Morality and Sexism

[Bizud]

Not only does socialism not help us as a whole, but it is our nation's chief destroyer. Altruism is presently the predominant ideal in the philosophy of our government and nation. Altruism, through socialism, is what caused this economic and social disparity, and yet your answer is to be more socialistic and more altruistic. If altruism is your standard of morality, why do you complain when the country is not as healthy as you'd like it to be? If taxes were increased to 100%, we'd be living in a Communist state! Nobody here approves of Communism, except maybe Moonlight Graham. Why, then, do you think it's good to be a little bit Communistic?

 

Socialism isn't about altruism. It's about recognizing the collective nature of human existence. All wealth in our society is socially produced, and people are paid based on their position in the power structure. That's the cause of social and economic disparity. In fact, there's nothing natural about property ownership at all. It's a social institution, designed by humans and always open to redesign by humans. But I'd love to hear how someone could think "socialism" in our government causes economic and social inequality.

 

Socialism is a grossly incorrect, immoral system. It's philosophical premise is altruism. So what's wrong with killing yourself?! That is literally what it means to be an altruist and a socialist. Tell me why would you not want to live in Cuba or China?

 

This is such a ridiculous straw man argument.

 

As for the GST cut, it's a bad idea that will cost the government a lot of money, won't even produce the economic benefit of an income tax cut, and won't even save most people that much money.

 

No. I don't think that anyone has the right to emergency service, and I don't like paying for it. Nobody has the right to stolen health care, or stolen fire service, etc. I don't approve of paying for the emergency care of every asshole who gets shot because he's a drug dealer, and he's the victim of a drug hit. I don't approve of paying for a doctor's time because someone went to the emergency room with a cold. I don't approve of paying for fire service for someone who burned their house out of pure negligence.

 

Tough shit. I'll explain it to you. We are all part of a community and we have an obligation to take care of each other. Without the community, you don't exist and neither does "your" money. When people are hurt, by violence or powerlessness (institutional violence), we are all diminished. Independence is a myth - humans are interdependent and have been for as long as the species has existed. What kind of existence did pre-"civilization" humans lead for millenia? Essentially communistic.

 

edit: this is not to say that individuals should be subordinated to the will of the collective. I don't agree with that. Rather, we need to conceive of wealth differently, recognizing that it is socially produced. Humans are social creatures after all. And your property is not an extension of your body.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Bizud

[Bizud]

Objective reality really doesn't exist, at least as far as humans are concerned.

[heyrabbit]

So reality is one thing for you and another thing for me? How about your dog. Does he have his own reality too?

 

Humans all have their own realities, but every other animal perceives the same existence?

 

 

 

No matter how much you may deny it, existence still exists.

 

I'll respond to your other posts later

Edited November 2, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

So reality is one thing for you and another thing for me? How about your dog. Does he have his own reality too?

 

Humans all have their own realities, but every other animal perceives the same existence?

We have no way of asking a dog.

[Sparq]

You can ask. It's getting an answer that's problematic.

[heyrabbit]

Socialism's morality is altruism. It is a system which admonishes men to sacrifice themselves for other men. That is the very definition of altruism.

 

Now, since there is absolutely no such thing as a "collective brain", or a "social brain", whose brain creates wealth? The answer is, simply: the mind's of men. Wealth is brought about by effort which is guided by the human mind. Not only is all wealth created by someone, but all wealth belongs to someone. Knowledge can be passed on from generation to generation, or from person to person, but no man can force another person to think. That requires an effort by each individual. Anyone who is unable or unwilling to think can only survive by looting the wealth of others, or by copying and imitating the work of others. A person can be trained to pull a lever, but if not for the ingenuity of the person who created that machine, no wealth would have been available to anyone. Your argument is disproved every time a single man makes a single act of volition and creates something of value. This post is mine. I created it. It's the product of MY effort. If somebody finds value in what I'm writing, it's not because it was produced "socially".

 

 

 

 

 

This is such a ridiculous straw man argument.

 

As for the GST cut, it's a bad idea that will cost the government a lot of money, won't even produce the economic benefit of an income tax cut, and won't even save most people that much money.

 

 

There was no straw man. If you think it's bad, then define why it's bad. Why is it bad? Define your morality. I've been waiting months for you too define your morality, and yet you refuse.

 

Tough shit.  I'll explain it to you.  We are all part of a community and we have an obligation to take care of each other.  Without the community, you don't exist and neither does "your" money.  When people are hurt, by violence or powerlessness (institutional violence), we are all diminished.  Independence is a myth - humans are interdependent and have been for as long as the species has existed.  What kind of existence did pre-"civilization" humans lead for millenia?  Essentially communistic.

 

edit: this is not to say that individuals should be subordinated to the will of the collective.  I don't agree with that.  Rather, we need to conceive of wealth differently, recognizing that it is socially produced.  Humans are social creatures after all.  And your property is not an extension of your body.

 

I have an obligation to whom? Do I have an obligation to help Paul Bernardo? Why? If you are asked to help everyone, you are asked to help nobody. What is the standard? What is the criterion by which you select who you're going to help? If there is no criterion, you are sacrificing your life indiscriminately to everyone else. Altruism is trading a value for a non-value or a lesser value. You cannot sacrifice something that has no value. It is precisely because it has value that makes it a sacrifice. Nobody ever sacrificed rocks; They sacrificed animals to the gods, people, food, anything valuable.

 

The predominant systems of social organization throughout human history were formed with altruist-collectivist ethics(Socialism). Our road to civilation was marked by the fact that we freed ourselves from that system and implemented rights through law.

 

And that's what you want us to return to, to the pre-historic jungle when man lived in tribes. It is a tribal view of man. Altruism has its roots in our Darwinian past when we were a new species, but it extends far beyond that to when we were apes. Much like baboons, we lived in small roving bands of hunter-gatherers. In that time period it was normal to help any human without discrimination, because the probability of you meeting someone who'd reciprocate the action was very high.Why? Because most of the humans around you were close kin. Nowadays, probability indicates that most people you'll come in contact with will be strangers. We are still programmed to live in small bands in the Sahara desert, and yet we're now living in cities with thousands and millions of people. Evolution hasn't taken place fast enough for us to adapt to our changing atmosphere. We still have the intrinsic and primitive urge to help our fellow man. Those of us who're civilized have realized that it's not in our best interest to sacrifice ourselves for any random stranger. It is the very act of freeing men from men which lead to civilization. You want us to return to the jungle.

 

 

Property rights are definitely not natural, because uncivilized countries do not have them. And the reason why is precisely because there are no rights. What is natural is man's need for them. Rights are not open to "redesign" in its basic form. Property rights is the only implementation of any rights at all. Without property rights, you have no rights! Since man needs to put forth effort in order to sustain his life, he needs to own the consequences of that effort. That is property rights. It doesn't mean you have right to an object, but that you have the right to an object if and when you produce or earn it. "The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave" That is the system you propose, a system of slavery.

 

Also, your rights are permanent. If you go on a killing spree, obviously you have negated your rights.

Edited November 3, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Moonlight_Graham]

...We still have the intrinsic and primitive urge to help our fellow man. Those of us who're civilized have realized that it's not in our best interest to sacrifice ourselves for any random stranger. It is the very act of freeing men from men which lead to civilization. You want us to return to the jungle.

Passing a person lying on the street dying of thirst & not sacrificing a drink of your water for them is what i would call uncivilized.

 

Is altruism simply moral & based on our pr-historic urges, or is it logical? Logic tells me that if everyone helped everyone else, strangers or not, life for all would be better than if everyone were selfish, greedy, & mean towards everyone else.

 

What you want is everyone to fend for themselves, to keep what they earn & share it perhaps amongst your family but let strangers take care of themselves. You do not want us returning to tribal/communal forms of society, back to the jungle. What you do want is for us to become apes again, to fight over giant pieces of meat & whomever is stongest shall have that meat, while all the weak apes lay dead & starving while you enjoy your meal. That is what i would call uncivilized. I would rather be a human living in the jungle than devolve even further back into an ape. Pure Darwinism, the kind Hitler proposed for his "Aryan race", is for animals. I'm not an animal.

