rmcrobertson said:
:boing2:
Hahahaha, this sounds like heaven on earth. I can see the attraction.
Alternative to capitalism?
- Thread starter Cruentus
- Start date
:boing2:
Hahahaha, this sounds like heaven on earth. I can see the attraction.
Tgace said:
Nope.
When the wealth changes hands, though, it becomes income and needs to be taxed just like any other income. How else can that person repay their debt to the society that provided them with the chance to inherit that income? the tax rate needs to be fair though. It can't suddenly be 50 % of the pile. Its gotta be the same as any other average working Joe.
The truth is that the Death Tax, used to exist. President Bush and the Republican congress abolished this with their giant tax cut package in 2001. It used to be 2 % of your inheritance. I pay about 15 % of my income to the federal government and I would expect my children to pay the same amount from any money they made off of me. This doesn't seem to fair to me.
Abolishing the Death Tax was just another way to shirk social responsability.
Don Roley
Look, you can accept the libertarian viewpoint of government until you realize that any form of government at all has got to be paid for somehow. Paying for it, is social responability, in that you pay for the services you recieve. If there were no such thing as social responability, there would be no government. So, by its very existance, a government structure and priorities is a measure of social responsability and is forced on people whether they like it or not.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
Yeah, I see the difference you're talking about. You seem to consider social responsibility as an obligation to particular people or classes, and therefore consider it bad, while praising the obligations to the general society, such as the right to free speech and freedom of religion (I'm assuming the religion one, by the way).Don Roley said:
I think so long as you recognize those rights and freedoms as what they are--responsibilities and obligations that the individual does have towards society--then we really have no issue.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
The, "OBJECTIVE," fact of the matter is that we are born into a complex social system, and while I suppose speaking in the abstract if there's no Big Guy in the Sky there's no absolutely-fixed standards for anything at all, we do in fact owe our lives to social cooperation. I guess I just like to pay my debts.
And if we are to avoid the kind of fascism advocated by the likes of Ayn Rand (superior people should rule and make all decisions--lesser, little people should just shaddap), we pretty much are stuck with social obligations of varying kinds.
It's all very well to talk theoretically about utopias of one kind or another, but the fact of the matter is, we're pretty much stuck with this world, this society. The attempts to abruptly change all that have not been...encouraging.
The Constitution begins with a general theoretical statement, upon which everything else gets built. That's why the idea of, "equality," appears before any of the rules and regulations: it's the underpinning of the whole damn thing. And so is the idea of, "pursuit of happiness," which means that you should get to do pretty much what you want with your life.
But while the underlying theory is vital, it simply isn't MORE important than the rest of the document, and its judicial interpretation over time. It doesn't guarantee perfection, it doesn't guarantee that A Few Good Men get to do what they want--it maps out a government that (utilitarian ideas, remember?) secures the greatest freedom possible for the most people possible.
And it certainly doesn't promise unbridled rights; that's absurd, and would only be vaguely possible if you go live by yourself a zillion miles from anybody else.
It's all very well to argue that REAL democracy rules out things like slavery. Regrettably, the way democracy was originally defined in this country, states that wanted the institution allowed you every right to own people, to own slaves. That changed--we fought a war about it--because the country decided that one's "individual," rights did NOT include certain kinds of ownership.
There are innumerable examples of the same thing in our history. Funnily enough, though, these, "rights," that get thrown about on this thread and elsewhere always seem to include rights like the right to screw over workers, to blow off environmental regs (and common sense!), to discriminate against whoever you please whenever you please, to flatten everything into a parking lot for one more verdamnt shopping mall.
These are, profoundly, business and market and corporate rights. They are not except in abstract theory individual rights. The very capitalism you're arguing for rests on the idea of taking something from the individual (their labor, one way or another) and returning in exchange these little pieces of paper and lumps of metal.
I still note that folks didn't want to tangle with the long, proud tradition of American suspicion of the wealthy, especially those who simply inherited their wealth. One can perhaps respect a real robber baron--they're energetic, "productive," I suppose, and fun to watch--but their descendants? What precisely is democratic about the notion that because of your accidental birth, and your blood, you're entitled to more than the next kid? That's aristocracy by other names. That's a BIG chunk of the pressure behind our Revolution in the first place.
Sorry, but the going off about the poor, oppressed rich is something I've hard before. And believe me, when folks go off on this one, they sure as hell aren't thinking about some hard-working Asian woman: read Pournelle's novels, for example, or any of the other sf stuff (John Ringo is good for this, and semi-fun to read) in which a) them liberals is the real Problem, b) the aliens land, c) the Good Folks step in, opposed by them cowardly liberal, d) the cream--read white guys--rises to the top, e) the Menace (the liberals, that is--they always kinda work things out with the aliens) Is Defeated, f) the New World Order ariseth, g) the big-boobed woman (read Ringo and Pournelle: no, "C" cup need apply) claims Her Man, h) we start a Real Big...space program.
It's real fun, and I enjoy it, but it's about as politically intelligent as I was running around the house with models, making rocket-and-explosion noises when I was nine.
The problem is that democracy and capitalism are at odds, and so are the idea of rights and the reality of social structures.
Hate to mention a real book, but that's what Freud was talking about in, Civilization and Its Discontents." Which everybody would've read parts of in high school and college, if educators hadn't turned chicken, communities upset by real books and ideas, and governments obsessed with running schools like businesses.
