanced with loads on it managed through unprecedented measures. Your last two sentences would make me irrational if we were comparing apples to apples (or you were even consitent in what you were comparing), but as usual you are comparing apples to car batteries to try to make yourself right. Do you believe this was a pandemic or do you think the world leaders, doctors and so on completely overreacted? Do you think the pandemic is over? Do you think that masks work? Do you think there is any places in the states that should require masks in the current situation? Do you still think that DeSantis and Abbot have done the right thing and that other states should follow their lead? Do you think low vaccination rates are a problem, or is it fine and everyone can do as they want? Do you think the tax payers should continue to pay for the health care of those who refuse the preventive measures? The large majority of COVID deaths are from people older than 65 and the large majority of Spanish Flu deaths are from people under 65. That you can't even accept this obvious fact without insisting there is some kind of fuzzy math going on is why I've mostly stopped engaging with you. Shockingly obvious cop out, and wildly inaccurate. Why is your reading comprehension so bad? Im not arguing that Spanish flu killed a higher percentage of people over 65. Im saying that does not mean Covid is jot bad. Its ok your non-answer and strange dodge says more than enough. Edit: Incase it is not abundantly clear, I'm not arguing your numbers, I'm arguing your conclusions and I put the reasons in why. Here's your quote On August 28 2021 08:24 JimmiC wrote:
The thing is that mohdoo understands that he is being extreme, you apparently think it is being reasonable stating that people dying over 65 are less valueable. Do you really think it was not the old and vulnerbale dying in the spanish flu? But now these people are less valuable? Will you feel this way at 65?
You mistakenly believed that the Spanish Flu killed primarily the old and vulnerable, similar to COVID. I corrected you. Now you're saying my reading comprehension sucks and you never implied what you implied. Again, the fact that you have to try to obfuscate something so trivial instead of just admitting you were wrong is why I've mostly stopped engaging with you. Yes the Old then were not as old as the old now. At 65 you have on average another 15 years to live on average. In 1918 where the life expectancy was 55 a person with 15 years left to live would be 40. There were not many 65 to die because people were so much weaker, less healthy, medicine was so much worse, so on that there were just not that many left to die. I explained this in the part you didn't quote. But much like how you use the numbers you pick and choose what fits your narrative and ignore the rest. Edit: 1918 4% of the population was over 65. in 2020 18% was. And again this is mostly beside the point because that the Spanish flu killed more than covid given what we know about both viruses says the measures worked and awesome job by the medical community and advancements. It proves the exact opposite of what you seem to think it does. This is the problem when you take your knowledge from facebook meme's and don't actually think about them or use any critical thinking and instead "own libs". You’re using life expectancy wrong. Mean life expectancy at birth is not a good measure of how old people live to be. A 40 year old could reasonably expect to hit 65. Good point, child mortality was a much bigger factor, but it does not make as big a difference as you would think. a 40 year old was expected to live to 65 and a 65 year old now is expected to live to 85. And the % of the population I stated remain the same. But again the greater point is given what we know about the virus, it is the measures and the medical science work.
Another great example of this is in India where the demographics are closer to what they were and they didn't have the measures or medical capacity of the west. (but still way better then 1918 of course.) Show nested quote +One reason is that India’s population skews young. In 2011, the most recent census year, 45% of the population was 19 years or younger, and only 4.8% were 65 or older. (In the 2010 U.S. census, 24% were 18 or under and 13% 65 or older.) And infection rates in the old were unusually low, perhaps because those who survive to old age in India are often wealthier and were better able to socially distance, the researchers argue. As a result of both factors, only 17.9% of the deaths in the study were in people 75 years of age or older, compared with 58.1% in that age bracket in the United States. This is also before we get into all the health consequences for the younger age group which experienced WW1, high incidents of TB and so on.