 

"The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave" That is the system you propose, a system of slavery."

 

Slavery essentially means that you are forced to do something against your will. In our gov't, if the majority of people vote to have a socialized system & to willingly pay taxes in order to help others, they are doing so with their own consent. Thus, that is not slavery.

[Bizud]

Property rights are definitely not natural, because uncivilized countries do not have them. And the reason why is precisely because there are no rights. What is natural is man's need for them. Rights are not open to "redesign" in its basic form. Property rights is the only implementation of any rights at all. Without property rights, you have no rights! Since man needs to put forth effort in order to sustain his life, he needs to own the consequences of that effort. That is property rights. It doesn't mean you have right to an object, but that you have the right to an object if and when you produce or earn it. "The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave" That is the system you propose, a system of slavery.

 

Property rights are always being redesigned. At one point you could own people; now you can't. At one point a wife was considered the property of her husband and children the property of their father - that's slavery as well. In the last ten years legal decisions have created the right to own the patent for a genetically modified lifeform, so you can own a species - that's brand new. And conversely, the right to control intellectual property in the form of music recordings (and others) is under attack by people like us who share files - file sharing is absolutely an attack on a form of property rights. And if you had enough money and purchased all the fresh water on the planet, legally, I'm pretty sure nobody would support your right to that property. And labour unions and workers rights are an attack on employers' property rights vis a vis their business. Ownership itself is a creation of societies, so it is right and proper for societies to decide what can and cannot be owned.

 

Property rights are definitely not natural, because uncivilized countries do not have them. And the reason why is precisely because there are no rights. What is natural is man's need for them. Rights are not open to "redesign" in its basic form. Property rights is the only implementation of any rights at all. Without property rights, you have no rights! Since man needs to put forth effort in order to sustain his life, he needs to own the consequences of that effort. That is property rights. It doesn't mean you have right to an object, but that you have the right to an object if and when you produce or earn it. "The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave" That is the system you propose, a system of slavery.

 

It is a central injustice of capitalism that an ideology of "self-reliance" and independence is forced on people, most of whom are perfectly capable of producing things collectively with others, and in fact that is still how almost all things are produced. Property rights, generally speaking, benefit the powerful at the expense of the weak. Look at the difference between a democratic workplace, like many co-ops are, and the average totalitarian workplace. In the latter, people are not rewarded for their effort and sacrifice (I agree that a just economy would reward effort and sacrifice!), but for their bargaining power within the power structure. If anyone can do your job and you're easily replaceable, you can be paid much less than the value of your work. And if you're essential to your company you can be paid much more than your effort and sacrifice would merit.

 

I have an obligation to whom? Do I have an obligation to help Paul Bernardo? Why? If you are asked to help everyone, you are asked to help nobody. What is the standard? What is the criterion by which you select who you're going to help? If there is no criterion, you are sacrificing your life indiscriminately to everyone else. Altruism is trading a value for a non-value or a lesser value. You cannot sacrifice something that has no value. It is precisely because it has value that makes it a sacrifice. Nobody ever sacrificed rocks; They sacrificed animals to the gods, people, food, anything valuable.

 

I don't follow your logic. Canada has the wealth to ensure a good standard of living for everyone without impoverishing anyone. It's not a sacrifice if I help someone in need. To see others in pain causes me pain. When others are harmed, we are all diminished. When we help others, we enrich ourselves.

 

There was no straw man. If you think it's bad, then define why it's bad. Why is it bad? Define your morality. I've been waiting months for you too define your morality, and yet you refuse.

 

Right, because, as I've said, "define your morality" isn't a legitimate request. It's practically a non-sequitur. It does not make sense. I mean, morality is that which promotes love, peace, and happiness, but that doesn't tell you much.

[Bizud]

As for Paul Bernardo, he's still a citizen of this country and a member of the human species, and therefore a member of our community, and our community should leave no one behind - therefore we should treat him with respect and humanity and give him the opportunity to contribute to society, even if he may need to be isolated from society because he has been judged dangerous. A criminal conviction, even of the most heinous crime, does not mean loss of citizenship - it does not mean a severing of ties to the community, and it does not mean our obligation to love and support our fellow human being is diminished. I'm not a Christian, but it's pretty clear to me that that was Jesus Christ's essential message, and in that respect he was right. Love thy neighbour.

[Moonlight_Graham]

bizud, couldn't say it any better

[heyrabbit]

Passing a person lying on the street dying of thirst & not sacrificing a drink of your water for them is what i would call uncivilized.

 

Is altruism simply moral & based on our pr-historic urges, or is it logical?  Logic tells me that if everyone helped everyone else, strangers or not, life for all would be better than if everyone were selfish, greedy, & mean towards everyone else.

 

What you want is everyone to fend for themselves, to keep what they earn & share it perhaps amongst your family but let strangers take care of themselves.  You do not want us returning to tribal/communal forms of society, back to the jungle.  What you do want is for us to become apes again, to fight over giant pieces of meat & whomever is stongest shall have that meat, while all the weak apes lay dead & starving while you enjoy your meal.  That is what i would call uncivilized.  I would rather be a human living in the jungle than devolve even further back into an ape.  Pure Darwinism, the kind Hitler proposed for his "Aryan race", is for animals.  I'm not an animal.

 

 

 

Slavery essentially means that you are forced to do something against your will.  In our gov't, if the majority of people vote to have a socialized system & to willingly pay taxes in order to help others, they are doing so with their own consent.  Thus, that is not slavery.

I never said that you should not help people. The important thing to understand is that you cannot value another person's life over your own. You cannot trade a value for a non-value or a lesser value. For instance, if your brother was dying on the street, and you had only one drink of water left, and you give it to the other dying man lying on the street - THAT is sacrifice.

 

There can be no higher value than your own life, because without it, you are unable to value anything else. There is no such thing as value to a dead man.

 

If that man, the man dying on the street, were to do absolutely nothing, he would eventually die. Death is the default. Life has to be achieved, and nobody else can achieve life for you. Notice that you require thought in order to live. If you want shelter, you have to use your mind to build it. If you want food, you have to use your mind to catch it. You may or may not stumble upon a cave randomly, but if you evade thought, eventually you will die. Humans are rational animals. We are not a fast animal. We don't have poison, we can't emit repugnant fumes, we don't a way to make food out of pollen. Our darwininan survival tool is your MINDS. Thus your basic moral choice is to think or not to think, to choose to live or to choose to die. If you choose to live life for another man, you are not only killing yourself, you are killing that man! You are sanctioning immorality. Some people require help, yes, but you cannot give more help than is required, and you cannot give help for bad reasons. Think of every bum on the street. Some of them may need help, but every time you give change to a man who is too lazy to acquire work, you are sanctioning his immorality, you are making him morally lazy, and you are not helping yourself or the bum. So long as suckers give him money, he has no need to improve his life because YOU are living life for him, by giving wealth that you produced with your mind. You are sanctioning his immorality and you are killing him. He needs to produce with his own mind. Giving him money whenever he desires, whenever he extends his hands, is not helping him, and it gives him no incentive to stop being a bum.

 

I've been very clear that altruism is immoral! As I explained above, valuing another life over your own is to go against your nature as a human being. Selfishness does not constitute greed and meanness. Rationality is *included* in the (proper) definition of selfishness. Being mean to people is not selfish! Mean is training a dog to be fed for free, then kicking it out on the street without the skills necessary to survive.

 

Your analogy doesn't make any sense, which doesn't surprise me because you only made it for the sake of throwing my own analogy back in my face. Despite proclaiming as much on a previous post, you are also not an advocate of the free-market,nor do you understand what it means. Your analogy reflects this. Capitalism is about the freedom to trade. In order to trade, you require something of value, and that requires that something be produced. Obviously if apes are running around fighting, there are no rights, no laws, and no Capitalism.