And if we are to avoid the kind of fascism advocated by the likes of Ayn Rand (superior people should rule and make all decisions--lesser, little people should just shaddap), we pretty much are stuck with social obligations of varying kinds.
It's all very well to talk theoretically about utopias of one kind or another, but the fact of the matter is, we're pretty much stuck with this world, this society. The attempts to abruptly change all that have not been...encouraging.
The Constitution begins with a general theoretical statement, upon which everything else gets built. That's why the idea of, "equality," appears before any of the rules and regulations: it's the underpinning of the whole damn thing. And so is the idea of, "pursuit of happiness," which means that you should get to do pretty much what you want with your life.
But while the underlying theory is vital, it simply isn't MORE important than the rest of the document, and its judicial interpretation over time. It doesn't guarantee perfection, it doesn't guarantee that A Few Good Men get to do what they want--it maps out a government that (utilitarian ideas, remember?) secures the greatest freedom possible for the most people possible.
And it certainly doesn't promise unbridled rights; that's absurd, and would only be vaguely possible if you go live by yourself a zillion miles from anybody else.
It's all very well to argue that REAL democracy rules out things like slavery. Regrettably, the way democracy was originally defined in this country, states that wanted the institution allowed you every right to own people, to own slaves. That changed--we fought a war about it--because the country decided that one's "individual," rights did NOT include certain kinds of ownership.
There are innumerable examples of the same thing in our history. Funnily enough, though, these, "rights," that get thrown about on this thread and elsewhere always seem to include rights like the right to screw over workers, to blow off environmental regs (and common sense!), to discriminate against whoever you please whenever you please, to flatten everything into a parking lot for one more verdamnt shopping mall.
These are, profoundly, business and market and corporate rights. They are not except in abstract theory individual rights. The very capitalism you're arguing for rests on the idea of taking something from the individual (their labor, one way or another) and returning in exchange these little pieces of paper and lumps of metal.
I still note that folks didn't want to tangle with the long, proud tradition of American suspicion of the wealthy, especially those who simply inherited their wealth. One can perhaps respect a real robber baron--they're energetic, "productive," I suppose, and fun to watch--but their descendants? What precisely is democratic about the notion that because of your accidental birth, and your blood, you're entitled to more than the next kid? That's aristocracy by other names. That's a BIG chunk of the pressure behind our Revolution in the first place.
Sorry, but the going off about the poor, oppressed rich is something I've hard before. And believe me, when folks go off on this one, they sure as hell aren't thinking about some hard-working Asian woman: read Pournelle's novels, for example, or any of the other sf stuff (John Ringo is good for this, and semi-fun to read) in which a) them liberals is the real Problem, b) the aliens land, c) the Good Folks step in, opposed by them cowardly liberal, d) the cream--read white guys--rises to the top, e) the Menace (the liberals, that is--they always kinda work things out with the aliens) Is Defeated, f) the New World Order ariseth, g) the big-boobed woman (read Ringo and Pournelle: no, "C" cup need apply) claims Her Man, h) we start a Real Big...space program.
It's real fun, and I enjoy it, but it's about as politically intelligent as I was running around the house with models, making rocket-and-explosion noises when I was nine.
The problem is that democracy and capitalism are at odds, and so are the idea of rights and the reality of social structures.
Hate to mention a real book, but that's what Freud was talking about in, Civilization and Its Discontents." Which everybody would've read parts of in high school and college, if educators hadn't turned chicken, communities upset by real books and ideas, and governments obsessed with running schools like businesses.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
Dear rmcrobertson:
Ignoring any counterarguments I might propose for the time being, I have a simple question, considering the title of this thread. What do you propose would be a better alternative to capitalism? Certainly with all these critiques about market values and the wealthy (who are apparently the spawn of Satan, for all the humanity you attribute to them) and the capitalist sytem in general that you are more than willing to rant about, you have at least some suggestions as to how to change it?
Ignoring any counterarguments I might propose for the time being, I have a simple question, considering the title of this thread. What do you propose would be a better alternative to capitalism? Certainly with all these critiques about market values and the wealthy (who are apparently the spawn of Satan, for all the humanity you attribute to them) and the capitalist sytem in general that you are more than willing to rant about, you have at least some suggestions as to how to change it?
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Socialism would obviously be preferable.
However, I haven't the faintest how we get there from here--as I already mentioned repeatedly.
And as for your continued misreading of what I wrote about the very wealthy, let me try again: the problem isn't them as individuals (they often behave very badly, but so do the rest of us), it is that their whole position in life depends upon the expropriation of labor, or the exploitation of the natural world, or stock speculation, or their inheritance of acculumated wealth. Therefore, they have a vested interest in maintaining a system in which they have more than anyone else.
The ordinary justification of this is that the wealthy, as a class, "create," value because of their more-intelligent and harder work, or their greater ingenuity, or their development of new businesses, or their greater spending, etc. etc. While this is a marginally-justifiable argument with, say, a Richard Branson or a Bill Gates, it is extremely hard to apply to the likes of Dan Quayle, or our current president, or all sorts of Kennedys and Rockefellers.
