#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Capitalism & Communism - Same
Add New Argument |
Capitalism doesn't make slaves of the common people, it permits the common people to rise to the top through merit and hard work, unlike communism. There are plenty of issues with our iteration of capitalism, however it has created the most meritocratic society in known history. " what is arbitrarily deemed valuable by society (often) does not necessarily align with what is most objectively insightful/useful/productive/ect." Does society assign arbitrary value to your labor/service/product or do you and your employer/client/customer negotiate the value of your labor/service/product? @WinstonC Does society assign arbitrary value to your labor/service/product or do you and your employer/client/customer negotiate the value of your labor/service/product? Society is the collection of people living together in a somewhat ordered manner (to varying degree) which includes employer/client/customer/ect. The current system is essentially catering to the average persons ignorance, delusions, mammalian instincts/world view, ect. ect. (as they are in the overwhelming majority) and unless this is fundamentally challenged, then it will always inevitably produce a highly dysfunctional society (dangerously so--as is our current situation). What is so interesting about our modern society is that if it were objectively looked at from an outside perspective, it would appear as though the average human is much more knowledgeable/intelligent then we actually are. Really, we are all piggy-backing off of an extreme minority of people and most of those "piggy-backing" are not even cognizant of this dynamic (i.e. they never even think about it, they basically think it is magic and take it for granted). Since most people don't recognize what goes into making a society such as ours function and do not understand who is responsible for all of the "toys" and how it was achieved, they naturally look elsewhere for "importance"/"value". However, I 100% guarantee you if the 1 million top technical researchers/developers/ect. were removed from Earth today, reality would hit the rest of humanity in the face hard as sh't very quickly (it wouldn't even take the top 1 million, it is much more like the top 100,000 or so--or less) and would be forced to recognize how incredibly fragile our system since people are trained that it is okay for them to have the worldview of any other Mammal while simultaneously basing society around technology that fundamentally requires a much higher level of knowledge/intelligence to operate/maintain properly/continue progressing. "The current system is essentially catering to the average persons ignorance, delusions, mammalian instincts/world view, ect. ect. (as they are in the overwhelming majority) and unless this is fundamentally challenged, then it will always inevitably produce a highly dysfunctional society (dangerously so--as is our current situation)." Are you saying that instead of attempting to cater to people we should force people to want what we think they should want? "Really, we are all piggy-backing off of an extreme minority of people and most of those "piggy-backing" are not even cognizant of this dynamic" You say this, yet the work of the ignorant majority creates the environment and circumstances in which the intelligentsia can do their work. "I 100% guarantee you if the 1 million top technical researchers/developers/ect. were removed from Earth today, reality would hit the rest of humanity in the face hard as sh't very quickly" I guarantee you that if all the plumbers disappeared multitudes of additional people would die by disease due to excrement piling up in the cities. Everybody makes a contribution at their level of the hierarchy and removing any particular part of the structure of our society would cause massive problems. I actually think that researchers and developers being removed wouldn't be a big deal in the short term because R&D;don't maintain the products we currently use, unlike electricians and repairmen. Obviously in the long term it would be a major issue though, since they drive progress. "people are trained that it is okay for them to have the worldview of any other Mammal" Are people trained like this? How? "while simultaneously basing society around technology that fundamentally requires a much higher level of knowledge/intelligence to operate/maintain properly/continue progressing." I feel that society is based on providing humans with what they need to survive and flourish, with technology as a major contemporary aid in accomplishing this (is this what you mean?). @WinstonC Are you saying that instead of attempting to cater to people we should force people to want what we think they should want? Their are necessary activities that people must engage in to survive and further to thrive. If someone values destroying the Ecosystem, not contributing the necessary functions in society that allows it to be place/sustain itself, ect. ect. then--Yes, their priorities need to be re-focused or you don't have a society/system capable of sustaining itself You say this, yet the work of the ignorant majority creates the environment and circumstances in which the intelligentsia can do their work. I am well aware of this and it is essentially the backbone of my argument. I have addressed the exact point you are making here in quite significant length and detail elsewhere on CD (I can link you to it if you like) I guarantee you that if all the plumbers disappeared multitudes of additional people would die by disease due to excrement piling up in the cities. Everybody makes a contribution at their level of the hierarchy and removing any particular part of the structure of our society would cause massive problems. I actually think that researchers and developers being removed wouldn't be a big deal in the short term because R&D;don't maintain the products we currently use, unlike electricians and repairmen. Obviously in the long term it would be a major issue though, since they drive progress. First, what you are stating is exactly the bedrock of my argument (I think you may be assuming