 

 

What would it mean if every person who wants to be civilized is forced to leave civilizatoin?! The point is that they can't! The only alternative is to live in another country, where there is more of the same. Given a choice of two evils, we are forced to choose the lesser evil, just as Blacks chose to obey their Masters instead of being whipped or hanged.

 

Property rights are always being redesigned. At one point you could own people; now you can't. At one point a wife was considered the property of her husband and children the property of their father - that's slavery as well. In the last ten years legal decisions have created the right to own the patent for a genetically modified lifeform, so you can own a species - that's brand new. And conversely, the right to control intellectual property in the form of music recordings (and others) is under attack by people like us who share files - file sharing is absolutely an attack on a form of property rights. And if you had enough money and purchased all the fresh water on the planet, legally, I'm pretty sure nobody would support your right to that property. And labour unions and workers rights are an attack on employers' property rights vis a vis their business. Ownership itself is a creation of societies, so it is right and proper for societies to decide what can and cannot be owned.

 

It is a central injustice of capitalism that an ideology of "self-reliance" and independence is forced on people, most of whom are perfectly capable of producing things collectively with others, and in fact that is still how almost all things are produced. Property rights, generally speaking, benefit the powerful at the expense of the weak. Look at the difference between a democratic workplace, like many co-ops are, and the average totalitarian workplace. In the latter, people are not rewarded for their effort and sacrifice (I agree that a just economy would reward effort and sacrifice!), but for their bargaining power within the power structure. If anyone can do your job and you're easily replaceable, you can be paid much less than the value of your work. And if you're essential to your company you can be paid much more than your effort and sacrifice would merit.

 

I don't follow your logic. Canada has the wealth to ensure a good standard of living for everyone without impoverishing anyone. It's not a sacrifice if I help someone in need. To see others in pain causes me pain. When others are harmed, we are all diminished. When we help others, we enrich ourselves.

 

Right, because, as I've said, "define your morality" isn't a legitimate request. It's practically a non-sequitur. It does not make sense. I mean, morality is that which promotes love, peace, and happiness, but that doesn't tell you much.

 

Rights cannot be re-designed; they can only be discovered. LAW can be re-designd. Legal rights are only moral insofar as they agree with rights. Rights exist whether you are alive or dead. If there were only two people left on the planet, they would still have rights.

 

To give you an example, Let's suppose I lived in another country and we "re-designed" a law that gives me the right to kill you. That doesn't mean I have the right to kill you. Indeed, if I did kill you, your family would be morally indignant -- by what right?. "He had no right to kill my son" she would say. But since its in the law, she would have no problem with it, right?

 

It is right and proper for a society to decide ownership laws, you are right. Although what is right and proper about society deciding that 50% of your income goes to ME? You wouldn't think that is right and proper.

 

So you see that rights are not man made. No matter which laws are created by men, you only approve of some of them, depending on your view of morality. That's why I continue to ask you to define your view of morality, your code of ethics. To admit that you don't have one is to admit that you have absolutely no idea why your opinion is what it is - you just have an opinion.

 

Capitalism has never forced "self-reliance" on anybody. In a Capitalist society, you have every right to go sit in a corner and refuse to eat or drink until you die. Capitalism does does not force people to be self-reliant(living), it prevents people from leeching off of the intellect and effort of others. If you choose to live, that is your choice. Yes, it would "force" you to live your own life, instead of living the lives of others. It would forcibly prevent you from acquiring the product of someone else's effort, whenever you produce "collectively"(with and around other individuals), which is your fancy way of saying that the wealth produced by some men should be distributed equally to a group of men. It is like the kid in high-school who wanted to work as a "team", while you did 90% of the work and he got 50% of the grade. Note what would happen if you protested that you are being "forced" to write your own examination in school, despite the fact that you are perfectly capable of writing it as a "team".

 

If you don't understand the injustice in that, I don't know what else I can say to you.

Edited November 4, 2007 by heyrabbit

[hum-an-ole]

heyrabbit, what do you do for a living?

[heyrabbit]

How about we increase GST by 200%?

 

What is the justification for that proposition

 

 

 

As for Bernardo, he abrogated his own rights by committing heinous crimes. He had the right not to be imprisoned before breaking the law, but he negated those rights. That's what it means to be imprisoned - your legal rights are revoked. Your freedom is taken away from you. There is a standard. That's why I ask you to find your standard of morality. Obviously you agree that Bernardo should not be "helped" as much as other citizens (he should not be supported financially, which is your definition of help), aside from the cost of his stay in prison. Why? Blank-out

 

Also, Moonlight Graham, you know what I think about anarchism. I'm a laissez-faire Capitalist.

 

 

 

Christing, I'm a petty clerk, and in school.

Edited November 4, 2007 by heyrabbit

[hum-an-ole]

What do you study? You have strong debate skills, and I was just wondering if you are, or will be putting them to use as a career of sorts.

[heyrabbit]

Thanks.

 

I'm going to be a paramedic. I don't think I could handle politics, because I know exactly why everyone is wrong. If I had the chance to start over, I'd want to be a lawyer.

Edited November 4, 2007 by heyrabbit

[hum-an-ole]

A lawyer was my thoughts exactly. Paramedic should be exciting, however. You are so passionate about your arguments that making a career out of them could likely drive you mad anyways, so no regrets ;)

[heyrabbit]

That is very true. Thanks for the reassurance, because I sometimes have doubts.

 

 

I like to study psychology and philosophy, too

[hum-an-ole]

Same here. Had I not chosen design, I likely would have studied psychology, but I felt that I might get too close to it and it had the potential to drive me mad. New Physics has really peeked my interest too. Now that I've chosen a career, so many more things get me. I suppose there's nothing wrong with having a variety of interests. I don't know enough about politics to comment in many of the threads in this section, although I find it fascinating. You raise some interesting points.

[heyrabbit]

Same here. Had I not chosen design, I likely would have studied psychology, but I felt that I might get too close to it and it had the potential to drive me mad. New Physics has really peeked my interest too. Now that I've chosen a career, so many more things get me. I suppose there's nothing wrong with having a variety of interests. I don't know enough about politics to comment in many of the threads in this section, although I find it fascinating. You raise some interesting points.

To debate about politics, you don't need to memorize a list of names and events, you simply need to understand concepts. It is simply a matter of understanding a vocabulary list that is necessarily related to politics. What is a system ofgovernment? It's a matter of rights. What is a right? etc. Understand what a right is and you already know more than the majority of politicians, past and present. you'll be equipped to debate with the most educated politicians. Ask Stephen Harper what a right is, and watch him stumble, mumble, teeter totter and evade the question. Politicians are not philosophers, despite the fact that politics is a matter of philosophy. To relate it to something, it would be similar if our scientific community consisted only of Creationists!

 

I think it's good to understand how the mind works. It's the most important thing in your life, and if you understand it, you can improve it.

 

I'm interested in lots of things, but I only have time for so much. Physics is one thing I've never gotten around to reading about.

Edited November 4, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

Rights cannot be re-designed; they can only be discovered. LAW can be re-designd. Legal rights are only moral insofar as they agree with rights. Rights exist whether you are alive or dead. If there were only two people left on the planet, they would still have rights.

 

To give you an example, Let's suppose I lived in another country and we "re-designed" a law that gives me the right to kill you. That doesn't mean I have the right to kill you. Indeed, if I did kill you, your family would be morally indignant -- by what right?. "He had no right to kill my son" she would say. But since its in the law, she would have no problem with it, right?

 

It is right and proper for a society to decide ownership laws, you are right. Although what is right and proper about society deciding that 50% of your income goes to ME? You wouldn't think that is right and proper.

 

So you see that rights are not man made. No matter which laws are created by men, you only approve of some of them, depending on your view of morality. That's why I continue to ask you to define your view of morality, your code of ethics. To admit that you don't have one is to admit that you have absolutely no idea why your opinion is what it is - you just have an opinion.