What business did Dan Quayle ever work hard at? Where's his big invention, his brilliant innovation? When our current Prez was in the Texas oil bidness, what exactly did he do other than take advantage of his family's connections? How much did he end up costing Texas taxpayers on things like his sweetheart deal with the Rangers?
And do you really want to argue that he got into Yale on his own merits? C'mahn--again, if you want to argue for the powerful and moderately well-off ascending on their own work and talents, you really want to look more at guys like Bill Clinton.
What some of your arguments are doing is deifying the wealthy and the powerful. I'm simply arguing something more old-fashioned and realistic: fat cats have set things up so They Get More.
Which might be OK, except for one thing: that set-up depends on the idea that a helluva lot of people who are equally talented and equally-hard working get less. I simply refuse to pretend otherwise.
I have no idea how to actually change that--because, it seems to me, that the cures are all worse than the disease. I expect that in fact we'll pretty much blunder more or less forward.
It is good to remember, incidentally, that in some significant ways--like dentistry and civil rights--this is a better country than it was when I was a kid.
However, I haven't the faintest how we get there from here--as I already mentioned repeatedly.
And as for your continued misreading of what I wrote about the very wealthy, let me try again: the problem isn't them as individuals (they often behave very badly, but so do the rest of us), it is that their whole position in life depends upon the expropriation of labor, or the exploitation of the natural world, or stock speculation, or their inheritance of acculumated wealth. Therefore, they have a vested interest in maintaining a system in which they have more than anyone else.
The ordinary justification of this is that the wealthy, as a class, "create," value because of their more-intelligent and harder work, or their greater ingenuity, or their development of new businesses, or their greater spending, etc. etc. While this is a marginally-justifiable argument with, say, a Richard Branson or a Bill Gates, it is extremely hard to apply to the likes of Dan Quayle, or our current president, or all sorts of Kennedys and Rockefellers.
What business did Dan Quayle ever work hard at? Where's his big invention, his brilliant innovation? When our current Prez was in the Texas oil bidness, what exactly did he do other than take advantage of his family's connections? How much did he end up costing Texas taxpayers on things like his sweetheart deal with the Rangers?
And do you really want to argue that he got into Yale on his own merits? C'mahn--again, if you want to argue for the powerful and moderately well-off ascending on their own work and talents, you really want to look more at guys like Bill Clinton.
What some of your arguments are doing is deifying the wealthy and the powerful. I'm simply arguing something more old-fashioned and realistic: fat cats have set things up so They Get More.
Which might be OK, except for one thing: that set-up depends on the idea that a helluva lot of people who are equally talented and equally-hard working get less. I simply refuse to pretend otherwise.
I have no idea how to actually change that--because, it seems to me, that the cures are all worse than the disease. I expect that in fact we'll pretty much blunder more or less forward.
It is good to remember, incidentally, that in some significant ways--like dentistry and civil rights--this is a better country than it was when I was a kid.
M
MisterMike
Guest
That actually wasn't a bad post - expect for the first line 
Also, lot's o' people got money they didn't earn. But it comes with the territory.
Also, lot's o' people got money they didn't earn. But it comes with the territory.
rmcrobertson said:
You know, I have noticed that you really can't debate a point and have a logical argument. You fall back time and time again on tactics like the above, villifying and misrepresenting those that you disagree with. I bet you that you can not find anything in what she wrote that backs up what you say she does about how superior people should rule and everyone else shut up. You just throw that little bit out there, demonizing those that do not agree with you and then engage in other logical fallicies.
One of your most common ones is demonstrated by the following quote.
rmcrobertson said:
Two things about this,
First of all, you are engaging in the logical fallicy of "appeal to authority." The idea that some one source is the only one worth listening to, and you do not have to detail the logic behind the statement. If you said, "I like the 14th amendement because...." and then went on to make your aurgument, then that would be something else. But you throw it out like people who dislike gays point to the bible and say that debate ends there. And I am sure that the MartialTalk members in Sydney are saying, "Why the bloody hell to we have to bow down to what the effing Yank founding fathers had to say?"
Secondly, you are again misrepresenting what the source you point out to says. Of the 14th amendment, the only thing that comes close to what you are talking about is the first section.
Now, tell me where in that is the section that says that all people should have a equal start in life? The states cannot deprive people of their life, liberty or property (Wow- imagine that) without due process. Nor deny anyone equal protection of those laws. So the goverment can't treat blacks by one law and whites another. The same goes for gays, women, JohovaH's witnesses, etc. Nowhere does it say that the goverment should intrude on the private interactions of it's peoples. It says what the goverment can't do. Not what it should.
And again, the other arguments laid out by Upnorthkyosa and the like all center around the idea that we are born into this world with some sort of obligation. I reject it, as it means that we are not born free. And I challenge anyone to point out in an objective fashion exactly where and how these debts are made, the agreement we make for the, and how much their value is.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
I understand that you reject such arguments, Don.
However, what you're offering is rejection; denial; you may call it, "presentation of the OBJECTIVE conditions," all you like (funnily enough, that's precisely what Stalinists were wont to do), and it will still not suddenly elevate your version into the Received Truth.
The recitation of, "objective," and the foot-stamping insistence that you and only you have a lock on Truth, that you and only you respect other people's individuality, that you and only you...well, you take my point, is precisely why I mentioned Ayn Rand's quasi-fascist books. Sure, sure, I know, if I'd only really read them (I have, except for John Galt's 200+ page incoherent rant in "Atlas Shrugged," which I am convinced nobody has actually read, nor should they), and I'd just stop vilifying--i.e. repeat your approved Party line--I would See the Light.
