65 replies to this topic

[drus]

Ras, it's obvious that we will never fully agree on this subject. And in the end you win, because we live in a capitalist world and will probably continue to do so for many generations to come. As to your comment about some gov't scientists handing out all the bounty to the masses, that wasn't what I was suggesting. All people would have equal access to this technology first hand, they wouldn't recieve any handouts from anyone. The ultimate means of production would be open to everyone, every person would become entirely self sustaining/sufficient with this technology. It certainly wouldn't reduce everyone to poverty either, on the contrary it would allow everyone equal access to unlimited material goods. Hopefully you can now see that ironically it is in fact the capitalist mentality, not socialist, that would hinder the development of this technology. Supply and demand would have no meaning anymore. Neither would the idea or concept of rich and poor, since all people would have access to unlimited material wealth (for lack of a better term). The fact that you are still arguing for capitalism in such a world is nonsensical to me. You are either not understanding what I'm saying or you are just being stubborn. I too would dedicate my life to the development of this technology and I as well would fight to the death to defend democracy and freedom in the US. It looks as though we do agree on some things after all.

[AaronCW]

Ras, it's obvious that we will never fully agree on this subject. And in the end you win, because we live in a capitalist world and will probably continue to do so for many generations to come. As to your comment about some gov't scientists handing out all the bounty to the masses, that wasn't what I was suggesting. All people would have equal access to this technology first hand, they wouldn't recieve any handouts from anyone. The ultimate means of production would be open to everyone, every person would become entirely self sustaining/sufficient with this technology. It certainly wouldn't reduce everyone to poverty either, on the contrary it would allow everyone equal access to unlimited material goods. Hopefully you can now see that ironically it is in fact the capitalist mentality, not socialist, that would hinder the development of this technology. Supply and demand would have no meaning anymore. Neither would the idea or concept of rich and poor, since all people would have access to unlimited material wealth (for lack of a better term). The fact that you are still arguing for capitalism in such a world is nonsensical to me. You are either not understanding what I'm saying or you are just being stubborn. I too would dedicate my life to the development of this technology and I as well would fight to the death to defend democracy and freedom in the US. It looks as though we do agree on some things after all.

What I don't think you understand (or are not willing to admit) is that it is Socialism, not Capatilism, that would become obsolete (as a political/economic idea) once such technology is developed. The primary motivation for the advocation of Socialism is the availability of material goods. It should be granted by anyone that this technology could only be developed under a Capitalist economy (which requires a government that protects individual rights), especially if it were to be refined to be efficient and affordable (the technology must be affordable whether it is purchased privately or by the government). Once the technology has been developed and is relatively affordable, than the process of competition (unless the government prevents it) will continue to make it more efficient and affordable. When microwaves were first developed, only rich people had them, now anyone can buy one.

That one would argue that it would be unfair to people that couldn't afford this technology during this interim period is a cheap excuse to strip everyone of their fundamental individual rights. The fact that the technology would be available to the rich first is not only fair and proper, it would accelerate the economy, as it is the rich that are generally the producers and the motor in any economy.

[drus]

Ras, you make a good point in theoretical principle. However, you are forgeting that this sort of tech would eventually end capitalism and thusly it is more likely that powerful capitalist interests/corporations would want to suppress this sort of technology from the average citizen for as long as possible if not indefinitely. Your idea of the rich gaining access to this tech first may not be such a good idea, most would probably not want to share it as it would represent a shift in social and economic power. Also, I'm starting to think that your idea of socialism and my idea of socialism are not the same. You seem to be equating a sort of 'evil' tyranny with the idea of socialism. Your reference to the USSR and Nazi Germany are misplaced as regards my idea of socialism. If you put a dictator in charge of a socialist system then yes, you are correct, it would probably not be a good thing. My idea of socialism has no dictator at all involved. In fact it could be reasonably argued that capitalism itself leads to a dictatorship of sorts and eventually, if not kept in check, rises to challenge true democracy, the very thing that even allowed it to exist in the first place.

Just so I understand something you said earlier. You believe that happiness itself is not a right, but only the pursuit of it is? I can't speak for you, but for me life has no meaning without happiness. And how does liberty factor into your equation? It sounds to me like your philosophy is 'survival of the fittest'. This being the case, it would seem your philosophy ironically enough, has more in common with Nazi Germany than does mine. (I won't even comment on soviet philosophy because Stalin was an idiot) Anyhow, you have simply replaced Hitler with a sort of personal selfishness and then passed that selfishness off as the moral good? Am I understanding you here?