The assumption that the population was distributed evenly in the two periods is also likely invalid. If there were no demographic shifts then we could reasonably assume the same distribution but we know that median ages can vary hugely. The median age in Japan is higher than in China which is in turn higher than Vietnam for example.
|
|
|
On August 29 2021 07:15 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2021 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:The omniscient individual (homo economicus) at the core of the philosophical foundations of the (capitalist) “Western dogma” and its relation to this part: I agree with the idea that individualism as an ethic has gotten way out of hand, and that’s made us peculiarly ill-suited to addressing the pandemic, or climate change, or any of the other big issues threatening massive human cost up up and including societal collapse. When the facts indicate we must all make difficult sacrifices for the common good, people simply choose to ignore or disbelieve those facts. was what I was hoping to inspire consideration of fwiw. Maybe democracy is the problem, then. Wouldn’t absolute monarchy be the best most effective way to handle big issues like climate change that suffer from coordination problems?
Moldbug is that you?
|
On August 29 2021 07:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2021 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2021 07:15 IgnE wrote:On August 29 2021 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:The omniscient individual (homo economicus) at the core of the philosophical foundations of the (capitalist) “Western dogma” and its relation to this part: I agree with the idea that individualism as an ethic has gotten way out of hand, and that’s made us peculiarly ill-suited to addressing the pandemic, or climate change, or any of the other big issues threatening massive human cost up up and including societal collapse. When the facts indicate we must all make difficult sacrifices for the common good, people simply choose to ignore or disbelieve those facts. was what I was hoping to inspire consideration of fwiw. Maybe democracy is the problem, then. Wouldn’t absolute monarchy be the best most effective way to handle big issues like climate change that suffer from coordination problems? Some people favor the struggle for a dictatorship of the proletariat driven by scientific socialism and I tend to find myself agreeing with a lot of what they have to say. But yeah, a benevolent omnipotent god dictator would be pretty convenient if you know one you could call? You don’t need a benevolent, omnipotent god to have a monarch who can act. Presumably you think there are things we can and should be doing to stop climate change. I’m saying wouldn’t it be more effective to have one person in charge, invested with the power to do those things? Isn’t it democracy, not capitalism, that is the major roadblock? Even if we got rid of capitalism what makes you think people are going to give up their cars and stop using fossil fuels for electricity? Or to put this another way: isn’t democracy that which maintains the legal and material conditions of possibility for capitalism?
I suppose Saudi Arabia demonstrates it's not as simple as removing "democracy" either.
On August 29 2021 07:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2021 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2021 07:15 IgnE wrote:On August 29 2021 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:The omniscient individual (homo economicus) at the core of the philosophical foundations of the (capitalist) “Western dogma” and its relation to this part: I agree with the idea that individualism as an ethic has gotten way out of hand, and that’s made us peculiarly ill-suited to addressing the pandemic, or climate change, or any of the other big issues threatening massive human cost up up and including societal collapse. When the facts indicate we must all make difficult sacrifices for the common good, people simply choose to ignore or disbelieve those facts. was what I was hoping to inspire consideration of fwiw. Maybe democracy is the problem, then. Wouldn’t absolute monarchy be the best most effective way to handle big issues like climate change that suffer from coordination problems? Some people favor the struggle for a dictatorship of the proletariat driven by scientific socialism and I tend to find myself agreeing with a lot of what they have to say. But yeah, a benevolent omnipotent god dictator would be pretty convenient if you know one you could call? “Dictatorship of the proletariat”=how does this qualify as remotely possible enough to be a be a thing worth fighting for? What for you pushes this concept into the realm of the possible?
Mostly a Freirean concept of being more human and transforming the world.
On August 29 2021 07:42 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2021 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2021 05:41 ChristianS wrote:
I think the “Western dogma” we’re getting at is the harm principle, usually stated as some version of “everyone should be able to do what they want unless it harms someone else.” There’s a sort of libertarian economist-type philosophy wherein everybody should be able to do whatever they want, and the government should just calculate the externality generated by each person’s actions and tax/fine them appropriately. “Garnish the unvaccinated’s wages “ sounds like a version of that, which is actually extremely compatible with the harm principle-based “Western dogma.”
The widely-acknowledged problem with the harm principle, practically speaking, is that everybody is constantly causing various harms to others that are essentially impossible to enumerate, let alone quantify and convert to a dollar figure to be fined or taxed. The less-talked-about problem is that the harm principle doesn’t account for politics; the obvious solution in this framework to carbon emissions, for instance, is a carbon tax. But carbon taxes are generally extremely unpopular, so democratic governments can’t really tax carbon as much as the externalities would dictate.