As for the claim of mere, "appeal to authority," well, axly Don, that would involve an appeal to one authority or text, and an insistence that that Authority be accepted without question. See Vincent Ryan Ruggiero, "Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking," Seventh Edition, Boston: McGraw/Hill, 2004, especially page 121: "A rational appeal to authority says, "Here is what one or more authorites say," and proceeds to shyow why that appeal should be accepted. An irrational appeal to authority says, "Here is what one or more authorities say, accept it unquestioningly."
If you will read what I wrote, you will-or should not that I referred to John Stuart Mill, Jefferson/Hamilton (as having different views on the topic of this thread), the Preamble and 14th Amendment, and the extended history of case law and Supreme Court decisions on the question of equal protection under the law.
If you will actually read what I wrote, you will find that I typically phrase statements in something other than dogmatic terms; for example, writing of the notion that the rich are rich because they're superior, I say, "this is a marginally-justifiable argument with, say, a Richard Branson or a Bill Gates...{but it} is extremely hard to apply to the likes of Dan Quayle, or our current president, or all sorts of Kennedys and Rockefellers." Then, I ask questions--and if ya don't like me argument, well, provide facts to refute it.
If you will read what I wrote, furthermore, you will find that all those books I cite (sorry--footnoting's a habit, as it is with most of us scholarly types: that is the way we're trained) represent a pretty borad range of political and intellectual viewpoints. This is hardly the same thing as demanding that everyone accept my version of reality and general theory, and throwing various accusations, slurs and innuendoes at anybody who doesn't agree. Perhaps somewhere Allan Bloom and E.P. Thompson are dancing check to cheek, but I doubt it.
So, Don, don't try to teach your grandma how to suck eggs.
As for Ayn Rand, well, I stand by what I wrote. Her fundamental doctrines, expressed in her goofball novels, revolve around the idea that a Few Men Are Superior (curiously enough, these Few are pretty much explicity Aryan types...imagine MY surprise), the the Masses need to get out of their way, and that All Independent Women are looking to get beat up and raped in a bathroom.
As for What To Do About Capitalism--pretty much, I think that in these times we're stuck with, "Visualize Whirled Peas," "Practice Random Acts," and "Jesus Is Returning Soon--Everybody Look Busy."
However, what you're offering is rejection; denial; you may call it, "presentation of the OBJECTIVE conditions," all you like (funnily enough, that's precisely what Stalinists were wont to do), and it will still not suddenly elevate your version into the Received Truth.
The recitation of, "objective," and the foot-stamping insistence that you and only you have a lock on Truth, that you and only you respect other people's individuality, that you and only you...well, you take my point, is precisely why I mentioned Ayn Rand's quasi-fascist books. Sure, sure, I know, if I'd only really read them (I have, except for John Galt's 200+ page incoherent rant in "Atlas Shrugged," which I am convinced nobody has actually read, nor should they), and I'd just stop vilifying--i.e. repeat your approved Party line--I would See the Light.
As for the claim of mere, "appeal to authority," well, axly Don, that would involve an appeal to one authority or text, and an insistence that that Authority be accepted without question. See Vincent Ryan Ruggiero, "Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking," Seventh Edition, Boston: McGraw/Hill, 2004, especially page 121: "A rational appeal to authority says, "Here is what one or more authorites say," and proceeds to shyow why that appeal should be accepted. An irrational appeal to authority says, "Here is what one or more authorities say, accept it unquestioningly."
If you will read what I wrote, you will-or should not that I referred to John Stuart Mill, Jefferson/Hamilton (as having different views on the topic of this thread), the Preamble and 14th Amendment, and the extended history of case law and Supreme Court decisions on the question of equal protection under the law.
If you will actually read what I wrote, you will find that I typically phrase statements in something other than dogmatic terms; for example, writing of the notion that the rich are rich because they're superior, I say, "this is a marginally-justifiable argument with, say, a Richard Branson or a Bill Gates...{but it} is extremely hard to apply to the likes of Dan Quayle, or our current president, or all sorts of Kennedys and Rockefellers." Then, I ask questions--and if ya don't like me argument, well, provide facts to refute it.
If you will read what I wrote, furthermore, you will find that all those books I cite (sorry--footnoting's a habit, as it is with most of us scholarly types: that is the way we're trained) represent a pretty borad range of political and intellectual viewpoints. This is hardly the same thing as demanding that everyone accept my version of reality and general theory, and throwing various accusations, slurs and innuendoes at anybody who doesn't agree. Perhaps somewhere Allan Bloom and E.P. Thompson are dancing check to cheek, but I doubt it.
So, Don, don't try to teach your grandma how to suck eggs.
As for Ayn Rand, well, I stand by what I wrote. Her fundamental doctrines, expressed in her goofball novels, revolve around the idea that a Few Men Are Superior (curiously enough, these Few are pretty much explicity Aryan types...imagine MY surprise), the the Masses need to get out of their way, and that All Independent Women are looking to get beat up and raped in a bathroom.
As for What To Do About Capitalism--pretty much, I think that in these times we're stuck with, "Visualize Whirled Peas," "Practice Random Acts," and "Jesus Is Returning Soon--Everybody Look Busy."