[vortexentity]

The link below is a story that is very applicable to this discourse on the Welfare State Vs Capitalism.

It is called: The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp

This is a must read for anyone interested in this thread.

[drus]

Vortex, this is a good story and does teach a valuable moral lesson, there are a couple of ways to read this story. However, if your point was meant to dissuade people from the ideals of socialism, then I'm disappointed in it. To equate socialism as breeding laziness and moronic dependance on some authoritative body is misleading, unethical capitalist propaganda. The pigs could just as easily be looked at as representing the poor and underprivledged victims in a capitalist system.

[vortexentity]

In our natural state humans are enterprising and seek the advantages that make life possible. Continued hardship brings down our progress on the whole, while some initial hardship teaches us how to take advantage of what is given to us and make the most of it. Without these lessons we are lost and never develop as far as we can.

You must remember that humankind has not been out of the trees all that long. The law of the jungle is still hard wired into our brains. It is easy for us to slip down the slippery sloop of easy socialism down into the dungeon of totalitarianism. It might take several generations as the story of the free pigs indicates. It can become a prison very easy. It can be done in increments that are too long for the attention span of the individual to grasp.

One of the obvious indications of an encroaching totalitarian state is the shortening of the attention span of the people. When they are hurried from one disaster to another and given fewer open gate to run to it does not take long for that society to become a prison.

Capitalism is only bad when you have no capital. It seems unfair to have to start with nothing if others get to start with a lot more. Socialism starts with the assumption that you are going to fail and provides a way up when you do. Socialism also is crafted by people and it is the nature of people to take advantage of others in order to advance themselves. The built in flaws in both systems is that other people who also seek advantage for themselves decide the most important factors in each system.

That is why I am a bit of an anarchist and a capitalist. I decide the rules in my game and then others play it to my advantage instead of the other way around. That includes using socialist systems when it is to my advantage. In the end of course the ends justifies the means only if you are successful and are able to live life on the terms that you wish and are not ensnared into someone else's traps.

The strongest people with the finest character are those who fend for themselves and teach others to fend for themselves.

About your little signature line I have this to say drus.

Cooperation is demonstrated when jackals surround their prey and take turns attacking from behind until the prey is dead.

In that instance I would sat that cooperation is life since the jackals get to eat.

Competition is demonstrated after the jackals kill their prey because only the strongest of the bunch eats very well.

In that there is death both for the prey, and the jackal that is too weak or slow to get a piece of the prey and starves.

[drus]

Vortex, do you believe that America has lost it's way? Also, you are free to interpret my sig any way you wish. But at the end of the day, the words are true.

[vortexentity]

I think that America was a great nation. Now it is near its end as a great nation. This is not the fault of Capitalism. It is the fault of the nation getting too fat and lazy to find its way any longer. A state that has grown too socialist and too mediocre. Socialism appeals most to the mediocre and least to the enterprising and the excellent. From the time of the New Deal to today the US have been in decline in many ways. These declines are most accurately attributed to the nation undergoing significant social changes. These include moving to a fiat currency, moving to a socialist collectivist economy, and institutionalizing and subsidizing several very large and bureaucratic corporate business sectors.

These include from top to bottom, energy, defense, aerospace, banking, insurance, and transportation.

All of these industries if they were kept strictly as capitalist driven entrepreneurial endeavors would have ended up serving the needs of the nation better than the way they were handled.

Energy was given over to the huge corporations first and subsidized with public funds and then they were sold off to private companies once the tax payer had paid the financial burden off.

Defense was mandated by congress and weapon systems were purchased with public funds. So many billions and billions went into defense that these companies became more powerful than any government including our own.

Aerospace received a double bonus by receipt of public fund from both defense spending and also from NASA spending and again to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. Shutting off or curtailing the funds to these companies can get you killed.

Banking which you would think would be something that makes enough money that it would not need to be subsidized received so many tax payer funded bailouts and outright hand outs it has been a huge boondoggle. Also the granting of the ability to lend more money than they had gave them significant advantage that is downright anti-capitalist.

Insurance is mandated on many levels from personal liability to drive to business insurance required to operate a business or even to buy a house. This is downright anti-capitalist and protectionist.