 

I get what you're saying, but rights exist insofar as humans agree to behave they exist. They exist in our minds and behaviour. They're artificial, not natural. The concept that a person has the right to the product of their labour, or the right to health care, or the right not to be assaulted, are absolutely created by humans and human language.

 

Capitalism has never forced "self-reliance" on anybody. In a Capitalist society, you have every right to go sit in a corner and refuse to eat or drink until you die. Capitalism does does not force people to be self-reliant(living), it prevents people from leeching off of the intellect and effort of others. If you choose to live, that is your choice. Yes, it would "force" you to live your own life, instead of living the lives of others. It would forcibly prevent you from acquiring the product of someone else's effort, whenever you produce "collectively"(with and around other individuals), which is your fancy way of saying that the wealth produced by some men should be distributed equally to a group of men. It is like the kid in high-school who wanted to work as a "team", while you did 90% of the work and he got 50% of the grade. Note what would happen if you protested that you are being "forced" to write your own examination in school, despite the fact that you are perfectly capable of writing it as a "team".

 

But where is it written that people are not responsible for each other? You say that humans either use their brains to acquire the means of survival, or die. But at no point in human history have the vast majority of humans done this alone; they've done it in groups, because we are social animals, not solitary animals. So if you're going to use appeals to human nature, you should recognize that humans are individuals who live in collectives and there simply isn't any way of getting around it. Capitalists want people to be economic individuals, but, for example, you're a clerk at some workplace - that workplace is a collective and it has a power structure and the fact that some people do more empowering work and/or get higher pay has to do with their place in the collective's power structure. You might think of yourself as earning a living as an individual because industrialism/capitalism has created an arbitrary division between work and nonwork, and you might not strongly identify with your work, but that is an illusion - and what you do is a part of who you are.

[supercanuk]

I never said that you should not help people. The important thing to understand is that you cannot value another person's life over your own. You cannot trade a value for a non-value or a lesser value. For instance, if your brother was dying on the street, and you had only one drink of water left, and you give it to the other dying man lying on the street - THAT is sacrifice.

 

There can be no higher value than your own life, because without it, you are unable to value anything else. There is no such thing as value to a dead man.

 

If that man, the man dying on the street, were to do absolutely nothing, he would eventually die. Death is the default. Life has to be achieved, and nobody else can achieve life for you. Notice that you require thought in order to live. If you want shelter, you have to use your mind to build it. If you want food, you have to use your mind to catch it. You may or may not stumble upon a cave randomly, but if you evade thought, eventually you will die. Humans are rational animals. We are not a fast animal. We don't have poison, we can't emit repugnant fumes, we don't a way to make food out of pollen. Our darwininan survival tool is your MINDS. Thus your basic moral choice is to think or not to think, to choose to live or to choose to die. If you choose to live life for another man, you are not only killing yourself, you are killing that man! You are sanctioning immorality. Some people require help, yes, but you cannot give more help than is required, and you cannot give help for bad reasons. Think of every bum on the street. Some of them may need help, but every time you give change to a man who is too lazy to acquire work, you are sanctioning his immorality, you are making him morally lazy, and you are not helping yourself or the bum. So long as suckers give him money, he has no need to improve  his life because YOU are living life for him, by giving wealth that you produced with your mind. You are sanctioning his immorality and you are killing him. He needs to produce with his own mind. Giving him money whenever he desires, whenever he extends his hands, is not helping him, and it gives him no incentive to stop being a bum.

 

I've been very clear that altruism is immoral! As I explained above, valuing another life over your own is to go against your nature as a human being. Selfishness does not constitute greed and meanness. Rationality is *included* in the (proper) definition of selfishness. Being mean to people is not selfish! Mean is training a dog to be fed for free, then kicking it out on the street without the skills necessary to survive.

 

Your analogy doesn't make any sense, which doesn't surprise me because you only made it for the sake of throwing my own analogy back in my face. Despite proclaiming as much on a previous post, you are also not an advocate of the free-market,nor do you understand what it means. Your analogy reflects this. Capitalism is about the freedom to trade. In order to trade, you require something of value, and that requires that something be produced. Obviously if apes are running around fighting, there are no rights, no laws, and no Capitalism.

 

 

What would it mean if every person who wants to be civilized is forced to leave civilizatoin?! The point is that they can't! The only alternative is to live in another country, where there is more of the same. Given a choice of two evils, we are forced to choose the lesser evil, just as Blacks chose to obey their Masters instead of being whipped or hanged.

 

 

 

Rights cannot be re-designed; they can only be discovered. LAW can be re-designd. Legal rights are only moral insofar as they agree with rights. Rights exist whether you are alive or dead. If there were only two people left on the planet, they would still have rights.

 

To give you an example, Let's suppose I lived in another country and we "re-designed" a law that gives me the right to kill you.  That doesn't mean I have the right to kill you. Indeed, if I did kill you, your family would be morally indignant -- by what right?. "He had no right to kill my son" she would say. But since its in the law, she would have no problem with it, right?

 

It is right and proper for a society to decide ownership laws, you are right. Although what is right and proper about society deciding that 50% of your income goes to ME? You wouldn't think that is right and proper.

 

So you see that rights are not man made. No matter which laws are created by men, you only approve of some of them, depending on your view of morality. That's why I continue to ask you to define your view of morality, your code of ethics. To admit that you don't have one is to admit that you have absolutely no idea why your opinion is what it is - you just have an opinion.

 

Capitalism has never forced "self-reliance" on anybody. In a Capitalist society, you have every right to go sit in a corner and refuse to eat or drink until you die. Capitalism does does not force people to be self-reliant(living), it prevents people from leeching off of the intelle

ct and effort of others. If you choose to live, that is your choice.  Yes, it would "force" you to live your own life, instead of living the lives of others. It would forcibly prevent you from acquiring the product of someone else's effort, whenever you produce "collectively"(with and around other individuals), which is your fancy way of saying that the wealth produced by some men should be distributed equally to a group of men. 

In fact if you study biology you know that species HAVE to work together to survive. It's part of evolution, it's not simply the "survival of the fittest" - which conflates Darwin's notion that species have a set of genes that either fit with the surroundings or do not fit with the surroundings with a notion that a species who's genes do not fit should just work harder. Darwin was quite clear on that, you cannot just "work harder" if your geneset does not fit with your natural surroundings. You just die. Its not that you're going to work harder to exist, its that you will not survive long other animals have better gene sets - something they were born with - that allow them to thrive in the area. You can't really put this in a social model because as you can tell, humans are the fittest in the survival game, in fact we're so fit, that we can decide that others within our family need our assistance and we can EASILY give it to them. But those people who need help are just as fit as we are, at the basic game, everything else we have created, like society, laws, etc, which will effect people differently. Therefore you cannot say some humans are more fit then others, because we're all fit, otherwise we wouldn't have survived on the land. This is where that analogy ends because you cannot apply evolutionary principles to broad human social structures which are NOT the product of evolution, nor nature, but the product of human beings, which by definition are faulty.

 

You are (and I can tell by what your writing) a proponent of the free market yes?

 

Well, i am sure you are smart enough to know that the free market depends on my tax dollars to operate. So by your analogy, we should never bail our corporations, never subsidize corporations, in fact, we should never in any way alter their "natural" state of selfishness correct?

If i have interpreted you wrong, please do clarify, because i could live in a world where corporations are not helped at ALL by the state.

 

"Capitalism has never forced "self-reliance" on anybody"

You make mention that in law there are rights. Well, in law, there are also responsibilities. In fact, rights come with responsibilities. Part of living in a decent society is the ability for us to define what a decent society is. If that includes democracy, rights, and social assistance, than that is what we've decided and no philosophy can prove us wrong because by virtue of our decision as a collective we are correct. I understand that i am taking a hard-line democracy perspective here, but what can i say, i love democracy.

 

Remember that capitalism is just one aspect of our society. Capitalism is not Darwinistic, it may be social-Darwinism that underlies it's logic, but that does not mean they are actually taking ideas from Darwin.