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
I was looking for a choice quote or two--looks like the Objectivists have them all tied up, and I found something better: mockery.
Scope out www.walkingfish.com/objectivism
I particularly recommend, "The Floating Head of Ayn Rand," and the abridged--two pages--version of "Atlas Shrugged."
Scope out www.walkingfish.com/objectivism
I particularly recommend, "The Floating Head of Ayn Rand," and the abridged--two pages--version of "Atlas Shrugged."
OP
Cruentus
Grandmaster
- Thread Starter
- #231
And don't forget, "Just another slave of the welfare state," "Annoy a liberal, work hard and be happy," "Mel Gibson for Governor," and my all time favorite, "Kick their a$$ and take their gas!"
I prefer, "That's O.K....I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway," and "It's time for regime change in america," and "annoy a conservative, think for yourself." but that's just because I like to piss everyone off. :uhyeah:
rmcrobertson said:
I think people can see my point about how you cannot debate me with facts, logic, etc and depend on these types of attacks and evasions. In fact, looking over the
list of logical fallicies I am hard pressed to find one you don't employ to try to make your case.
Too bad you can't deal with the matter in a calm, logical fashion. I guess we shall have to end it here. I am going off to learn how to suck eggs.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
You know, Don, I'm glad you gave that link to the website defining logical fallacies. Because ***** that I am, I went ahead and printed that out, and did a little checking on this thread.
Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author.
Quite simply put, there is no other system that is more moral than capitalism since none of the other systems respect the individuals right to act or not act and forces some part of the system to act for another part.
Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences.
That is nature. People starve unless they work.
False Dilemma: two choices are given, when in fact there are three options.
If they want to produce more than they need they can. They can then use this surplus to exchange things they desire. Are you going to force people to be satisfied with what they have, "for their own good."
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true.
No one is forcing you to buy those products or products made in America. The vast mass of people support the companies by buying their product.
Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)
I am going to stop you right there and deal with just this for it seems to be the center around what I hear a lot of arguing going on. It seems that you are not rallying against a way that people interact to exchange goods and services, but against nature and reality itself.
False Analogy: The two objects or events being compared are relatively dissimilar.
{In response to a suggestion that a fairer distribution of advantages would be good}, No one is forcing you not to give to charity. "Charity begins at home" and I think it would be a great place to start if the people who want those richer than them to give to those with less (which includes them) they shoudl start by cutting back on their own consumption and giving their wealth to people less fortunate.
Whether you are talking about facism or communism, the goverments that have the most lofty talk about helping everyone and the force to take something from one and give it to another has ended up as brutal dictatorships that have killed millions of their own people. The concept itself is unsound. Controlling people instead of merely preventing them from being harmed by others is at it's core evil and has never had a good end. The Soviet Union gave us the word "gulag".
Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy.
It is human nature for everyone from scam artists to nazi goverments to demonize the future victims and justify their actions against with some sort of justification. So it stands to reason that those who look on the rich with greed and envy would come up with a justification for seizing the product of their labors. Demonzing the rich has become a high art form, but the following with it's psuedo science is truely scary...
In short, people who believe that they should use the product of their labor in a way they choose are violently racist (xenophobic)? Strange how I have managed to be xenophobic while living in Japan all these years and producing two children with a member of a different race.
Recognize the quotes? They can all be found by page three of this thred, which is where I quit.
You might wanna start with a straw.
It would be my argument that the, "objectivist," claim, typically, can only produce logical fallacy of one type or another when closely examined. Fundamentally, capitalism rests--again--on a) an unsubstantiated claim about the nature of Nature; b) a conclusion drawn from that calim as to the nature of Man (I'm using the sexist language deliberately); c) a "moralizing," of nature and biology; for example, it is good to produce, because our nature and Nature more generally are shaped around work; d) an elision of history, and its replacement with a set of idealisms (real people don't matter; the fact of work and misery does not matter; what matters is homo economicus as a productive force, and the ideal world that is always just about to come into being; e) an association of any and all criticism with an attack on decency and Nature in all her manifestations; f) a constant shifting of terms, so that (as was mentioned in "North Dallas Forty," "Whenever we say it's a business, you say it's a game, and whenever we say it's a game, you say it's a business'); g) a replacement of real human relations with the natural world, spirituality, other human beings with notions of production/accumulation/consumption; h) and always, always, the hyperproduction of alibis, excuses and denials.
The very premise of this thread is that capitalism is radically bad for people. I agree--question is, would other things be worse? And an associated question--wouldn't radical change itself likely be a disaster for a helluva lot of people, even if we got where we wanted to go at the end--and there's a logical fallacy, which assumes that it would be possible to build a good world on the backs of the misery of many.
Sad thing is, this whole debate was better handled on all sides by, "The Watchmen."
Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author.
Quite simply put, there is no other system that is more moral than capitalism since none of the other systems respect the individuals right to act or not act and forces some part of the system to act for another part.
Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences.
That is nature. People starve unless they work.
False Dilemma: two choices are given, when in fact there are three options.
If they want to produce more than they need they can. They can then use this surplus to exchange things they desire. Are you going to force people to be satisfied with what they have, "for their own good."
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true.