Transportation was heavily subsidized by public funds on every level from the building of roads, and rail lines to the Amtrack which has never made a dime of profit. The same can be said for several other sectors but I am sure you get the point

The US has long not been a capitalist country. It is a collectivist, socialist, democracy of a sort. It started out as a constitutional republic. One with a very capitalist type of financial structure but has been eroded from that for many years. People approaching a century in age can tell you from experience. The USA has strayed a very long way.

[drus]

We agree on some things anyway.

America is certainly going down the tubes, but it is not because of true socialist ideals, it is because of plain and simple individualistic selfishness, that went unchecked for so long, and a loss of personal honor. Corporate merchantilism didn't help matters any either and the sad truth is that capitalism always gives way to it's even uglier brother, namely corporate merchantilism. But you can blame socialism if it makes you feel better.

[AaronCW]

Ras, you make a good point in theoretical principle. However, you are forgeting that this sort of tech would eventually end capitalism and thusly it is more likely that powerful capitalist interests/corporations would want to suppress this sort of technology from the average citizen for as long as possible if not indefinitely. Your idea of the rich gaining access to this tech first may not be such a good idea, most would probably not want to share it as it would represent a shift in social and economic power.

In a truly free society no one (meaning a corporation) can effectively hold a permanent monopoly. This is plainly evident when it comes to technology; there is limitless potential for competition and variety, and, even if the technology is solidly patented, intellectual property rights do not last forever. The development of technology (of a productive nature) is what fuels Capitalism, and if such technology is produced so that production becomes almost 'miraculous', than this will only mean that people will not have to work nearly as much. Even if this technology was somehow limitless and free, and everyone magically possessed it, this does not make Socialism any more attractive or necessary, or less morally wrong.

Also, I'm starting to think that your idea of socialism and my idea of socialism are not the same. You seem to be equating a sort of 'evil' tyranny with the idea of socialism. Your reference to the USSR and Nazi Germany are misplaced as regards my idea of socialism. If you put a dictator in charge of a socialist system then yes, you are correct, it would probably not be a good thing. My idea of socialism has no dictator at all involved. In fact it could be reasonably argued that capitalism itself leads to a dictatorship of sorts and eventually, if not kept in check, rises to challenge true democracy, the very thing that even allowed it to exist in the first place.

Correct, your idea of socialism is not consistent with how socialism has manifested itself in all of the terrible socialist experiments conducted over the last 100 years. The basic tenet of Socialism requires that the citizens be stripped of the most important of individual rights; the right to take all of the actions necessary to produce, according to the level of your ability, and to have ownership of what you produce. A dictator is just one way to have a totalitarian state, which is what a Socialist nation must necessarily be. A government which operates according to the principles of the US constitution is in no danger of becoming a dictatorship.

Just so I understand something you said earlier. You believe that happiness itself is not a right, but only the pursuit of it is? I can't speak for you, but for me life has no meaning without happiness. And how does liberty factor into your equation? It sounds to me like your philosophy is 'survival of the fittest'. This being the case, it would seem your philosophy ironically enough, has more in common with Nazi Germany than does mine. (I won't even comment on soviet philosophy because Stalin was an idiot) Anyhow, you have simply replaced Hitler with a sort of personal selfishness and then passed that selfishness off as the moral good? Am I understanding you here?

The founding fathers of the United States were extremely precise in the wording they used. It is, and must be, a right to the pursuit of happiness, not a right of happiness (which is impossible to acheive, and any attempt requires the violation of others rights). Hitler was a Socialist dictator, and the definition of selfishness that is in common usage, which does accurately describe the mentality of a dictator, is not what I am referring to. Selfishness, defined as rational concern with ones self-interest, is a moral virtue under the condition that your actions do not violate the rights of anyone else (this is a precondition of any civilized society).

[drus]

Perhaps the true nature of the disagreement between us lays in your assumption that I am a strict socialist. I can't remember now, but I think I did mention somewhere in this thread that I'm in fact (politically-ideologically) a libertarian-socialist. There is a fundamental difference between the two. I'm not going to try to define the specifics here, wikipedia it if you want to see my point. There are however other philosophies in my ideology as well, some namely being egalitarianism, techno-utopianism and ultrahumanism (my own personal version of transhumanism). There is no hard and fast word to define my personal socio-politico philosophy yet in existence, so I am forced to resort to some of the previously mentioned words and phrases. I will therefore no longer be arguing for or defending straight socialism as the world has come to know it (which I still would argue that it is not true socialism but none the less) but rather speak in defense of libertarian-socialism and when necessary throw in my other ideologies and how they would play into the picture.