quite a lot about my position based on lack of information at the moment) Second, there are far more people capable of becoming plumbers than would be ready to take up the mantel of expert-level technical research as the learning curves involved are many deviations apart Are people trained like this? How? Yes. I have discussed this in quite some length & detail elsewhere on CD (I can link you to it if you still have a bone to pick with me about the matter) I feel that society is based on providing humans with what they need to survive and flourish, with technology as a major contemporary aid in accomplishing this (is this what you mean?). Yes, and moreover, if Modern Tech. were swiftly taken out of the equation, the ability of humans to survive and flourish based n modern standards would exist with it. If I understand correctly you're saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that our society is dependent on technology and that people are seeking quick thrills over long term concerns (e.g. environmental). I can agree that this can cause problems, what then is your solution to this issue? My apologies for jumping in the middle of this thread, but it is interesting. Society is the collection of people living together in a somewhat ordered manner Society doesn’t make decisions. Society doesn’t determine what is valuable, individuals do. Nor is any individual in a position to determine what is “ most objectively insightful/useful/productive” for all the individuals of a society. If a large percentage of individuals decide that Borat is valuable, in a capitalist society, it has nothing to do with me. Under Communism, where they believe society actually does make value judgement that must be enforced, I have no choice about accepting Borat, whether I find it valuable or not. The view of society as an entity with primacy over the individuals which compose it, is an important fundamental distinction between the premises of Communism vs the premises of Capitalism. The current system is essentially catering to the average persons ignorance, delusions, mammalian instincts/world view Is it your view that what most people determine to do with their time or purchase with their money is merely a matter of ignorance? Would you propose to better a persons life by choosing for them what is best for them? it will always inevitably produce a highly dysfunctional society I would like to know what you consider a functional society. Perhaps your opinion on the matter is based on ignorance, delusion, and mammalian instinct. If someone could successfully argue that it is, would they then be in a position to determine what is functional? if the 1 million top technical researchers/developers/ect. were removed from Earth today, reality would hit the rest of humanity in the face hard as sh't very quickly Humanity would certainly notice when the managers who rely on developers start paying astronomical starting salary for anyone who can get the job done and universities see a dramatic shift in enrollment demand. If you removed a million top technical researcher and developers, the market would adjust. It is a matter of mammalian instinct to have an inflated perception of the importance of ones own work, what happens to be your vocation? If someone values destroying the Ecosystem, not contributing the necessary functions in society that allows it to be place/sustain itself, ect. ect. then--Yes, their priorities need to be re-focused or you don't have a society/system capable of sustaining itself What do you believe constitutes a contribution to the necessary function in society? There are people in the Appalachians who basically still live on barter with their neighbors. Their society is much smaller than ours. Should we re-focus them? if Modern Tech. were swiftly taken out of the equation, the ability of humans to survive and flourish based n modern standards would exist with it This is a truism. If modern tech were swiftly taken out of the equation, where would we be? The 1980’s? The recovery would be swift. All that is somewhat beside the point. The value we place on different goods and services varies with individuals. Your opinion that most people do not appreciate what they should is the same opinion that most people have about everyone else. Which is why it would be a mistake to give a few of those people the ability to enforce their personal values on the whole. @Amarel My apologies for jumping in the middle of this thread, but it is interesting. The more the merrier Society doesn’t make decisions. Society doesn’t determine what is valuable, individuals do. I know, I addressed this. "Society" is the label applied to a collection individuals who have agreed to live together (explicitly or tacitly) in a somewhat ordered state (to varying degrees) Nor is any individual in a position to determine what is “ most objectively insightful/useful/productive” for all the individuals of a society. Not any one individual, however the "society" does in fact agree to what activities/functions are necessary to engage in to survive, thrive, sustain itself, ect. ect. Here is a former post of mine in a separate thread discussing a similar matter of relevance to this topic here: Consider for a moment if society had to start from scratch tomorrow. Now, if you want to survive there are certain necessities that are required such as food, protection, shelter, ect. This requires contributors, at minimum people who find and prepare food, construct/find some form of shelter that gives some level of protection from the environment and/or other animals, care for the young, ect. This is very rudimentary however it still requires people to step-up and work, not guys that simply goof around and wrestle with each other all day (i.e. athletes) or perpetually gawking over some hot chick's ass to the point that you give them all your resources (i.e. celebrity culture). Now, unless you want to live in a perpetually primitive state (i.e. quasi Anarcho-Primitivism), than you require people of practical intelligence (i.e. architects, engineers, scientists, ect.) to plan and organize with workers willing and able to put such plans into motion (i.e. construction workers, "blue collar" laborers, farmers, repairs, waste management, ect.). After a certain level of advancement is achieved, then this will sufficiently free things up for other creative/intellectual work (i.e. artists, other intellectual pursuits that lack practical application but nevertheless are highly enriching, ect.). Even then, society does not require much of what goes on in Celebrity culture and the like (e.g. think of ET network, reality TV, ect. ect.) which serves no purpose to society other than being harmful. Note, our Modern World only feels disconnected from the thought experiment described above, however this remains our situation--we are just starting from a framework that is already in place rather than scratch. Now, is it a scientific fact that describing some courses of action for society rather than others is more rational?