No one is forcing you to buy those products or products made in America. The vast mass of people support the companies by buying their product.
Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)
I am going to stop you right there and deal with just this for it seems to be the center around what I hear a lot of arguing going on. It seems that you are not rallying against a way that people interact to exchange goods and services, but against nature and reality itself.
False Analogy: The two objects or events being compared are relatively dissimilar.
{In response to a suggestion that a fairer distribution of advantages would be good}, No one is forcing you not to give to charity. "Charity begins at home" and I think it would be a great place to start if the people who want those richer than them to give to those with less (which includes them) they shoudl start by cutting back on their own consumption and giving their wealth to people less fortunate.
Whether you are talking about facism or communism, the goverments that have the most lofty talk about helping everyone and the force to take something from one and give it to another has ended up as brutal dictatorships that have killed millions of their own people. The concept itself is unsound. Controlling people instead of merely preventing them from being harmed by others is at it's core evil and has never had a good end. The Soviet Union gave us the word "gulag".
Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy.
It is human nature for everyone from scam artists to nazi goverments to demonize the future victims and justify their actions against with some sort of justification. So it stands to reason that those who look on the rich with greed and envy would come up with a justification for seizing the product of their labors. Demonzing the rich has become a high art form, but the following with it's psuedo science is truely scary...
In short, people who believe that they should use the product of their labor in a way they choose are violently racist (xenophobic)? Strange how I have managed to be xenophobic while living in Japan all these years and producing two children with a member of a different race.
Recognize the quotes? They can all be found by page three of this thred, which is where I quit.
You might wanna start with a straw.
It would be my argument that the, "objectivist," claim, typically, can only produce logical fallacy of one type or another when closely examined. Fundamentally, capitalism rests--again--on a) an unsubstantiated claim about the nature of Nature; b) a conclusion drawn from that calim as to the nature of Man (I'm using the sexist language deliberately); c) a "moralizing," of nature and biology; for example, it is good to produce, because our nature and Nature more generally are shaped around work; d) an elision of history, and its replacement with a set of idealisms (real people don't matter; the fact of work and misery does not matter; what matters is homo economicus as a productive force, and the ideal world that is always just about to come into being; e) an association of any and all criticism with an attack on decency and Nature in all her manifestations; f) a constant shifting of terms, so that (as was mentioned in "North Dallas Forty," "Whenever we say it's a business, you say it's a game, and whenever we say it's a game, you say it's a business'); g) a replacement of real human relations with the natural world, spirituality, other human beings with notions of production/accumulation/consumption; h) and always, always, the hyperproduction of alibis, excuses and denials.
The very premise of this thread is that capitalism is radically bad for people. I agree--question is, would other things be worse? And an associated question--wouldn't radical change itself likely be a disaster for a helluva lot of people, even if we got where we wanted to go at the end--and there's a logical fallacy, which assumes that it would be possible to build a good world on the backs of the misery of many.
Sad thing is, this whole debate was better handled on all sides by, "The Watchmen."
Yep yep, you're right. I don't want o be classed as a facist nazi like Ayn Rand. After all, you won't support your accusation that she is one, but will stand by it. And if I am on the same side of the argument with her, then I might be called one too. Just like how I tried to take you to task for your mocking tone instead of logical debate, and you pulled up a site where someone on my side also had a mocking tone. Gee, I guess we all are guilty of that and you are justified in responding in kind.
I mean, I am tempted to say that your comment, "Fundamentally, capitalism rests--again--on a) an unsubstantiated claim about the nature of Nature;" is a straw man argument, and that I never made such a claim, nor did many others. But I am sure you can produce all sorts of people that do make that claim. I guess they must be right, the rest of us wrong and we must bow to the correct defenses of capitalism- which of course you can destroy.
I see a lot of that type of stuff, but who am I to doubt you?
So I guess my time here is done.
I mean, I am tempted to say that your comment, "Fundamentally, capitalism rests--again--on a) an unsubstantiated claim about the nature of Nature;" is a straw man argument, and that I never made such a claim, nor did many others. But I am sure you can produce all sorts of people that do make that claim. I guess they must be right, the rest of us wrong and we must bow to the correct defenses of capitalism- which of course you can destroy.
I see a lot of that type of stuff, but who am I to doubt you?
So I guess my time here is done.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Uh...you never made any claims about Nature? Or rested your arguments upon them?
That is nature. People starve unless they work...It is human nature for everyone....."
Huh?
Oh. So Rand's best-known books DON'T contain the ideas that a) only a very, very few Superior Men do anything important; b) mostly, the great unwashed masses just get in the way of the Few Superior Men; c) there is a secret cabal of evil men (named stuff like, say, Schwartz) who are trying to keep the Few Superior Men down; d) women exist to validate the Few Superior Men; e) any woman who pretends to be the Superior Man's equal is aching to be beaten bloody and raped on a bathroom floor. Whoops, what am I saying, "contain," they actually tell you/show you this stuff explicitly.
Yes, I suppose I was using a loose definition of fascism, since Rand explicitly rejects a) religion, b) ordinary corporations, unless they're run by a Great Man, c) any obedience to authority. That's her story, anyway.
And Howard Roark is 5'4", has kinky hair and an olive complexion, and descends from Egyptians.
"And I'm a Chinese jet pilot."
That is nature. People starve unless they work...It is human nature for everyone....."