 

"Capitalism does does not force people to be self-reliant(living), it prevents people from leeching off of the intelle

ct and effort of others."

 

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Capitalism, how ever you can vaguely imagine it, does not OPERATE in this way. You can say that "pure capitalism" something that cannot be achieved because of human nature, would prevent people from leeching off the intellect of others but how it operates does! You cannot seperate each new idea and give money to the person required before him to develop this new idea. It's impossible, and you cannot "own" ideas, you can only do so insofar as the law has decided you can. If we take a strictly legal definition then of course you pay royalties if your infringing on something, but in reality no one idea can be truly seperated. Only insofar as we decide they are.

Take a new phone, inside there is a phone, a camera, a video camera, a clock, etc, all these seperate things in one phone. Well all the inventors contained in that one phone did not get paid for their intellect. They got paid for what the created when they did create there idea (however some people did not when it came to the phone, there was not one inventor there were several and some got paid and some did not). But at some point in society we have decided that after many years those ideas are for the collective, and the ownership of that ideas falls away.

So you see, its not set in stone that "capitalism" prevents people from leeching off the ideas of others, because eventually we decide as a society, when it is okay to do so.

 

It is like the kid in high-school who wanted to work as a "team", while you did 90% of the work and he got 50% of the grade. Note what would happen if you protested that you are being "forced" to write your own examination in school, despite the fact that you are perfectly capable of writing it as a "team".

 

If you don't understand the injustice in that, I don't know what else I can say to you.

 

This is a really simplistic analogy for society. In the big picture this makes absolutely no sense because society does not operate this way and the vast majority of people contribute to society and are not leeching off of some magical individual who does 90% of the work. There are (in the grad scheme of things) very few people who are homeless. You mention that i am hurting the "bum" as you call them, by giving them money. Because somehow their inability to work is attached to this broader capitalist morality. Well, what if my morality is not based in a capitalist ideology? I don't think i'm hurting him by giving him money for booze. Once he hit's rock bottom then maybe he will make something big for himself like the man who started Second Cup Coffee. He was a homeless alcoholic who hit rock bottom and made something for himself. What if you treated every bum as just a star of a capitalist waiting to be born? Maybe there would be more business? Of course im being rhetorical here because, again, society is not that simple. Some homeless people are mentally disabled, and addicted to drugs (which by the way has been deemed a medical condition so maybe we should treat it as such).

 

I find this an interesting debate but its not as simple as your putting it.

Edited November 5, 2007 by supercanuk

[heyrabbit]

I get what you're saying, but rights exist insofar as humans agree to behave they exist. They exist in our minds and behaviour. They're artificial, not natural. The concept that a person has the right to the product of their labour, or the right to health care, or the right not to be assaulted, are absolutely created by humans and human language.

 

But where is it written that people are not responsible for each other? You say that humans either use their brains to acquire the means of survival, or die. But at no point in human history have the vast majority of humans done this alone; they've done it in groups, because we are social animals, not solitary animals. So if you're going to use appeals to human nature, you should recognize that humans are individuals who live in collectives and there simply isn't any way of getting around it. Capitalists want people to be economic individuals, but, for example, you're a clerk at some workplace - that workplace is a collective and it has a power structure and the fact that some people do more empowering work and/or get higher pay has to do with their place in the collective's power structure. You might think of yourself as earning a living as an individual because industrialism/capitalism has created an arbitrary division between work and nonwork, and you might not strongly identify with your work, but that is an illusion - and what you do is a part of who you are.

You're not making any distinction between moral right and legal right. A right doesn't cease to exist if someone

chooses not to misbehave. The very act of misbehaving implies that a right has been violated. Rights exist whether or not anyone recognizes them. Depending on the country you live in, you may or may not have the legal right not to be raped, beaten and tortured. Irrespective of whoever recognizes your right not to be beaten, that doesn't change the fact that if you are beaten severely, you may die.

Your brain is your means of survival.

I never said humans don't or shouldn't live in collectives. But that the loose aggregation "collective" doesn't subsume anything about economics. Studying human nature doesn't consist of simply counting humans, and humanity is certainly not reducible only to numbers.

 

No offence, but I responded to your whole work spiel in other threads.

 

In fact if you study biology you know that species HAVE to work together to survive. It's part of evolution, it's not simply the "survival of the fittest" - which conflates Darwin's notion that species have a set of genes that either fit with the surroundings or do not fit with the surroundings with a notion that a species who's genes do not fit should just work harder. Darwin was quite clear on that, you cannot just "work harder" if your geneset does not fit with your natural surroundings. You just die. Its not that you're going to work harder to exist, its that you will not survive long other animals have better gene sets - something they were born with - that allow them to thrive in the area. You can't really put this in a social model because as you can tell, humans are the fittest in the survival game, in fact we're so fit, that we can decide that others within our family need our assistance and we can EASILY give it to them. But those people who need help are just as fit as we are, at the basic game, everything else we have created, like society, laws, etc, which will effect people differently. Therefore you cannot say some humans are more fit then others, because we're all fit, otherwise we wouldn't have survived on the land. This is where that analogy ends because you cannot apply evolutionary principles to broad human social structures which are NOT the product of evolution, nor nature, but the product of human beings, which by definition are faulty.

 

You are (and I can tell by what your writing) a proponent of the free market yes?

 

Well, i am sure you are smart enough to know that the free market depends on my tax dollars to operate. So by your analogy, we should never bail our corporations, never subsidize corporations, in fact, we should never in any way alter their "natural" state of selfishness correct?

If i have interpreted you wrong, please do clarify, because i could live in a world where corporations are not helped at ALL by the state.

 

"Capitalism has never forced "self-reliance" on anybody"

You make mention that in law there are rights. Well, in law, there are also responsibilities. In fact, rights come with responsibilities. Part of living in a decent society is the ability for us to define what a decent society is. If that includes democracy, rights, and social assistance, than that is what we've decided and no philosophy can prove us wrong because by virtue of our decision as a collective we are correct. I understand that i am taking a hard-line democracy perspective here, but what can i say, i love democracy.

 

Remember that capitalism is just one aspect of our society. Capitalism is not Darwinistic, it may be social-Darwinism that underlies it's logic, but that does not mean they are actually taking ideas from Darwin.

 

"Capitalism does does not force people to be self-reliant(living), it prevents people from leeching off of the intelle

ct and effort of others."

 

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Capitalism, how ever you can vaguely imagine it, does not OPERATE in this way. You can say that "pure capitalism" something that cannot be achieved because of human nature, would prevent people from leeching off the intellect of others but how it operates does! You cannot seperate each new idea and give money to the person required before him to develop this new idea. It's impossible, and you cannot "own" ideas, you can only do so insofar as the law has decided you can. If we take a strictly legal definition then of course you pay royalties if your infringing on something, but in reality no one idea can be truly seperated. Only insofar as we decide they are.

Take a new phone, inside there is a phone, a camera, a video camera, a clock, etc, all these seperate things in one phone. Well all the inventors contained in that one phone did not get paid for their intellect. They got paid for what the created when they did create there idea (however some people did not when it came to the phone, there was not one inventor there were several and some got paid and some did not). But at some point in society we have decided that after many years those ideas are for the collective, and the ownership of that ideas falls away.

So you see, its not set in stone that "capitalism" prevents people from leeching off the ideas of others, because eventually we decide as a society, when it is okay to do so.

 

Natural selection occurs too slowly to have any sort of relevance in politics, and I certainly never said anything about survival of the fittest. It's true, of course, that the fittest will survive, but evolution is completely amoral. My position is not that the fit take precedence over the unfit, because I have made no such distinction between fit and unfit in the context of evolutionary time. How am I supposed to know what is "fit" in the context of evolution. Economic success in 2007 is not any indication of what will happen during millenniums of evolutionary change. The fittest will survive. That doesn't mean all "fit" people will survive, or that smart people should survive, or whatever you thought I meant. I think we should worry about our lives first before being concerned with altering the course of evolution!