Putting aside policy for a moment, I agree with the idea that individualism as an ethic has gotten way out of hand, and that’s made us peculiarly ill-suited to addressing the pandemic, or climate change, or any of the other big issues threatening massive human cost up up and including societal collapse. When the facts indicate we must all make difficult sacrifices for the common good, people simply choose to ignore or disbelieve those facts. But fantasizing about seizing authoritarian control and forcing everyone to do what you think they should do strikes me as, at best, unhelpful escapism. The “at worst” scenarios for that kind of talk are pretty graphic, and probably don’t require elaboration at present. How do you see capitalism fitting into this analysis? Could the foundational belief of capitalism in rational choice theory play an important role? As it relates to the harm principle and individualism, I think capitalism is supposed to function as an abstraction that takes care of a lot of types of harm so we can have a fairly limited definition of “harm” that is legally actionable. There’s a lot of types of “harm” (e.g. selling something for cheaper and stealing business, or out-competing someone else for a job opening) that the free market is supposed to take care of; no laws necessary. For other types of harm, it’s the government’s job to identify them and fine me or tax me or something; I’m not supposed to have to worry about it. That leaves me to just worry about myself and let the market and government take care of any detriment I cause to others. That sounds bad (and it is), but you kind of need something like this, because actually enumerating all of the direct and indirect consequences of an action on other people is almost impossible. If I want to build a house, or plant a crop, or start a business, there’s a dizzying number of side effects - legal, economic, ecological, cultural, etc. Free market capitalism promises, in most contexts, that I can just worry about myself (while abiding by applicable laws) and trust the abstraction to deal with all those side effects. If what I’m doing is an inefficient use of societal resources, I’ll lose money. And if it has some other detrimental effect on the town (e.g. I’m polluting the town’s drinking water with chemical waste or something), it’s the government’s job to figure that out and regulate it. Obviously the abstraction leaks. I can give examples, but I’m sure everyone reading this can think of plenty of times the market didn’t do its job, or the government failed to identify and appropriately regulate harmful behavior. How it relates in this context, though, is that the abstraction gives people license to act selfishly. The individualism we’re complaining about is possible because people have grown up in an ideological environment where it’s considered admissible to act exclusively out of self-interest, because some invisible hand is supposed to magically make that work out best for society without anybody having to give a second thought to how our actions affect other people. Worth mentioning, I don’t think honest advocates of free market capitalism ever actually argued that the invisible hand meant nobody had moral obligations or should think about side effects of their actions. It was always immoral to dump your chemical waste in the river, whether the government has a law about it or not. But systems which abstract responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions away from the individual are, I think, directly responsible for the modern individualism which insists on individual liberty free from consequences in any form for harming others.
Interesting perspective I want to think about some more before I respond to in earnest. I find myself agreeing with much of it though.
|
On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are.
You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right?
|
On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right?
It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning.
|
On August 30 2021 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right? It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning.
Most fitting would maybe be to describe you as the Hitler of good intentions then. Or the mother Teresa of authoritarianism?
|
Northern Ireland27343 Posts
On August 30 2021 16:13 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2021 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right? It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning. Most fitting would maybe be to describe you as the Hitler of good intentions then. Or the mother Teresa of authoritarianism?
In my headcanon he’s the Stalin of Stallin’ the Virus. Or Chairman Maodoo.
I think he’s (largely) correct on boomers to be fair. The portion of ‘I’ve got mine’ who then moan about millennials doing x y or z is way higher than the portion who think it’s a bit off that some of what they obtained is borderline completely unobtainable for an equivalent millennial today.
Now the boomer battlefield in this country is protecting their pensions from being touched. Going to go out on a limb and say they’re going to be considerably more generous than what our generation get.
Of course, nothing wrong with that, that’s what’s been paid into after all. But it’s illustrative that as a political bloc they fight basically anything that merely seeks to equalise conditions for coming generations.
