- Thread Starter
- #61
Originally posted by Sharp Phil
1. Here you run aground. The economy is dynamic; money is not a static pie, all of whose slices come at the expense of others' pieces. The accumulated wealth passed from family to family has no relevance to you or your life; it does not make you poorer in any way and it does not come at your expense. It is none of your concern. To be so concerned over it is a manifestation of jealousy. It is also not the case that "most wealth is inherited," as you originally asserted without support.
2. Incorrect. This would only be "predestination" if the outcome were the metaphysically granted, which is not the case. On the circumstances and the abilities with which we are born are metaphysically granted. Our wills are our own; our choices make the difference. We can choose to be rational, or we can choose to be irrational; we can choose to work hard, or we can choose not to work hard. That is what we can do "change it." That is an internal locus of control. Those operating under the crushing weight of a philosophy whose locus of control is external are doomed to bemoan their fates and look with envy on the gains of others.
3. Thus we see that capitalism -- a free society -- is superior to the Marxist schools of thought that dominate, in whole or in part, many of the world's other societies.
4. Actually, when industrialism entered the picture, this model changed very quickly, because suddenly we had the ability to sustain a population much larger in size within the same given geographic area than we were able to sustain in a predominantly rural economy.
5. This contradicts, at least philosophically (though you may not be aware of it) your original assertion that the government brought the peasants out of the fields (which it didn't). Labor unions likewise did not "bring the peasants out of the fields," though you're getting closer to an understanding of basic economic theory. It was a recognition of the fact that labor is half of the economic equation that enabled workers to better their lives, within the context of a capitalist system.
6. Where government did play a role in the industrial revolution was in cracking down on those things that hinder a capitalist system -- namely manifestations of fraud, theft, and force. The government's role in a free society is that of guardian of individual rights -- which means it is that of policeman. The government protected individual consumers by passing laws relevant to, and cracking down on, widespread fraud in certain consumer industries -- such as the meat packing industry. It did not, however, liberate the oppressed worker; the workers themselves managed that by recognizing their role and the leverage it offered them.
7. Quoting a book does not constitute supporting your argument. I'm more familiar than are you with the laws of logic and with logical fallacies, I am sure; you seem to believe that your own arguments were laden with substance, which was not the case. When you offer substantive arguments you will receive substantive replies. The fact remains, however, that anyone who starts going on about liberating the oppressed worker and the evils of inherited wealth is indeed spouting Marxist ideals, the identification of which is relevant in the course of the argument because Marxism is unsound and discredited economic theory.
8. I do indeed believe in sprinkling my prose with appropriate amounts of venom, however, specifically because I lack both patience and tolerance. It's a character failing; foolishness makes me mean. The fact is that you chose to apply a certain attitude to your posts, and I simply gave it back to you in equal measure. Don't complain that you got worse than you gave.
9. When you offer a substantive argument, you will receive a substantive reply. For your misapplication of the "special pleading" to apply, you would have to have been offering logical discourse yourself.
10. You failed in the attempt, then, though I give you credit for trying. I'm not primarily attempting to present my philosophy; I am simply enjoying poking holes in yours. There's a difference.
11. I offer logic where logic is offered. When presented with empty rhetoric, I supply superior (and sharper) rhetoric. This is recreation for me. If you want to start a philosophical thread in which you ask substantive answers in order to receive substantive replies, that's fine; you're certainly free to do so. This thread has not offered much in that regard and I feel no obligation to supply it in its absence.
12. I think you labor under the misconception that I want you to respond; I'm indifferent to the idea.
1. In a biological sense, resources (wealth) fluctuates on a very minimal basis. This maintains a system that is essentially stable. If all wealth were as you assert, there would be very little opportunity for advancement in a free society. In any community, if the resources fluctuate too much, all members suffer. Scientifically, your assertion is incorrect. Economics are human ecology and even humans cannot violate these laws. Wealth has to be fundamentally static or our society wouldn't exist.
2. True. If you want something, you must work for it. No free lunches, right?
3. Partially true. The jury is out on whether capitolism is the best economic system. Fundamentally, capitolism fails when it comes to long term vision. Some things that are good for a species do not necessarily have a dollar sign attached to them. We shall see... Yet, either way I am sure that you or I will take advantage of whatever situation comes.
4. Population increased quite rapidly, but change did NOT correlate proportionately. As the general education level of the populace increased, the ability for the populace to organized increased. Only then did the old aristocratic system fall away to a more modern system.
5. Partially true. Government did not, initially, bring peasents out of the fields. You are right when you say that government opposed them. Through corruption, the government even sent soldiers against them! Until through the democratic process, the workers changed the government. Hence the New Deal. (as of now the government is in need of another change)
6. True. The most freedom is offered by the smallest government. Large government breeds corruption from those who have accumulated the most resources. The best protection from the rich is to take away their federal power.
7. Your superiority in the matter of logic remains to be seen. The very fact that you charicterize my position as Marxist is a large strike against you.
8. Your attitude lacks any shred of humility. That is the most bothersome aspect of your presentation. How long do you dare spin the wheel of hubris?
9. Substative replies are subjective and totally inconsistant with the label "objectivist." If you would be true to your philosophic claims then your demand for substantive replies would not matter. Objectively, every reply is substantive. As a scientist, I know special pleading and you are guilty.
10. Poke. Poke. Poke.
11. Lets start a thread on the value of libertarianism. I think that you will see that we agree on a great many things.
12. Do not lie to yourself. I could guarentee your response with the phrase, "if you do not respond, I will be right," yet I do not care what you do. This discussion will not change anything substantive and does not merit worry.
As far as this thread is concerned, I think that we need a candidate that will take government out of our lives. This includes updating an outdated military in order to better deal with the "war on terror." A small, coalition based military will operate best in a global world. I also believe that safety, health care, and education need to be addressed on the national level in order to ensure that our country remains productive. Unfortunately, there are no candidates that meet this criteria as of yet. General Clark comes the closest to this ideal, but I admit that I need to do more research.