As to your talk of the right to pursuit of happiness. I find your understanding of this to be slightly strange (no offense meant) to my understanding. I assume you mean that there are obviously going to be laws to stop people from stepping on others to achieve there own happiness? True enough, I agree. Anyway, Hitler was not a true socialist in the strictest sense. Hitler was something unto himself politically speaking. Sometimes refered to as Hitlerism or Nazism, these philosophies are different than socialism technically speaking. And just because a nation adopts socialism does not mean they necessarily must be a dictatorship. There are several countries in the world that could be considered socialist-like and they are quite free and prosperous. The US Federal Republic system DOES have loopholes that would make a dictatorship possible, don't kid yourself! The US has a huge military industrial complex, you couple that with corporate merchantilism and the fact that the US can go virtually unchallenged and you have some seriously dangerous ingredients there! Two of the greatest Presidents warned against exactly what is going on in America today, Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D Eisenhower. Their words ring true to me and I see it happening.

The rights of the average American people are violated every day by the privledged in America and nothing changes. And I'm not refering to illegals here, I am opposed to illegal immigration 100% in every way shape and form. It is impossible to be selfish and not violate the rights of others, there is no morality in selfishness. Lets not kid ourselves here, lets be honest. the US was founded on the violation of the rights of others, namely native americans and to a lesser extent negro and oriental slaves. But that is neither here nor there, we are in the present and North America is still the best place to be, but it is slipping.

This rational concern for one's self interest over the interest of others, when you really look at it, is animalistic behaviour. It is not the behaviour of a civilized person! Every great spiritual philosophy worth mentioning has always taught the exact opposite. It might actually surprise you but most great spiritual philosophies tend toward Libertarian-socialism or true socialism/communism to some degree or another. If you are an atheist then you won't see my point and this conversation will continue to go in circles and nothing will be accomplished.

You may be right about your assertion of capitalism being human nature. My retort would then be maybe people need to evolve a little more. But for those of us who do have the vision to see a better way.......only time will tell.

[bgwowk]

It is impossible to be selfish and not violate the rights of others, there is no morality in selfishness.

That's absurd. If I run off into the wilderness and live by myself for myself, how am I violating the rights of others?

Alternatively, if I do interact with others, but always by mutual consent, whose rights are being violated, and how?

To claim that people who disengage from others (except by mutual consent) are violating the rights of others is to assert that enslavement is a right. Nobody has a "right" over the life and products of others. Nobody.

[drus]

If you run off into the woods and live by yourself, how is that selfish? Of course you're not violating anyone's rights! But it could still be a selfish act if you have left your family behind with all the bills or ran to escape some responsibility.

Interaction by mutual consent is symbiosis. How is that selfish?

Your last statement doesn't click with me as regards selfishness. I fail to see how it pertains to the quote? And I agree with your last sentence, 99.9%

[bgwowk]

Interaction by mutual consent is symbiosis. How is that selfish?

Interaction by mutual consent has a common name: capitalism. The essence of capitalism is that economic exchanges should be by mutual consent of the exchanging parties. This freedom of mutual interaction can be used by for selfish or unselfish purposes as individuals desire.

You shouldn't focus so much on "selfishness" and "unselfishness" in political discussions because of the inherent ambiguity of these terms. Is a person doing good for others because it makes herself feel good being selfish or unselfish? Let philosophers debate that. The primary concern of political systems should be whether transactions are by consent or force, not the mental/spiritual state of those doing the transacting. Horrible atrocities can and have been committed by those with the purest of motives.

And I agree with your last sentence, 99.9%

Then I strongly encourage you to read Atlas Shrugged. Do so not because everything in it is correct, but because it will certainly give you a different perspective on socialism and capitalism that you sorely need.

[drus]

You haven't convinced me of anything. It's the same BS rhetoric you always hear from capitalists. By the way, go back and read all of my posts before you jump on me!

[bgwowk]

It's the same BS rhetoric you always hear from capitalists.

What, that nobody has a "right" over the life and products of others? You just endorsed that:

And I agree with your last sentence, 99.9%

P.S. In my last post, please replace "sorely need" with "benefit from". I'm sorry that you feel jumped on, but when you call capitalists uncivilized, immoral animals (look back at your message) don't be surprised when they take it personally.

Edited by bgwowk, 18 November 2006 - 12:27 AM.