Off to Mohdoo island with them too I say! I mean no, I’m broad-brushing to the extreme here too, it’s a crude generalisation but I don’t think he’s entirely off the reservation there if you get down to brass tacks.
|
On August 30 2021 20:58 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2021 16:13 Elroi wrote:On August 30 2021 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right? It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning. Most fitting would maybe be to describe you as the Hitler of good intentions then. Or the mother Teresa of authoritarianism? In my headcanon he’s the Stalin of Stallin’ the Virus. Or Chairman Maodoo. I think he’s (largely) correct on boomers to be fair. The portion of ‘I’ve got mine’ who then moan about millennials doing x y or z is way higher than the portion who think it’s a bit off that some of what they obtained is borderline completely unobtainable for an equivalent millennial today. Now the boomer battlefield in this country is protecting their pensions from being touched. Going to go out on a limb and say they’re going to be considerably more generous than what our generation get. Of course, nothing wrong with that, that’s what’s been paid into after all. But it’s illustrative that as a political bloc they fight basically anything that merely seeks to equalise conditions for coming generations. Off to Mohdoo island with them too I say! I mean no, I’m broad-brushing to the extreme here too, it’s a crude generalisation but I don’t think he’s entirely off the reservation there if you get down to brass tacks.
I fail to see how that is different from any other "generation" in modern history? Are millennials somehow altruistic because they fight for the future? Or are they selfish, because they'll be around for more of that future?
Meanwhile the generation Z or post-millennials are coming of age and realising their future is irredeemably fucked, but neither boomers nor millennials are all that interested in tackling the sustainable economy is issue (at least, not when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is). Boomers don't give a shit, because they'll be dead when the consequences of the unsustainable economy start to really impact their lifestyle. And millennials are more worried about having the lifestyle that their parents had (e.g. your focus on PENSIONS rather than climate change right here in your criticism of boomers) than leaving a planet their children can live on.
But hey, I'm sure the greatest generation weren't some kind of super altruists either. They just fought for themselves as well. They just hadn't reached the limits of the economic Ponzi scheme they set up yet.
Rather than shitting on boomers for being selfish, Mohdoo needs to realise that most people are selfish. And, tying this into ChristianS' astute post, that has only gotten worse with the elevation of individualism onto a pedestal in Western society.
|
On August 31 2021 00:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2021 20:58 WombaT wrote:On August 30 2021 16:13 Elroi wrote:On August 30 2021 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 29 2021 18:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. You realize that if you replaced "boomers" with "immigrants" in those posts you'd sound exactly like a xenophobic MAGA redneck, right? It wouldn’t really fit because of my other descriptors, but yes, you are right to point out that changing words of a sentence changes the meaning. Most fitting would maybe be to describe you as the Hitler of good intentions then. Or the mother Teresa of authoritarianism? In my headcanon he’s the Stalin of Stallin’ the Virus. Or Chairman Maodoo. I think he’s (largely) correct on boomers to be fair. The portion of ‘I’ve got mine’ who then moan about millennials doing x y or z is way higher than the portion who think it’s a bit off that some of what they obtained is borderline completely unobtainable for an equivalent millennial today. Now the boomer battlefield in this country is protecting their pensions from being touched. Going to go out on a limb and say they’re going to be considerably more generous than what our generation get. Of course, nothing wrong with that, that’s what’s been paid into after all. But it’s illustrative that as a political bloc they fight basically anything that merely seeks to equalise conditions for coming generations. Off to Mohdoo island with them too I say! I mean no, I’m broad-brushing to the extreme here too, it’s a crude generalisation but I don’t think he’s entirely off the reservation there if you get down to brass tacks. I fail to see how that is different from any other "generation" in modern history? Are millennials somehow altruistic because they fight for the future? Or are they selfish, because they'll be around for more of that future?
The most clear difference is that our government is older than any other time period in history. Modern medicine is a major contributing factor to this obviously, but voter apathy and demographic shifts are also a major consideration. We have a population that is shrinking sans immigration for the first time in history and this has resulted in a generation of politicians that refuse to cede power to the next.
In 1981, the average age of a Representative was 49 and the average of a Senator was 53. Today, the average age of a Representative is 57 and the average of a Senator is 61.
Data is from the 115th congress from 2017, but they haven't gotten younger.
On August 31 2021 00:43 Acrofales wrote:
But hey, I'm sure the greatest generation weren't some kind of super altruists either. They just fought for themselves as well. They just hadn't reached the limits of the economic Ponzi scheme they set up yet.
I think calling it a ponzi scheme is being a bit too harsh. That is an intentional level of fraud and malice that I hope wasn't present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