--No. However, that doesn't mean that it is entirely arbitrary either and anyone with even the most rudimentary Philosophical sophistication would comprehend that. We need to (at least) start incentivizing people to use their Frontal Lobes (if not demanding it)--you know, behave like Homo Sapiens rather than Bonobo Apes (the latter being quite seriously how our current society is largely structured around/product of and this is how people largely behave in a "Free Market" as well as many versions of "Constrained Markets" that don't fundamentally challenge the underlying dynamics at work) This is exactly what is happening right now under the current model--with severe consequences No. It isn’t. The few fundamental necessary values that are enforced have to do with criminal law, not consumer habits. Nobody makes me listen to this over that, or watch this over that. How would "the Market" adjust for the very few percentage of people currently aware, able, & willing to perform such work vanishing from the planet? Exactly the way I described in my post. No sector is stagnant. People come and go from specialty fields all the time. If some disaster created high demand for specialists in a given field, that field would find it's specialists. Rather, specialists would find that field given the monetary incentives that would come with such a specialist supply shock. There are capable people on this planet of 7.6 billion. jobs such as Professional Athlete, Justin Bieber-type musics, Actors/Actresses, ect. ect. are not the disciplines contributing to the absolutely necessary functions that maintain & build upon our current system If the necessary functions were not being met, we would not have athletes and Biebers. But they are being met. This matter is not nearly as arbitrary as you are attempting to argue. Whether it’s arbitrary or not, you haven’t said what you consider to be a functional society, nor have you said whether someone else would be better suited to determine what is a functional society if they deem your analysis to be overly mammalian or ignorant. You're essentially holding up the "hurt-feelings card" My feelings aren’t hurt, your just incorrect. overwhelming bulk of the population are behaving in very primitive People are behaving less primitively than ever before. A trend with little indication of slowing. Not only is it the most peaceful time in human history, but general IQ’s are rising. have only managed to amass a view of the world not all that different from other Mammals There is little similarity between the world view of a human, and that of any given other type of animal. I am discussing huge, over-arching decisions that are fundament to the health and self-sufficiency of a society What you are not discussing is an answer to my question. If the collective choices of individuals (based on ignorance and animal impulse) pushes society in an unhealthy direction (in your view), then what alterations would you propose to individual decisions, and how would you propose to enforce these alterations? Amarel, what people of your current perspective fail to understand is that your "knee-jerk" reaction & outcries of "Communism" anytime you hear an alternative to "Laissez Faire Capitalism" is about as valid as modern Leftists SJW types outcries of "Hitler/Nazism/Fascism" anytime they hear an alternative to their Neo-Marxist ideology Perhaps you’ve failed to notice the title of this debate. You also do not likely know what premises I am referring to. Individualism vs collectivism is not strictly a matter of capitalism vs communism. Not any one individual, however the "society" does in fact agree to what activities/functions are necessary to engage in to survive, thrive, sustain itself You will find consensus on the truly essential matters. But you will not find consensus on what is truly essential. You will find even less consensus on what non-essentials are to be valued. You are concerned with the presence of non-essentials, but remember that they would not exist if the essentials were not already accounted for. Consider for a moment if society had to start from scratch tomorrow Now consider why society would start at all. if you want to survive there are certain necessities that are required such as food, protection, shelter, ect. This requires contributors Now consider what happens when you have far more contributors than are necessary. What non-essential contributions should be valued? Who should decide? You? Even then, society does not require much of what goes on in Celebrity culture and the like (e.g. think of ET network, reality TV, ect. ect.) which serves no purpose to society other than being harmful Harmful to whom? Not me. We need to (at least) start incentivizing people to use their Frontal Lobes (if not demanding it) Jobs that require greater use of the frontal lobe tends to pay more than those that don’t. The incentive is there. Demanding it is not necessary. behave like Homo Sapiens rather than Bonobo Apes (the latter being quite seriously how our current society is largely structured around/product of and this is how people largely behave in a "Free Market" That’s really absurd. Look up Bonobo Apes on YouTube. There’s a relevant F.A Hayek quote concerning this fatal conceit you are arguing from; “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine the can design.” Your question presupposes the idea that humanity should be organized and have a function. In fact, my humanity need not be organized by anyone but me. My functionality is my concern alone. If I interpret your question as generously as possible, then society works well enough for me at this time. It is currently easier for me to live my life and attain my goals than it would have been at any other time, though likely not as easy as it would be in the future. This generally elevated and progressing state of well-being is the long run result of healthy institutions arising out of enlightenment era philosophies, which I agree with. If it isn't too much trouble, please attempt to put your response in one post. @Amarel Your question presupposes the idea that humanity should be organized and have a function. In fact, my humanity need not be organized by anyone but me. My functionality is my concern alone. I thought you were going to say something exactly like this. Would you have said the same thing if you lived in Orwell's "1984" or do you think you may have considered possible hypothetical ideals for society to strive for since the society you currently inhabited was so fundamentally dysfunctional & unjust (as the main character in the novel does)? That is, ironically, your statement is only generated because of your next remark, "If I interpret your question as generously as possible, then society works well enough for me at this time". You are looking at society through your particular, biased lense & attempting to claim that you are looking at the situation "objectively" with no Philosophical underpinnings as to how "humanity should be organized" nor even if it should "have a function". Conversely, I have stated my biases up front (as I see them) Essentially, your position/viewpoint is in line with the narrative/argument promoted in Fukuyama's book "The End of History and the Last Man" What are your thoughts in this regard? You are looking at society through your particular, biased lense & attempting to claim that you are looking at the situation "objectively" I understand that my perspective on everything is necessarily subjective. As such, I know that I never claimed to be looking at the situation "objectively". I have to wonder what else you have read that I haven't written. You said that society in "1984" is dysfunctional, but you haven't once said what it means for society to be functional. I expect society in 1984 was perfectly functional as far as the villainous inner circle was concerned. Any perceived dysfunction is simply the result of you disagreeing with the values those intelligent few imposed on the rest of society. Tell me again why that would be a good idea. There are a few questions that have gone unanswered: How would you alter my consumer choices to make my life better? and What does a "functional" society look like to you? I saw in your link that you are essentially advocating "switching off of a "preference based" value to a "utility based" value structure". First, you cannot switch values in this manner, not without extreme oppression. Second, whose utility function decides what I buy? Mine or yours? What I see in your position is not a critique of societies economics, but rather of societies culture. You don't like the culture, so you don't like the choices made by people within the culture. If it were possible to implement what you want, have you consider what you would be loosing? Devastating are the unintended consequences that invariably result from attempting to direct society according to some intellectual's notion of functional. That's why it's called the fatal conceit. You aren't the first to have it. @Amarel You said that society in "1984" is dysfunctional, but you haven't once said what it means for society to be functional. I expect society in 1984 was perfectly functional as far as the villainous inner circle was concerned. Any perceived dysfunction is simply the result of you disagreeing with the values those intelligent few imposed on the rest of society. Tell me again why that would be a good idea. I find it astonishing that the same person who clearly see the inherent stupidity of Post-Modernism in many areas regarding common Social Issues fails to apply the same reasoning to larger, deeper, more fundamental (social) issues. Mordor from LOTR was surely a highly functional, healthy, robust society from their perspective and "any perceived dysfunction is simply the result of you disagreeing with the values those intelligent few imposed on the rest of society. Tell me again why that would be a good idea?" I'm not going to perpetually engage fatuous arguments regarding Post Modernist Philosophy of the sort Thaddeus Russell (and others) promote. I have explained my meaning of "functional" elsewhere and can copy-paste it here (if desired). However, if your contention stands that Mordor's perspective on what constitutes a "Healthy", "Rational", "Functional", "Productive", "Efficient", "Reasonable", ect. ect. society is unable to be objectively differentiated from that of Star Trek (for instance), then I motion we cut this conversation short as I fear nothing fruitful could potentially manifest from it. That is, my contention is that not all values are of equal legitimacy/merit & we can make judgments about the inherent Superiority and/or Inferiority of differing Value Systems. (Note: This is essentially the same argument typically used as a justification of the West as compared to Middle-Eastern Islamic societies/culture (for instance)--which I was previously under the impression you generally agreed with(?)) I find it astonishing that the same person who clearly see the inherent stupidity of Post-Modernism in many areas regarding common Social Issues fails to apply the same reasoning You fail to see my point, which is not based on post-modernism. I am not advocating the repression of the regime of 1984, I am pointing out that your disagreement with them cannot matter under their system. It cannot matter because they are an elite group of intellectuals that have decided what is rational for everyone else, and imposed it by force. If you