[drus]

I apologize. I guess it was just a reaction to socialists being called immoral. In the thread 'socialism vs capitalism' there are some good talks happening.

[bgwowk]

Perhaps we should just stipulate that capitalists and socialists each consider the other as immoral and move on.

[drus]

I can deal with that. *shakes hand of bgwowk* No hard feelings, nothing personal ok? Hey, at least we have cryonics in common. Peace bro.

[RighteousReason]

Competition breeds death, cooperation breeds life!

Life and death are not so easily defined within the concepts of competition and cooperation, or any presumed dichotomy thereof.

[scottl]

(drus)
To equate socialism as breeding laziness.... is misleading, unethical capitalist propaganda.

If this is true, I'm sure you'll have no trouble explaining why people should work if they are handed a free lunch.

[RighteousReason]

To equate socialism as breeding laziness.... is misleading, unethical capitalist propaganda.

Its not misleading or unethical or capitalist or propaganda.

Its an empirical observation of some implementations of socialism in the past.

[cellfighter]

rasputin ‘I can’t find where I said this specifically, but I will say that any form of collectivism is evil; it is only a matter of degree.’

I disagree with you on this and countless other points.

Throughout human history and intrinsic to human nature is the need and want of interdependency.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract is essential to the foundation of any civilized advanced society.

Perhaps you need to review your Anthropology.

Even Socrates knew the important with his Unspoken "Contract" in The Crito.

If tyranny concerns you Locke’s right to revolution (Two Treatises of Government) social contract theory should satisfy your concerns.

Evil you say? Are you referring to Irish evil as a religious concept?

[bgwowk]

Throughout human history and intrinsic to human nature is the need and want of interdependency.

Humans are social animals, and there is no disputing the tremendous economic benefits of division of labor. The question of socialism vs. capitalism is the question of mechanism of interaction. Should transactions be by mutual consent, or should the lives and property of individuals be subjected to forceful expropriation when others deem such action "beneficial" for social good?

There is nothing wrong with a group of people *voluntarily* forming a community in which a large portion of everyone's income is devoted to common causes, or in which money doesn't even exist at all. The problem is when people who don't want to participate are *forced* to participate.

[drus]

Just when I thought I was out, they keep pulling me back in! LOL!

But suddenly new contenders emerge......

Guys I'm sorry but I refuse to argue about this anymore, it is simple for me, I have no need to prove where I stand on this issue.

[AaronCW]

Perhaps the true nature of the disagreement between us lays in your assumption that I am a strict socialist. I can't remember now, but I think I did mention somewhere in this thread that I'm in fact (politically-ideologically) a libertarian-socialist. There is a fundamental difference between the two. I'm not going to try to define the specifics here, wikipedia it if you want to see my point. There are however other philosophies in my ideology as well, some namely being egalitarianism, techno-utopianism and ultrahumanism (my own personal version of transhumanism). There is no hard and fast word to define my personal socio-politico philosophy yet in existence, so I am forced to resort to some of the previously mentioned words and phrases. I will therefore no longer be arguing for or defending straight socialism as the world has come to know it (which I still would argue that it is not true socialism but none the less) but rather speak in defense of libertarian-socialism and when necessary throw in my other ideologies and how they would play into the picture.

Although I am not an avid supporter of Libertarianism*, I will still maintain that it stands in direct conflict with Socialism (as far as the traditional meaning of the two terms are concerned). As far as the Libertarian-Socialism doctrine is concerned (as an independent concept), it not only negates private property (which is the only implementation for safeguarding any and all individual rights), it also negates the structural foundation of government, and would quickly, if not immediately, slide into gang warfare and anarchy.

*The actual basis of which is Objectivism, though the founders did not recognize it, and still fail to realize that politics is the final manifestation of a culture's dominant philosophy, not the inspiration.

As to your talk of the right to pursuit of happiness. I find your understanding of this to be slightly strange (no offense meant) to my understanding. I assume you mean that there are obviously going to be laws to stop people from stepping on others to achieve there own happiness? True enough, I agree. Anyway, Hitler was not a true socialist in the strictest sense. Hitler was something unto himself politically speaking. Sometimes refered to as Hitlerism or Nazism, these philosophies are different than socialism technically speaking. And just because a nation adopts socialism does not mean they necessarily must be a dictatorship. There are several countries in the world that could be considered socialist-like and they are quite free and prosperous. The US Federal Republic system DOES have loopholes that would make a dictatorship possible, don't kid yourself! The US has a huge military industrial complex, you couple that with corporate merchantilism and the fact that the US can go virtually unchallenged and you have some seriously dangerous ingredients there! Two of the greatest Presidents warned against exactly what is going on in America today, Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D Eisenhower. Their words ring true to me and I see it happening (italics mine).