 

You seem to be concerned with the rights of those born in less favorable circumstances. Rights is a matter of morality. Define your code of morality.

 

 

From what you said I gathered that you think I don't think the homeless work hard enough, for example, and that that's why they don't succeed. But before one can "work harder", they first have to work. Work is the production of value required to sustain life. To work is literally to live. Doing a job is not necessarily work, not if one doesn't produce value, not if you're talking about how work pertains to human survival. Trying to produce does not guarantee that you will produce. And trying harder will not work for everyone - you are right.

 

 

And so I do completely agree that all men have the capacity to sustain their own lives,to live, given the right circumstances. We're all basically the same in that sense, you are right, because the difference between the smartest man in the world and dumbest is trivial when compared to the difference between the human mind and the brains of any other species. But human survival requires freedom from coercion in order to survive. The only application of freedom in an economic system is a free market.

 

The free market, by definition, is an economic system of private ownership free from government interference. Since taxation is the most obvious and probably the best example of government interference in the economy, because taxation is literally government interference in and of itself, consider what you just told me. To paraphrase: "A free market has to not be a free market in order to be a free market." (?!) A is non A. So long as taxes exist, there is no true free market. The idea of an economy complete separated from the state is the very definition of Laissez-faire Capitalism. I've been very clear that I do not approve of government interference in the economy, in any way shape or form, to any degree, no matter how minor.

Bingo. You are entirely correct in your estimation of how my logic applies to the free market, despite trying to get me to admit it, because you think it's absurd. I admit it. Coercive monopolies are created by government funded subsidies, by laws both restricting and increasing the freedoms of certain corporations. Those monopolies would not exist otherwise. Subsidization is an act of socialism. It is entirely against every capitalism stands for. Notice the consequence of subsidization - the corporatoins you love to despise. Despite the fact that subsidization is an act of pure, unfettered socialism, in its rawest form, everyone blames "Capitalism" for the problems of the country, proclaiming that men were "too greedy", that they "wanted too much money". This is why Capitalism is repeatedly and erroneously blamed for the injustices sanctioned by the manifestion of their ideal - socialism. To make matters worse, they immediately offer socialism as a solution to the problem,unaware that it caused it in the first place, declaring that mankind should be more "fair", without offering a definition of morality, a criterion by which to determine what is "fair", which results in more socialism and more problems.

 

 

The common misconceptions people have about Capitalism stems from ignorance of the word, from the assumption that capitalism equates to nothing more than reverence for the rich and disdain for the poor. Capitalism is not synonymous "pro-corporation". When someone is a capitalist, it doesn't automatically mean they love all fortune 500 companies. I don't have admiration for people who make lots of money. I have admiration for those who earn money, whether they're billionaires or whether they earn a single dollar. I also don't hate large corporations for no other reason than they are large, unlike many of Capitalism's retractors.

 

Most people's definition of capitalism seems to be something like this: "Men who love money and are greedy and like big corporations and like screwing the "little" man and all they care about is money. There's more to life than money" If that is anyone's definition of capitalism, I am not a Capitalist!

 

 

Nobody owns ideas, and I never claimed that anyone does. The right to property is the right to action, not the right to an object. What men own is their means and consequences of producing the object. That's not a guarantee that I will produce any objects, but that the right to property grants me the legal right to own the object provided I earn it. Do you see? Since we live in physical reality, all value has to be exchanged in terms of physical objects. If I write a book that doesn't mean I have the right to think about my book, it means I have a right to its value. This is exactly why property rights are the only implementation of rights whatsoever. That doesn't mean that property rights should be ignored, just because it's hard. That's the whole purpose for having legal system. Not everyone will always receive what they earn, but what is the alternative? Should should we deny everyone's right to their property because we can't be bothered to have a legal system, or should we strive to improve the system as much as possible? It's the job of the law philosophers to work it out. We already have a fairly advanced system. Musicians often receive at least some value. Many authors make great money. Capitalism is an economic model based on the proper morality, the manifestation of morality, it is not morality itself.

 

Define morality. Define your code of ethics.

 

 

"what if my morality is not based in a capitalist ideology?"

 

You have it backwards. Reality is not based on Capitalism. Capitalism is based on reality, because reality exists FIRST. A is A. And there is no such thing as "your" morality. You exist in the same reality as me. You are the same kind of animal as me. What is fundamentally good for you is fundamentally good for me.

 

It would be immoral to give to the bum regardless of how he chose to make use of the money. You'd be training him to be morally lazy, giving him no incentive to get off the street.

If that man chooses to die, you are not responsible because you cannot be responsible for every human being on earth. You cannot live for every human being. You cannot live for ONE human being, let alone billions. The best way to help the bum is to live your own life, and that includes respecting your rights as well as his, which includes not sacrificing your values to him. And you certainly should not "help" him by helping him hit rock bottom. That is no sort of justification. You cannot be - and I cannot be - an indentured servant to 6 billion people. You cannot be expected to continuously buy your life by living the lives of others. It's not only immoral to try to do so, it is impossible! If you want to help him, enforce moral law, in the same way that parents enforce moral law upon their children.

 

I have a profound admiration for man, and if a homeless man makes something of his life, that is great. I do view man that way. But if I am going to treat every bum as a capitalist waiting to be born, I have to to just that; I have to trade with him in the only way that makes sense - value for value.

 

It really is this simple: Immorality exists only insofar as people sanction it.

Edited November 7, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Moonlight_Graham]

I never said that you should not help people. The important thing to understand is that you cannot value another person's life over your own. You cannot trade a value for a non-value or a lesser value. For instance, if your brother was dying on the street, and you had only one drink of water left, and you give it to the other dying man lying on the street - THAT is sacrifice.

 

There can be no higher value than your own life, because without it, you are unable to value anything else. There is no such thing as value to a dead man.

 

If that man, the man dying on the street, were to do absolutely nothing, he would eventually die. Death is the default. Life has to be achieved, and nobody else can achieve life for you. Notice that you require thought in order to live. If you want shelter, you have to use your mind to build it. If you want food, you have to use your mind to catch it. You may or may not stumble upon a cave randomly, but if you evade thought, eventually you will die. Humans are rational animals. We are not a fast animal. We don't have poison, we can't emit repugnant fumes, we don't a way to make food out of pollen. Our darwininan survival tool is your MINDS. Thus your basic moral choice is to think or not to think, to choose to live or to choose to die. If you choose to live life for another man, you are not only killing yourself, you are killing that man! You are sanctioning immorality. Some people require help, yes, but you cannot give more help than is required, and you cannot give help for bad reasons. Think of every bum on the street. Some of them may need help, but every time you give change to a man who is too lazy to acquire work, you are sanctioning his immorality, you are making him morally lazy, and you are not helping yourself or the bum. So long as suckers give him money, he has no need to improve his life because YOU are living life for him, by giving wealth that you produced with your mind. You are sanctioning his immorality and you are killing him. He needs to produce with his own mind. Giving him money whenever he desires, whenever he extends his hands, is not helping him, and it gives him no incentive to stop being a bum.

 

I've been very clear that altruism is immoral! As I explained above, valuing another life over your own is to go against your nature as a human being. Selfishness does not constitute greed and meanness. Rationality is *included* in the (proper) definition of selfishness. Being mean to people is not selfish! Mean is training a dog to be fed for free, then kicking it out on the street without the skills necessary to survive.

 

Your analogy doesn't make any sense, which doesn't surprise me because you only made it for the sake of throwing my own analogy back in my face. Despite proclaiming as much on a previous post, you are also not an advocate of the free-market,nor do you understand what it means. Your analogy reflects this. Capitalism is about the freedom to trade. In order to trade, you require something of value, and that requires that something be produced. Obviously if apes are running around fighting, there are no rights, no laws, and no Capitalism.

 

 

What would it mean if every person who wants to be civilized is forced to leave civilizatoin?! The point is that they can't! The only alternative is to live in another country, where there is more of the same. Given a choice of two evils, we are forced to choose the lesser evil, just as Blacks chose to obey their Masters instead of being whipped or hanged.