disagree with the functionality of their system, too bad. It works for the inner circle that designed it. It doesn’t matter if it works for you. This is not unlike what you are advocating. I, on the other hand, have not promoted anything similar to the hordes Mordor. I have explained my meaning of "functional" elsewhere and can copy-paste it here (if desired) Holy shit. I’ve asked the question several times now and haven’t gotten an answer. Yes. It is desired that you post your answer here. if your contention stands that Mordor's perspective on what constitutes a "Healthy", "Rational", "Functional", "Productive", "Efficient", "Reasonable” That’s not my contention. My contention is that you are not in a position to direct society toward what is "Healthy", "Rational", "Functional", "Productive", "Efficient", "Reasonable”. My contention is that attempts to do so have negative unintended consequences that are never foreseen by those at the helm. My contention is that your proposed system would not be rational in the long run and would not be moral in the short run. Also, my contention is that capitalism is not the same as communism as the OP contends. my contention is that not all values are of equal legitimacy/merit & we can make judgments about the inherent Superiority and/or Inferiority of differing Value Systems. Of course you can make value judgements of this sort. I agree with your assessment of our pop culture. Much of it I do not value. People would often be better served by valuing other things than what they value. But it would not be appropriate for me to take any steps to forcibly alter their legal valuations, nor should the government. The government can do things to alter some of the negative trends in our society, but those things would not include any new impositions. Society would be better served, and liberty better maintained, if the institutional protections against the negative outcomes of behavior were removed. @Amarel It cannot matter because they are an elite group of intellectuals that have decided what is rational for everyone else, and imposed it by force. If you disagree with the functionality of their system, too bad. It works for the inner circle that designed it. It doesn’t matter if it works for you. This is not unlike what you are advocating. I, on the other hand, have not promoted anything similar Yes, you are--which was the initial point I was attempting to get you to be honest about. That is, the "Free Market" system was thought up by intellectuals in order to address perceived social, economic, ect. societal problems. You (and other "Free Market" advocates--e.g. the Libertarian Right) refuse to acknowledge this basic point in an attempt to put the system beyond scrutiny (as is found in essentially any Dogmatism). Now, if you refuse to acknowledge the (patently obvious) fact that the current system (which you generally support) is not a "default" but rather was constructed by intellectuals to the same ends that you were taking issue with--then there is nothing further to discuss (as the conversation will not have even gotten off of the ground yet due to the double standard at work, & lack of universal application of principles). Side Note: Many of the views you promoted are similar to that of the intellectual Thomas Sowell (if you are not familiar with him, I highly recommend his work--I think he has many strong contributions, however his shortcoming is in a failure to acknowledge the point above, which has everything to do with his allegiance to the general format of the current model & Milton Friedman style Economics) I did not say “I, on the other hand, have not promoted anything similar”, I said “I, on the other hand, have not promoted anything similar to the hordes Mordor.” You don’t get to cry for honesty while simoultaniously responding to your own mis-quote of my position. If you study the relevant topic, you will find Sowell’s failure to consider capitalism as a constructed system isn’t a shortcoming. He does this because it isn’t. The “system” of capitalism is more analogous to an ecosystem then a program. Free market principles were observed and analyzed, not created. What was created was the legal framework of property rights and contract. These rights are not exclusive to capitalism. Capitalism results naturally when these rights are left unencumbered. Thus, the parts of capitalism that are constructed systems are only those which limit it, such as regulations and exceptions to rights. If you think that this truth is a conversation stopper because you know the truth to be otherwise, I am all the more glad you aren’t in charge. @Amarel This is what I figured from the off. Your worldview consists of a copy-paste collage of Thomas Sowell, Shapiro, "The End of History and the Last Man", sprinkled with a bit of Sam Harris anti-religion & awareness of Science. If you don't think that does your vision of the world justice--point me to a notable area of Divergence suggestive of original thought beyond this. We agree in areas of "low-hanging fruit" as there are many arguments promoted in the popular culture of our time that are patently absurd (many of which we have touched upon at various points & that the aforementioned intellectuals do quite a good job of "debunking"/addressing). Now, I asked you, "If you had to discuss some Philosophical ideals for Humanity, both in societal organization as well as function given any arbitrary timeline, what would that look like?" and you replied "more or less how things are now at the start of the 21st century, with some tweaks here & there". Hence, we have nothing else to discuss.. I would rather converse with SlaveDevice about the Pros & Cons of his flavor to National Socialism (as at least his extreme measures/vision is predicated upon (A) An understanding & appreciation of deep-rooted, inherent flaws in our current system (B) Deeper hopes, aspirations, ideals for Humanity (C) New thoughts to "chew on"--he is Brainstorming rather than "twiddling-ones-thumbs"). When I talk about such issues, it is from various perspectives/frameworks: (A) Different timelines: (i) Immediate (ii) Short-term (iii) Moderate-term (iv) Ultimate Ideals