Any civilized society requires a government in order to create the conditions under which individuals can act as a civilized society. The government must, therefore, have the following responsibilities; protect people from force or fraud (ie. police), protect people from foreign invasion (ie. military), and provide a system of ethical and objective laws by which the people must act (which is provided by Congress and must withstand the scrutiny of the courts) and by which the government must act (the Constitution). Thus, the only proper function (aside from the facilitation of money trasfers) of government is to protect individual rights.

You're correct when you point out that the Constitution does contain loopholes for the development of a Dictatorship. The progression of which is occurring before our eyes; pressure group warfare over government handouts (which the government has no business handing out).

The rights of the average American people are violated every day by the privledged in America and nothing changes. And I'm not refering to illegals here, I am opposed to illegal immigration 100% in every way shape and form. It is impossible to be selfish and not violate the rights of others, there is no morality in selfishness. Lets not kid ourselves here, lets be honest. the US was founded on the violation of the rights of others, namely native americans and to a lesser extent negro and oriental slaves. But that is neither here nor there, we are in the present and North America is still the best place to be, but it is slipping.

This is blatantly incorrect!! It is obvious that America has some blood on its hands, but the act of relocating and effectively wiping out the Natives stood in direct conflict with the US Constitution. Additionally, the institution of slavery and of legally enforced segragation was also unconstitutional. Slavery was an institution of the agrarian south which brought their concept of slavery (feudalism) and the aristocratic ideal over from Europe. This evil was ultimately abolished by the Capitalist north.

This rational concern for one's self interest over the interest of others, when you really look at it, is animalistic behaviour. It is not the behaviour of a civilized person! Every great spiritual philosophy worth mentioning has always taught the exact opposite. It might actually surprise you but most great spiritual philosophies tend toward Libertarian-socialism or true socialism/communism to some degree or another. If you are an atheist then you won't see my point and this conversation will continue to go in circles and nothing will be accomplished.

What sort of animals are you referring to? Humans are the only animals with a free will, and the capacity for rational conceptual thinking. Therefore, under the necessary conditions (ie. a government which respects and protects individual rights), humans are free to live in whatever way they wish (the government being a persons protect against others who would violate their rights). This is the only rational, civilized, and moral existence possible.

[AaronCW]

 

‘I can’t find where I said this specifically, but I will say that any form of collectivism is evil; it is only a matter of degree.’

1. I disagree with you on this and countless other points.

2. Throughout human history and intrinsic to human nature is the need and want of interdependency.

3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract is essential to the foundation of any civilized advanced society.

Perhaps you need to review your Anthropology.

Even Socrates knew the important with his Unspoken "Contract" in The Crito.

4. If tyranny concerns you Locke’s right to revolution (Two Treatises of Government) social contract theory should satisfy your concerns.

5. Evil you say? Are you referring to Irish evil as a religious concept?

Welcome to the forum, Cellfighter. I am happy to debate these points with you.

1. I will maintain and defend this position.

2. I will refer readers to the response posted by bgwowk (well said, bgwowk).

3. The concept of a 'social contract' is somewhat useful, although it is inaccurate in the legal sense. Rousseau's version of the social contract, however, is an a collectivist doctrine, as it requires that the individual sacrifice their own rights and freedoms to a mystical power, known as the "general will" of the people. It specifically indicated that society is somehow 'greater' than society; that it is more that just a number of individuals. This doctrine has no rational basis.

4. I'm not sure what the relevence is of this reference. Of course a society must have considerable protections against the government (this is the function of the US Constitution), and retain the ability to overthrow a government if it strays to far from its proper functions, or arrogates too much power to itself. Locke's theory of the social contract, although containing many contradictions, was an inspiration to the writers of the US Constitution, and helped to create the conditions under which Capitilism was able to function and people were able to exist in a state of freedom for the first time in human history.