Well now those comments of course seem a lot more logical and less radical than what you said before.

 

First, i do support a free-market economy, although it needs to be kept in check by government. I also believe in welfare programs for those who truly need it. I believe that healthcare is a basic human right that everyone should have access too for necessary concerns. i'm not a Marx-style socialist, but it would be interesting to see how a fixed/modified version of that would work.

 

I wouldn't sacrifice my own last drink for a dying man. Me > a stranger. However, i would sacrifice some of what i owned if it could help somebody who truly needed it (like a starving person lying on the street....or in Africa).

 

To me, i don't see the morality in people in 1st-world nations buying 50" plasma TV's while millions of people die from disease or starve in Africa because they live in an area that is so dry they are unable to grow proper food or sustain enough fresh drinking water. When those people die, certainly isn't for a lack of trying.

 

I agree with you mostly about the homeless person example. Some of those people are there by choice, but many have mental illness problems. Don't give them money for food everyday, but get them medical help etc. But if they refuse and they want to live on the street because they think the nurses are trying to poison them, i can't help but give them some food because its certainly cruel just to see them die. Its also cruel for let them live like that, but its their choice (in a way).

 

I'm more harsh for those on welfare who just dont want to get off their ass. 'A hand-up, not a hand-out' as the saying goes. If a person can't find a job, give them some basic money to get buy but on the condition they try their hardest to find a job & if they can't or refuse one that is offered to them then cut them off unless they have medical reasons.

 

I wish there were no government handouts and taxes and we all gave to those truly in need, but unfortunately corportations & the well-off aren't as generous as is needed. We've seen that during the industrial revolution when employers took advantage or workers disgracefully, in compulsive toil as its referred.

 

Oh and no i don't know about your thoughts on anarchism, i get you and Ecnarf & others mixed up of here. ;)

[heyrabbit]

Interesting reply.

 

Your subjective notion of ethics may be what is true and correct for you, but does not independently exist as some timeless truth which has bearing on all. There is literally no such thing, every single concept humans come up with is just that, human, and flawed, and I take issue with a very hard line approach to a specific or dogmatic definition of ethics in regard to society. No one set of "ethics" will fit for the entire society, everyone will take issue with some aspect of how a society is run and not everyone agrees that the "free market" is free from many points of view. So, you feel that the the complete free market would have zero government interference. I am well versed in the free market economy ideology, and it is just that, an ideology which often has destructive consequences for countries. Look at what the Chicago boys did to Chile with Pinochet

overthrowing Allende? They instituted a free market economy which threw the majority of the population into mass poverty and Pinochet ruled with torture and fear. I am not blaming capitalism for this, to be clear, i am stating that when there is no government interference in the economy to ensure people are able to buy goods to eat, that this is a disgusting consequence of putting no regulations on the economy.

If i understand you correctly you are advocating zero government involvement in the market. If this were to occur  then there would be no health regulations, no laws that govern corporate actions such as moving capital from one country to the next, or how that corporation treats individuals vis-a-vis its policies of manufacturing, laws which protect individuals rights under a democracy.

 

You see, if there were zero government interference in the market then the actors in the market could freely act without regard to other laws. So i think either I am misunderstanding your argument, or you need to be pretty specific about your dream free market because human beings include the OBJECTS in REALITY that you have stated. I am aware that we need to be able to trade goods, and i'm well aware of this objective reality (which actually many people in the fields of science, especially artifical intelligence fields would say doesn't actually exist) where we all need to live. But if you want me to define some ethics that have nothing to do with the society i live in, then you need to be specific about how exactly you can take out the unpredictability of human  behavior in your own analysis of a world in which I am living for another because I give him money which he has not earned.

Your appear to be assuming that everyone is a rational value producing machine. Nobody is really rational in any true sense of the word, nor can they be, because humans are unpredictable, and because of this there are people in our society we have to take care of. There is a morality here, not ethic, and it is also irrational because it has nothing to do with my existence but the well-being and existence of my fellow species, and to that i ascribe the utmost importance.

 

To work is literally to live. Doing a job is not necessarily work, not if one doesn't produce value, not if you're talking about how work pertains to human survival

 

What do you think is the role of a partner in say, a marriage, where one of them stays at home with a child? Here I feel you are a bit unclear on produce and job, because there is a job that must be done, the rearing of children, that is not producing a physical object. Yet in society, we give that value, not in terms of monetary value but value in and of itself, the well-adjustment of another human being. Can you please clarify how this pertains to the market?

 

But human survival requires freedom from coercion in order to survive. The only application of freedom in an economic system is a free market.

 

We cannot be free from coercion, there will be some form of governance, fascist, or otherwise, which will always  coerce humans. Even in a state which reduces this to the absolute minimum, say in a state which has been able to exist without a government, there will be forms of coercion placed through personal relationships, again, a irrational human characteristic which you cannot just delete from existence.  You cannot only apply this to a free market, because the free market does not exist in some place free from human agency. Human agency creates the free market and so that market is subject to all kinds of irrational human acts which have other effects on other human beings. Therefore we , as human beings, create laws to mitigate the effects of any business coercing another human being. Human survival does require a certain AMOUNT of freedom from coercion, but we cannot get rid of all of it, power relations exist everywhere.

 

The free market, by definition, is an economic system of private ownership free from government interference

 

Private ownership of an object is not free from government interference. In fact, private ownership only exists because we have a form of government which recognizes this for simplicity sake. So if it does not exist outside of what you and me and society recognize it to be as a privately owned object then it is just an object. So what about other forms of interference? Such as when the government bails out an entire sector of the economy like the loans crisis in the summer? Here was government interference which preserved the market and preserved it on behalf of capital. These things all have effects on humans that need to be controlled. The market was never set up free and it cannot run freely because things like corruption, externalities, environmental degradation, and a whole host of other things come along with a free market economy.

 

 

"The common misconceptions people have about Capitalism stems from ignorance of the word, from the assumption that capitalism equates to nothing more than reverence for the rich and disdain for the poor. Capitalism is not synonymous "pro-corporation". When someone is a capitalist, it doesn't automatically mean they love all fortune 500 companies. I don't have admiration for people who make lots of money. I have admiration for those who earn money, whether they're billionaires or whether they earn a single dollar. I also don't hate large corporations for no other reason than they are large, unlike  many of Capitalism's retractors. "

 

I am not ignorant of what capitalism is, and I know that it is not disdain for the poor,  or that "it" is pro-corporation, you cant attribute human agency to an institution which is a legal fiction. What I am critical of, is it's effects to the environment, both human and geographical, and those effects are due to the actors within the economy, not the economy itself.  The economy of capitalism does however, pit one person against another, and because it does this, i feel we need to regulate  its morally repugnant effects. If a family is starving, i couldn't give a shit that they can't make enough money to feed their family, what i give a shit about, is that they live in a society that cares enough about them to help them get food to eat. Seriously, if somebody has an alcoholic father and a drug addict mother and those people don't feed there kids, that is repugnant. At the same time, if that society does not care enough about those children to pool together what's extra in what they need for survival to help others survive then i don't want want to live in that society, nor do i think that it is a defensible position. If that's socialistic then that's fine with me, and its obviously where we have differences.

 

"

You have it backwards. Reality is not based on Capitalism. Capitalism is based on reality, because reality exists FIRST. A is A. And there is no such thing as "your" morality. You exist in the same reality as me. You are the same kind of animal as me. What is fundamentally good for you is fundamentally good for me."

 

I think you have misread my statement. I never said that reality was based on Capitalism. Capitalism is a economy which exists in my reality, it's not based on my reality, because my reality is based on only what i've learned from my surroundings. Capitalism is not something which can have human agency, it's an economy, unlike other objects, such as humans, in my reality.

 

"It would be immoral to give to the bum regardless of how he chose to make use of the money. You'd be training him to be morally lazy, giving him no incentive to get off the street.