to strive toward (B) Feasibility vs. Idealism Now, given this outline, do you maintain that for you (A) and (B) all more or less line up with the general program Humanity is following at the moment (in the West)? If so, there really is nothing else to talk about with you unless you want to discuss trivial, fatuous, social issues that are only relevant for the next couple decades or so --------------------------------------- We have had quite some rough patches since I first joined here--with ups & downs. At the moment, it seems we have really hit an impasse unless more information is brought to the fore (here & now, or possibly in the future) Note: To be fair (as I'm sure you may be fuming by this point--and I'm not sure how much more we will be corresponding due to the nature of topic at hand), I view you as well above the awareness/education/thought level of the average Human living today (which is essentially why you are aware of aforementioned intellectuals, are able to understand their respective arguments, seek intellectual activity/discussion which is what attracted you to sites like this to begin with, certainly know more Science than the average Human, & obviously (needless to say) are more "sane" than Nomenclature (who is a loose-cannon, while you are not). My "beef" with you is what I perceive as you getting caught up in The Tide of the Times and a lack of independent Brainstorming I have as of yet not seen produced by you, which I would like to shift. Until such, there is really nothing else of any real substance to discuss I'll see you around the Forum. Cheers, xMathFanx You have asked one question in this recent post, whether I maintained that “Different timelines” and “Feasibility vs Idealism” all more or less line up with the general program Humanity is following at the moment (in the West). I will be happy to answer this question after it is presented more clearly, and after you answer the questions I have asked repeatedly from the beginning. I see this lack of answers from you as an avoidance measure. I am familiar with all of the names you mentioned, if only by name. I appreciate most of them. They are not the sum total of my worldview (you didn’t even mention the only person I quoted. Perhaps you’re unfamiliar). Even if they were, it would not change the accuracy of my position, or somehow make you correct. If you would rather debate others than continue to avoid debating me, be my guest. But on your way out, I would like to make clear the nature of your avoidance. -The reason I know that capitalism is discovered and not created, is because I know how economic models are formed. Look into it. Or keep avoiding it. Adam Smith didn’t write about the need to create an invisible hand. He used the invisible hand as an analogy for what he observed people doing. Mises’s more accurate word for economics was praxeology. If you want to skip the low hanging fruit, read “Human Action”. -Twice now you have misquoted me. That’s a bad habit fan. It’s avoidance at best and dishonest at worst. Let me set the record straight by using quotations as they are intended: You asked “Does our current society somewhat closely resemble your ultimate vision/goals regarding how Humanity should be organized & function?”. And I responded “It is currently easier for me to live my life and attain my goals than it would have been at any other time, though likely not as easy as it would be in the future.” -While you have asked some questions, you can’t seem to paste a reply to the the following questions; What do you believe would make a society functional? And How you change my consumer habits to better my life? So, read what I actually right and assume less, stop misquoting, and make an attempt at answering a question. Or leave… @Amarel xMathFanx: ...Have only managed to amass a view of the world not all that different from other Mammals.. Amarel: There is little similarity between the world view of a human, and that of any given other type of animal. You hardly have the faintest idea of what I am talking about.. and you wonder why I deem conversation with you on such matters as futile(?) Note: Read my longer post under my Education Thread for some further details. Also, I have a conversation with both Jace & FactMachine about this topic I could point you toward--and they quite clearly knew exactly what I was discussing & demonstrated/stated as such. My point?--The problem is you. Hence, unless you can demonstrate elementary comprehension of basic points such as this, than we can't possibly move on to more advanced areas that you claim to want to explore. That is, one doesn't move on to Calculus unless they demonstrate a reasonable understanding of Algebra. If you still can't comprehend what I am discussing after reading those posts (1) I can explain more in a novel way (2) If it still doesn't "click", then there is little hope you will ever grasp it (unless you go through a significant Worldview shift at some later point) Link to Education Thread: www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ArePublicSchoolsDesignedtobePropagandaSystemstoIndoctrinatetheYoung Link to Brief Conversation with Jace: www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Link to Conversation with FactMachine: www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Howdowecurescientificilliteracy#arg857921 You hardly have the faintest idea of what I am talking about.. Of course I do Fan. It’s nothing profound or complicated. When you say “the overwhelming bulk of the population are behaving in very primitive, naïve ways that is highly suggestive of lower-order intelligence”, it’s not over my head. Is it over your head when I point out that a direct comparison to animals is hyperbole? Don’t answer that. Answering isn’t what you do. You are very similar to the art goer who stares at modern art amounting to shit smeared on a canvas. When I come along to inform you that classical realism is better, you take on a smug air and tell me that I must not have an artists eyes and as such, cannot understand the profound depths of feeling and skill required to smear shit on a canvas. For me it is amusing, albeit in a pathetic sort of way. It