5. Evil, by definition, is that which is "Morally bad or wrong; wicked" (American Heritage Dictionary). Morality is not a concept that belongs to any religion, to religion itself, or to culture. A system of ethics, or morality, is founded upon some standard of good or right, by which the bad or wrong may be contrasted. Although throughout most of human history, including today, religion has arrogated to itself the responsibility of determining this standard (which has typically been that most irrational and dangerous of concepts; altruism), there is no reason why this should be so. A system of ethics/morality may be founded upon a rational standard of good; respect for the life of the individual, and the protection of individual rights. I am unfamiliar with the concept of 'Irish Evil'. Sounds cool, but how does it differ from the normal evil?

[drus]

It's obvious this contest between us will not be settled. I will never convince you and you have no chance of ever convincing me, so I concede, you win. Either way we have to get up everyday and go to work and go about our business. I guess I'll just have to wait for time to prove me right.

[cellfighter]

  imminst

Welcome to the forum, Cellfighter. I am happy to debate these points with you.

Thank you RAS. I am equally if not more happy to engage you on this topic.

  1. I will maintain and defend this position.

I know you believe that but considering I find your beliefs to be illogical I will simply deconstruct you on every aspect of your position.

  2. I will refer readers to the response posted by bgwowk (well said, bgwowk).

Not everything in life should be free. Just as we are born with “certain rights” we therefore are also born with certain responsibilities too.

  3. The concept of a 'social contract' is somewhat useful, although it is inaccurate in the legal sense. Rousseau's version of the social contract, however, is an a collectivist doctrine, as it requires that the individual sacrifice their own rights and freedoms to a mystical power, known as the "general will" of the people. It specifically indicated that society is somehow 'greater' than society; that it is more that just a number of individuals. This doctrine has no rational basis.

The general will as you put it is the best aspects of our Democracy.

  4. I'm not sure what the relevence is of this reference. Of course a society must have considerable protections against the government (this is the function of the US Constitution), and retain the ability to overthrow a government if it strays to far from its proper functions, or arrogates too much power to itself. Locke's theory of the social contract, although containing many contradictions, was an inspiration to the writers of the US Constitution, and helped to create the conditions under which Capitalism was able to function and people were able to exist in a state of freedom for the first time in human history.

Under capitalism, Marx writes, everything in nature and everything that human beings are and can do becomes an object: a resource for, or an obstacle, to the expansion of production, the development of technology, the growth of markets, and the circulation of money. For those who manage and live from capital, nothing has value of its own. Mountain streams, clean air, human lives -- all mean nothing in themselves, but are valuable only if they can be used to turn a profit. [1] If capital looks at (not into) the human face, it sees there only eyes through which brand names and advertising can enter and mouths that can demand and consume food, drink, and tobacco products. If human faces express needs, then either products can be manufactured to meet, or seem to meet, those needs, or else, if the needs are incompatible with the growth of capital, then the faces expressing them must be unrepresented or silenced.

Obviously what capitalist enterprises do have consequences for the well being of human beings and the planet we live on. Capital profits from the production of food, shelter, and all the necessities of life. The production of all these things uses human lives in the shape of labor, as well as the resources of the earth. If we care about life, if we see our obligations in each others faces, then we have to want all the things capital does to be governed by that care, to be directed by the ethical concern for life. But feeding people is not the aim of the food industry, or shelter the purpose of the housing industry. In medicine, making profits is becoming a more important goal than caring for sick people.

As capitalist enterprises these activities aim single-mindedly at the accumulation of capital, and such purposes as caring for the sick or feeding the hungry becomes a mere means to an end, an instrument of corporate growth. Therefore ethics, the overriding commitment to meeting human need, is left out of deliberations about what the heavyweight institutions of our society are going to do. Moral convictions are expressed in churches, in living rooms, in letters to the editor, sometimes even by politicians and widely read commentators, but almost always with an attitude of resignation to the inevitable.

People no longer say, "You can't stop progress," but only because they have learned not to call economic growth progress. They still think they can't stop it. And they are right -- as long as the production of all our needs and the organization of our labor is carried out under private ownership. Only a minority ("idealists") can take seriously a way of thinking that counts for nothing in real world decision making. Only when the end of capitalism is on the table will ethics have a seat at the table.

[1] See passage from the Grundrisse cited in John Bellamy Foster, "The Communist Manifesto and the Environment," The Socialist Register (1998), p. 184.