If that man chooses to die, you are not responsible because you cannot be responsible for every human being on earth. You cannot live for every human being. You cannot live for ONE human being, let alone billions."

 

Morality is totally subjective, to YOU, giving a homeless person is immoral, and here we disagree. I cannot be responsible for every human being that is correct. But, in a country that taxes me, i can help through what i've earned, assist other humans in their times of need. It's not as straight forward as being responsible for every human being, your conflating individual responsibility with collective responsibility, or even collective decision. By virtue of my governmental representative i have agreed to sanction certain laws because I vote. If that law includes taxation for the army then i support it, the army protects me. If there is a law i don't support, i talk to my member of parliament and lobby to change  the laws. If the majority disagree with me i live in that reality because i have been lucky enough to live in a country that gives me that option. 

 

This is just a subjective discussion, again, with no absolute truth or ethic, or morality because when it comes down to it i disagree that giving humans money they have not earned is not immoral.

 

EDIT: I just thought i'd mention the obvious issue we haven't really addressed that a government, or at least our government, has full control over the economy. The economy is allowed to exist in the form it does because of the government, and therefore, it exists because the people of the country allow it to exist by not voting for parties that wish to abolish or severely curtail the economy. The economy is subordinate to the government, and in my opinion, that is the way it should be.

Sorry about the late reply. I replied once and deleted it by accident.

 

 

There is no absolute ethic? What about the ethic of not killing someone without reason or provocation? Ethics is a normative science. Like any other science, there is a mode and method for determining truths. Ethics should not be - and cannot be -determined by what you want or feel. Everyone has their own set of ethics, but that doesn't mean they are the best possible set of ethics. Some people have no qualms with stealing your car, and so who are you to know that it is unethical? How do you "know" anything in science?

 

You need to make a clear distinction between ethics and morality. Ethics are derived from morality. Proper ethics are derived from the proper morality. Ethics is not an necessarily absolute in the same way that scientific knowledge absolute, unless you subscribe to the 10 commandments. One can't claim that they know everything because how would you know you don't know something without knowing it? You can't know something you don't know for the same reasons you can't not know something you know. (I apologize). You only know what you know! i.e. Knowledge is finite. For this very reason, when someone claims to know one tidbit of information, they can't claim to know everything. That,however, doesn't mean that they can't claim to know anything at all. If you study physics, you know that gravity is universal. Nobody can escape gravity. Does that mean you're taking a "hard-lined" approach? If so - that is how it should be. . There are also universal ethics in the field of ethics.

 

I do not think that a mixed economy or dictatorship(!), in the guise of a free-market, constitutes a free-market. I don't know anything about the overthrowing of Allende in Chile, so I can't say much. I'm suspicious of a country that "institutes" a free-market.That's suspicious wording. I'm almost positive that if if I read into it, it would turn out not to be free at all. But I simply don't know neough about it.

 

Now, even though I don't approve of the government meddling in the economy, that doesn't mean there should be no government whatsoever. Economics is simply a matter of money. A free-market is only an economic system. It does not mean one is free to kill someone else. Law still exists, and that is why government needs to exist. This is precisely the purpose of the government - to subordinate man to moral law.

 

 

All men are rational to some degree or another.That doesn't mean all men are completely rational all the time. But anyone who has no rationality is literally brain dead. We are a thinking species. That is what differentiates us from every other animal. Think of what the word "rational" means. It is ratios, math, mathematical equations. That is how our minds function. When you are thinking, you are performing math unconsciously, through measurement omittance of your perception of reality, with facts of reality substituting for numbers. When someone "knows" something, it is literally because they've solved an algebraic equation. The statement "Dogs can run" is a true statement. "Birds can swim" would be a false statement. When you are arguing something, you are attempting to solve an equation. Whether or not you arrive at the correct answer depends on how well your concepts correspond to reality. Thus every statement is hypothetically true or false. Every human being knows this unconsciously, which is why even the dumbest people cling to a rational argument whenever they stumble upon one. Like any mathematical equation, if you're answer is false, you need to work backwards and check your premises.

 

This is getting into the epistemology. It is important to understand how we acquire knowledge, but I don't want to get into that too much right not because it will take a long time to explain. Just to summarize, we are not only all rational, but we live or die to the extent of our rationality.

 

 

 

Parenting has nothing to do with the economy. You said it yourself - that value is not monetary. Money is a tool for exchanging value long range. It has nothing to do with the market, unless you plan on trading your children. because you are not trading anything, the value is an end in itself, as you also said. Parenting still produces value, and that value is your children. It is a job one pays themselves to do, if you like, and it can be a full time job, as may parents would adamantly attest.

 

 

That's right. Humans can be irrational but they can also be extremely rational. We are not infallible, but we are still amazingly efficient and achieving. There's a disdainful attitude towards humanity present in just about every religion. When we fail it it because humanity is weak(by default, everything created by man is liable to be erroneous, or whatever you said) but when we achieve it is by accident or because of God. Human survival definitely requires freedom. Freedom,by definition, is freedom from coercion. There is no other freedom. And I don't think that we shouldn't strive for freedom because we cna't be completely free all the time. That's a defeatist position. It's like saying that there's no point in making murder illegal because somebody will always murder.

 

Also, a boss setting the conditions of employment does not constitute coercion. People have brought htis up before. e.g. "My boss won't let me earn the amount I want to earn, he's being COERCIVE".

 

 

No ownership is free from interference. If we lived in the neolithic era, I could break into your house and steal your grain. We didn't become civilized until we recognized that that action is immoral. And property rights aren't there for simplicity sake, it is the entire application of individual rights! If you have no right to property, you have no rights at all. The government can interfere and subsequently interfere to try to fix the problem they initially created, but none of that really helps anyone.

 

Capitalism doesn't pit one person against the other (make us individuals fighting for survival). That happened already. We were individuals before anyone coined the word freedom. Capitalism, unlike every other system, recognizes this fact. Surviving can be difficult, but I don't think the answer is to pretend that we aren't men, that we're just material belonging to the rest of humanity. We're no longer altruist barbarians, existing to unconsciously further our species, like ants. I think we should create our own purpose.

 

Again, Morality is not subjective. You're taking the position of an ethical hedonist. Morality, to you, is defined by your feelings, not an objective observation of reality. Since your only means of knowing anything is by observing reality, I question any subjective morality. I highly doubt you magically acquired a set of ethics by feeling pleasure. No, you acquire ethics by thinking. Thinking requires sense perception. Existence exists.

 

 

Moonlight: I'll respond next time round.

Edited November 12, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

There is no absolute ethic? What about the ethic of not killing someone without reason or provocation? Ethics is a normative science. Like any other science, there is a mode and method for determining truths. Ethics should not be - and cannot be -determined by what you want or feel. Everyone has their own set of ethics, but that doesn't mean they are the best possible set of ethics. Some people have no qualms with stealing your car, and so who are you to know that it is unethical? How do you "know" anything in science?

 

Ethics is not a science! Sciences use the scientific method, maybe you've heard of it? Ethics is philosophy. And in philosophy, as Socrates said, "all I know is that I know nothing." If ethics were some absolute truth waiting for us to discover or understand it perfectly, there would not be ethical dilemmas.

 

Also, a boss setting the conditions of employment does not constitute coercion. People have brought htis up before. e.g. "My boss won't let me earn the amount I want to earn, he's being COERCIVE".

 

It's an unequal relationship and is therefore coercive. That's what the socialist movement and the trade union movement are all about - fighting for workers' rights, which are at odds with employers' property rights.

 

Parenting has nothing to do with the economy. You said it yourself - that value is not monetary. Money is a tool for exchanging value long range. It has nothing to do with the market, unless you plan on trading your children. because you are not trading anything, the value is an end in itself, as you also said. Parenting still produces value, and that value is your children. It is a job one pays themselves to do, if you like, and it can be a full time job, as may parents would adamantly attest.

 

You sidestepped the question completely. The point is that the institution of the family - traditionally an oppressive one, to be sure - demonstrates the collective nature of human existence and the myth of independence.