is the fake intellectualism that I talked about elsewhere. It is the reason you want to get away with simply saying that I don’t understand your perspective, rather than answer the questions which would make clear the holes in it. It’s not that your worn out old view on this is over my head, it’s that we disagree on what to do about a problem that isn’t as big as you think. The problem is you. Whether you had a more pleasant conversation with other debaters is irrelevant. The empty assertion that the problem is thus me, holds no water, especially not on a simplistic topic such as this. I thoroughly illustrated exactly how and why the problem is you. You display a kind of fear of engaging in conversation that too thoroughly undermines your premises or conclusions. The way you run from conversation rather than responding to criticism is indicative of…lets call it a complete lack of intellectual courage. @Amarel Of course I do Fan. I see, you intentionally act lost as a means to muddy the waters/obfuscate the issue--thus, impeding conversation. it’s not over my head This is very much unclear Is it over your head when I point out that a direct comparison to animals is hyperbole? Please.. No. It is intentionally made to be slightly hyperbolic (as anyone who understood what I was discuss would understand). The point remains constant, whether or not you're ready and/or willing to engage with it seems highly unlikely That is, you have managed to derail the conversation--not raise any interesting points You are very similar to... Why should I be in the least interested in your minds attempt to analysis me? In fact, it is quite a relief that we radically disagree/diverge as having strong overlap/agreement with you would be highly suggestive of being on the wrong path. (Note: I didn't even bother reading what came after the quoted excerpt above) Whether you had a more pleasant conversation with other debaters is irrelevant. The empty assertion that the problem is thus me, holds no water, especially not on a simplistic topic such as this. (A) You understand the reference tot he Mammal Snow Globe, in which case we could have moved forward from the off (B) You understand the reference however intentionally want derail the conversation for your own reasons (or simply out of deep habit) (C) You don't understand it--although you think you have your hands around it (D) You very much don't understand it Your response to a lengthy post is to focus on one comment wherein I point out your hyperbole,and now you’re claiming that I have derailed the topic. Look again. There’s more than your hyperbole to discuss. raise any interesting points If you find that I haven’t raised any interest points, it may be because you cannot answer the lightest of probing questions. Try that sometime and see where it leads. If you are going to continue hiding from the points that lie behind the questions you avoid, please fuck off. I’m not hear to validate your worn out ideas. @Amarel The view of society as an entity with primacy over the individuals which compose it, is an important fundamental distinction between the premises of Communism vs the premises of Capitalism. Amarel, what people of your current perspective fail to understand is that your "knee-jerk" reaction & outcries of "Communism" anytime you hear an alternative to "Laissez Faire Capitalism" is about as valid as modern Leftists SJW types outcries of "Hitler/Nazism/Fascism" anytime they hear an alternative to their Neo-Marxist ideology @Amarel Is it your view that what most people determine to do with their time or purchase with their money is merely a matter of ignorance? Would you propose to better a persons life by choosing for them what is best for them? You are inquiring as though choosing different brands/styles/colors to shirts should/would be monitored under the view I'm promoting. I am discussing huge, over-arching decisions that are fundament to the health and self-sufficiency of a society (as I discussed in a separate post) @Amarel I would like to know what you consider a functional society. Perhaps your opinion on the matter is based on ignorance, delusion, and mammalian instinct. If someone could successfully argue that it is, would they then be in a position to determine what is functional? This matter is not nearly as arbitrary as you are attempting to argue. Mammalian instincts are extremely basic & not at all difficult to understand (in a broad context). You're essentially holding up the "hurt-feelings card" that this ("this" being my, as well as others, argument) is submitting that the overwhelming bulk of the population are behaving in very primitive, naïve ways that is highly suggestive of lower-order intelligence that have only managed to amass a view of the world not all that different from other Mammals (which is light-years away from the collective knowledge of Humanity that is "out there" for all to objectively find/acquire/ect.). I have discussed this at quite some length elsewhere and can link you to it if you want to pursue this matter further. @Amarel If you removed a million top technical researcher and developers, the market would adjust. ? How would "the Market" adjust for the very few percentage of people currently aware, able, & willing to perform such work vanishing from the planet? The point is, there is no evidence to suggest that there are currently any noteworthy amounts of people capable of filling this gap (and there is a tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary--that is, the void would remain). It is a matter of mammalian instinct to have an inflated perception of the importance of ones own work, what happens to be your vocation? ? You missed my point. The amount of jobs that are objectively most important to the self-sufficiency to society are vast and varied, however jobs such as Professional Athlete, Justin Bieber-type musics, Actors/Actresses, ect. ect. are not the disciplines contributing to the absolutely necessary functions that maintain & build upon our current system (even though our current model would seem to suggest otherwise through the monetary incentives). Various fields of necessity include Farmers, Construction