  5. Evil, by definition, is that which is "Morally bad or wrong; wicked" (American Heritage Dictionary). Morality is not a concept that belongs to any religion, to religion itself, or to culture. A system of ethics, or morality, is founded upon some standard of good or right, by which the bad or wrong may be contrasted. Although throughout most of human history, including today, religion has arrogated to itself the responsibility of determining this standard (which has typically been that most irrational and dangerous of concepts; altruism), there is no reason why this should be so. A system of ethics/morality may be founded upon a rational standard of good; respect for the life of the individual, and the protection of individual rights. I am unfamiliar with the concept of 'Irish Evil'. Sounds cool, but how does it differ from the normal evil?

Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand. Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of self interest backed by force.

Do you believe in moral relativism or Moral universalism RAS?

[AaronCW]

Not everything in life should be free. Just as we are born with “certain rights” we therefore are also born with certain responsibilities too.

We are born with the right to our own life, and the right to product of our efforts. The only responsibility or obligation an individual has is to refrain from violating the rights of others.

The general will as you put it is the best aspects of our Democracy.

Sorry, but this doesn't even make sense. Please explain further.

Under capitalism, Marx writes, everything in nature and everything that human beings are and can do becomes an object: a resource for, or an obstacle, to the expansion of production, the development of technology, the growth of markets, and the circulation of money. For those who manage and live from capital, nothing has value of its own. Mountain streams, clean air, human lives -- all mean nothing in themselves, but are valuable only if they can be used to turn a profit. [1] If capital looks at (not into) the human face, it sees there only eyes through which brand names and advertising can enter and mouths that can demand and consume food, drink, and tobacco products. If human faces express needs, then either products can be manufactured to meet, or seem to meet, those needs, or else, if the needs are incompatible with the growth of capital, then the faces expressing them must be unrepresented or silenced.

Obviously what capitalist enterprises do have consequences for the well being of human beings and the planet we live on. Capital profits from the production of food, shelter, and all the necessities of life. The production of all these things uses human lives in the shape of labor, as well as the resources of the earth. If we care about life, if we see our obligations in each others faces, then we have to want all the things capital does to be governed by that care, to be directed by the ethical concern for life. But feeding people is not the aim of the food industry, or shelter the purpose of the housing industry. In medicine, making profits is becoming a more important goal than caring for sick people.

As capitalist enterprises these activities aim single-mindedly at the accumulation of capital, and such purposes as caring for the sick or feeding the hungry becomes a mere means to an end, an instrument of corporate growth. Therefore ethics, the overriding commitment to meeting human need, is left out of deliberations about what the heavyweight institutions of our society are going to do. Moral convictions are expressed in churches, in living rooms, in letters to the editor, sometimes even by politicians and widely read commentators, but almost always with an attitude of resignation to the inevitable.

People no longer say, "You can't stop progress," but only because they have learned not to call economic growth progress. They still think they can't stop it. And they are right -- as long as the production of all our needs and the organization of our labor is carried out under private ownership. Only a minority ("idealists") can take seriously a way of thinking that counts for nothing in real world decision making. Only when the end of capitalism is on the table will ethics have a seat at the table.

The last sentence of this excerpt is the only idea that needs to be addressed (the preceding is merely a justification for this final conclusion). The truth is that Capitalism can only operate under the condition that individual rights are secured, and these are also the only conditions under which ethics are valid. Morality is a conviction held by the individual, and this can be practiced only if the individual is free to express and act upon their moral convictions. Morality is destroyed and becomes meaningless when the freedom of the individual is suppressed by the state. Government is the only institution which is capable of suppressing morality and ethics; not private individuals or corporations.

The Altruist morality, aside from being irrational and impractible, is only useful as a justication for imposing government control over as many aspects of social and economic life as possible, with a totalitarian government being the unavoidable and logical conclusion.

Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand. Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of self interest backed by force.

Do you believe in moral relativism or Moral universalism RAS?

Society does consist of a sum of individuals, the relations which they have to each other are irrelevant so long as no one is violating the rights of others. The effective power of Capitalism is self interest, but this power is not backed by force unless the government is involved.

Moral relativism is not a moral position at all, it is a negation of morality. No morality can be valid without an objective standard (religious philosophies bypass this requirement by presuming that their mystical moral standard exists). Moral universalism as a concept does apply to what I would consider a valid moral philosophy, although it is too broad a term to indicate what particular philosophy a person suscribes to. Most religious philosophies can be considered universal moral philosophies (although most of them condemn the vast majority of non-believers to eternal suffering). I believe that a moral philosophy must have a standard that is not only objective (in reality), but rational as well.