Huh?
Oh. So Rand's best-known books DON'T contain the ideas that a) only a very, very few Superior Men do anything important; b) mostly, the great unwashed masses just get in the way of the Few Superior Men; c) there is a secret cabal of evil men (named stuff like, say, Schwartz) who are trying to keep the Few Superior Men down; d) women exist to validate the Few Superior Men; e) any woman who pretends to be the Superior Man's equal is aching to be beaten bloody and raped on a bathroom floor. Whoops, what am I saying, "contain," they actually tell you/show you this stuff explicitly.
Yes, I suppose I was using a loose definition of fascism, since Rand explicitly rejects a) religion, b) ordinary corporations, unless they're run by a Great Man, c) any obedience to authority. That's her story, anyway.
And Howard Roark is 5'4", has kinky hair and an olive complexion, and descends from Egyptians.
"And I'm a Chinese jet pilot."
rmcrobertson said:
I think this pretty much sums up the reality TV show Survivor.
Don Roley said:
You did make such a claim. Check pages 1-3. Anyways, do we really need to reduce this debate to I said this and didn't say this? That usually means everything that will be said is going to be said. Not to imply that everything HAS been said on both sides.
upnorthkyosa said:
Well, you are being polite and attempting to engage in a logical conversation. But I do not think my statements of how people who do nothing, no work of any type, tend to starve to death as being a natural law that Capitalism in based on. If I had to look for a natural law that something is based on, then I have to go back to your insistence that there is some sort of social contract that brings us into this world owing something. THAT seems to be a classic case of saying that because this is the way nature/reality is, we must do a certain thing. You may be totally convinced of it, but so were the guys 500 years ago who looked at the wonders of the world and declared that there MUST be a god, and so we should follow the orders of the guys in the funny hats.
They were just as convinced that they were right as you are, they had just as much proof, and they also tended to believe that the guys 500 years before them were idiots for believing the silly ideas that no one did when they were in power. I do not believe there is a power like that, you cannot poke, prod or measure it, and there is no more proof for it than there is for God. Guess what? We were wrong before, we could be wrong now. I dare say, we you probably are wrong. So when people talk about these natural states of affairs that we all owe society, I just see a new group of high priests telling us what is needed.
And until you can prove that such a natural law exists (i.e. hard, cold scientific method) and I owe something to the world, you can not convince me that there is anything we should do in the name of this greater power. We have seen that road time and time again.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Again, you are resting your argument upon a logical fallacy--the one, in the material you cited, Don, which is listed under, "Causal Fallacies," as: "Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect."
You've just claimed anyone arguing for a, "social contract," depends upon the notion that such a contract is reflective of underlying natural reality. This is not at all true: such a contract depends upon the idea that human beings do not live in states of nature, that we therefore need some sort of arrangement for our social order, that we make these arrangements ourselves, with the provisos that a) the best arrangements take nature into account, and b) because these arrangements come out of long histories and exist in complex structures, we cannot write whatever kind of society we choose overnight.
The same fallacy runs throughout a lot of these arguments. Moreover, there's a lot of reasoning by false analogy: for example, looking at present-day and historical reality shows that some people start life with advantages of money and social position, that many did nothing whatsoever to earn those advantages, that many of the best-off contribute nothing, so anybody who notices this must be biased, indeed even (weirdly) just like racists. The problem with this is, of course, that racisms keep certain groups down; social criticism recognizes that our society's professions of, "equal opportunity," are nonsensical, given the fact of capitalism.
There are two fundamental ways to see all thses issues: essentialism, and, "cultural construction." Most of you folks are essentialists: you ground your arguments on one notion or the other of timeless, unchanging, universal solid realities such as Nature, or God, or Archetypal Reality, that are outside history in any form. Problem is, there never quite seems to be any evidence for these things. They are simply a priori categories that allow you to get the argument started--much as in the Constitution, the opening lines about, "self-evident truths," and rights being, "endowed by their Creator," is just a place to get going.
I'm wit' da cultural construction: Marx was right, "Men make history (sorry for the sexist language, but that is what Karl said, and he had Jenny to do the wash and watch the kids), but they do not make it from materials of their own choosing." The world we know is made up of language, history, economies, customs, traditions, and a thousand other things, ALL OF WHICH WE MADE. They reflect, "nature," or whatever more or less well--but we made this stuff.
The reason we can't easily change capitalism is not that it is grounded in nature, human nature, God's will, timeless moral truths, or any of that stuff. It's because it's a system with a history, that has worked more or less well for quite some time, that is deeply engrained in the way we see reality. And, it's because abrupt changes of social order are dangerous--especially in advanced, complex societies with lots and lots of technology.
I'm not the one who keeps calling on biology and Nature and whatever, Don. I'm not the one who won't pay attention to the way human beings actively make the world. I'm not the one who will not look at reality, or explain it away with a breezy, "Well, in this best of all possible worlds, anybody can be anything, so if they're poor and unhappy it's their own damn fault."
By the way, the reason I'm bothering with this is that I think this is about the best people like me can do, these days: decode what's going on, and--from time to time--bounce back some of the more obvious issues.