Workers, Waste Management, many "Blue Collar" Labor intensive work, Medical, Instructors/Teachers, Architects, Engineers, Scientists (depending upon the specific Scientific subject in question--that is, for instance, many areas of Physics research are necessary however Cosmology & such is a luxury, ect. ect.). Disclosure you requested: I'm in my mid-twenties, University Senior studied/majoring in both STEM and Humanities fields, also I've worked Security for a number of years. My father does a "Blue Collar" job, my mother is public school teacher. So... That covers about everything on the spectrum. Btw, are you White? I'm just asking because I have found that White people tend to be so highly biased on racial issues as to all but disqualify them from speaking on the matter. Also, are you Male? I'm just asking because, if so, you best not speak about gender issues considering your inherent bias clouding your judgement. (See where I'm going with this?) @Amarel This is a truism. If modern tech were swiftly taken out of the equation, where would we be?... I understand it is blatantly obvious which is why it is so alarming that the dynamics I have began to discuss here (and have discussed in further detail elsewhere) goes (overwhelmingly) unacknowledged (or even denied) be the general populace. Again, this dynamic I am describing here isn't even controversial in the Scientific Community and elsewhere--as it is frequently discussed & brainstormed about how to best address the dire issue at hand 1
point
1
point
If you don’t understand our money system - here’s a hint>> it is a continuous debt cycle where a chunk goes to people who just print paper and produce nothing real. It only works because of overwhelming faith in nothing. The government does not produce our dollar - it borrows it from a gang of Jews 1
point
1
point
I do not think that you understand Communism Sure we do. Stalin. Mao. Kim Jong Un. Venezuela. It's a lie to obtain omnipotent power and social control. A lie that no group or government ever intends to actually come through on. It's like the cheese on the mousetrap. The offer of free food...then snap! Trapped like a mouse with your brains splattered through your skull. It's how you get the people to actually volunteer to put the shock collars on themselves like blind lemmings walking in lines mindlessly straight off the cliff. 1
point
While China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba officially claim to be communist states, the country that adheres most strictly to communist principles, according to Oxford University scholar Robert Service, is North Korea. Arguing with scholars eh? There's a laugh... Have you noticed that anything with the Communist tag attached to it ends in internet censorship, mass killings, and/or starvation? Why do you think that is? 1
point
1
point
There's a difference between capitalism and communism, because in communism they want to act like they're all equal, but as we've all seen, Stalin has eventually killed millions of people. Capitalism, in contrast, is a more fair thing, because then you've got a higher leader, who will make decisions for you, and you'll still be treated in a rightful way. Isn't that what we want? 0
points
Both extremes eventually peak out with a small percentage living very well off the sweat of the majority. If you study National Socialism, it used the best parts of both ends. It still allows people to be successful and feel motivation to invent and produce. And it culled the Jew currency system that is really a paper slavery. Ah, no. People fail miserably on understanding what communism is. The biggest problem with actual communism is nobody rises, and thus nobody can live off the sweat of the majority. In communism, everybody owns everything, and contributes as they can. Actual communism's failure occurs when people decide they want to own things, or not contribute...and that's not communism. 2
points
In other words, since it's not at all psychologically rewarding to work for someone else's benefit without getting anything yourself, Communism cannot work if humans are in it because humans defy the very work ethic required for it and thus it is defunct for humanity to strive for it. 1
point
In other words, since it's not at all psychologically rewarding to work for someone else's benefit without getting anything yourself I'm looking around at nice houses and vehicles all around me. Strange. Someone had better tell them that hard work doesn't reap benefits or wealth... 1
point
In communism, everybody owns everything, and contributes as they can And yet no Communist countries on planet Earth work this way in real life because it's a fairytale and incredibly unfair if you're willing to work to have more. It's a utopia if you want nothing and don't want to work. It's a dystopia if you do want something and are willing to work for it. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
While China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba officially claim to be communist states, the country that adheres most strictly to communist principles, according to Oxford University scholar Robert Service, is North Korea. No thanks. Capitalism hasn't created a leader who claims to have manifested the color green and literally keeps his dead father's body in a glass transparent coffin in his home. 1
point
Mao.... Mao was a violent, despotic lunatic. The problem is that you don't seem to want to discuss any of the hundreds of other violent, despotic lunatics who have ruled over China. China has seen more blood and war than any country in the West. This is essentially what the far right wing does. It tries to attribute complex problems to false, simplistic causes for ideological reasons. It blames Jews, or blacks, or communists or the disabled. 1
point
1
point
1
point
China has seen more blood and war than any country in the West Oh? So it's not the "European Imperialists" who caused all the heartache in the world? Muslims and Asians and Africans tribalize and kill and war too? Aaaaah...good to see Liberalism hasn't completely destroyed your entire ability to discern reality, but has simply masked it. 1
point
1
point
1
point
|