You've just claimed anyone arguing for a, "social contract," depends upon the notion that such a contract is reflective of underlying natural reality. This is not at all true: such a contract depends upon the idea that human beings do not live in states of nature, that we therefore need some sort of arrangement for our social order, that we make these arrangements ourselves, with the provisos that a) the best arrangements take nature into account, and b) because these arrangements come out of long histories and exist in complex structures, we cannot write whatever kind of society we choose overnight.
The same fallacy runs throughout a lot of these arguments. Moreover, there's a lot of reasoning by false analogy: for example, looking at present-day and historical reality shows that some people start life with advantages of money and social position, that many did nothing whatsoever to earn those advantages, that many of the best-off contribute nothing, so anybody who notices this must be biased, indeed even (weirdly) just like racists. The problem with this is, of course, that racisms keep certain groups down; social criticism recognizes that our society's professions of, "equal opportunity," are nonsensical, given the fact of capitalism.
There are two fundamental ways to see all thses issues: essentialism, and, "cultural construction." Most of you folks are essentialists: you ground your arguments on one notion or the other of timeless, unchanging, universal solid realities such as Nature, or God, or Archetypal Reality, that are outside history in any form. Problem is, there never quite seems to be any evidence for these things. They are simply a priori categories that allow you to get the argument started--much as in the Constitution, the opening lines about, "self-evident truths," and rights being, "endowed by their Creator," is just a place to get going.
I'm wit' da cultural construction: Marx was right, "Men make history (sorry for the sexist language, but that is what Karl said, and he had Jenny to do the wash and watch the kids), but they do not make it from materials of their own choosing." The world we know is made up of language, history, economies, customs, traditions, and a thousand other things, ALL OF WHICH WE MADE. They reflect, "nature," or whatever more or less well--but we made this stuff.
The reason we can't easily change capitalism is not that it is grounded in nature, human nature, God's will, timeless moral truths, or any of that stuff. It's because it's a system with a history, that has worked more or less well for quite some time, that is deeply engrained in the way we see reality. And, it's because abrupt changes of social order are dangerous--especially in advanced, complex societies with lots and lots of technology.
I'm not the one who keeps calling on biology and Nature and whatever, Don. I'm not the one who won't pay attention to the way human beings actively make the world. I'm not the one who will not look at reality, or explain it away with a breezy, "Well, in this best of all possible worlds, anybody can be anything, so if they're poor and unhappy it's their own damn fault."
By the way, the reason I'm bothering with this is that I think this is about the best people like me can do, these days: decode what's going on, and--from time to time--bounce back some of the more obvious issues.
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
There are two fundamental ways to see all thses issues: essentialism, and, "cultural construction." Most of you folks are essentialists: you ground your arguments on one notion or the other of timeless, unchanging, universal solid realities such as Nature, or God, or Archetypal Reality, that are outside history in any form. Problem is, there never quite seems to be any evidence for these things. They are simply a priori categories that allow you to get the argument started--much as in the Constitution, the opening lines about, "self-evident truths," and rights being, "endowed by their Creator," is just a place to get going.
I'm wit' da cultural construction: Marx was right, "Men make history (sorry for the sexist language, but that is what Karl said, and he had Jenny to do the wash and watch the kids), but they do not make it from materials of their own choosing." The world we know is made up of language, history, economies, customs, traditions, and a thousand other things, ALL OF WHICH WE MADE. They reflect, "nature," or whatever more or less well--but we made this stuff.
I'm wit' both. I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.
I also notice that extreme manifestations of either position (yes, cultural constructivism, too) are dead ends. And, often end up contradicting themselves. The performative contradiction, y'know.
And, regarding "proof" --- well, there may be more of it than you realize. Of course, it depends on which criterion you establish as a basis for "proof" to begin with (i.e., some only regard externally-observable, sensorimotor phenomena as "proof" --- which, of course, is a hypocritical position, but nonethless...).
Some forms of cultural constructivism are interesting, though. They decry against "essentalism" but their Universal Principles for How Humans Create Realities are essentially the same thing as any Jungian archetype. The performative contradiction, again. Y'know --- kinda like how some people talk about the "privileged position" and how bad it is, but then go around and judge everyone else's philosophy on the basis of their own. How is that not "priviliged"??
Hee. Laterz.
I'm wit' da cultural construction: Marx was right, "Men make history (sorry for the sexist language, but that is what Karl said, and he had Jenny to do the wash and watch the kids), but they do not make it from materials of their own choosing." The world we know is made up of language, history, economies, customs, traditions, and a thousand other things, ALL OF WHICH WE MADE. They reflect, "nature," or whatever more or less well--but we made this stuff.
I'm wit' both. I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.
I also notice that extreme manifestations of either position (yes, cultural constructivism, too) are dead ends. And, often end up contradicting themselves. The performative contradiction, y'know.
And, regarding "proof" --- well, there may be more of it than you realize. Of course, it depends on which criterion you establish as a basis for "proof" to begin with (i.e., some only regard externally-observable, sensorimotor phenomena as "proof" --- which, of course, is a hypocritical position, but nonethless...).
Some forms of cultural constructivism are interesting, though. They decry against "essentalism" but their Universal Principles for How Humans Create Realities are essentially the same thing as any Jungian archetype. The performative contradiction, again. Y'know --- kinda like how some people talk about the "privileged position" and how bad it is, but then go around and judge everyone else's philosophy on the basis of their own. How is that not "priviliged"??
Hee. Laterz.
