CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
-Primacy of the individual above group identities.
Agreed. Group identity can have relevance, but not primacy. As a governmental issue, only group identities that are adopted willingly by the individual should have relevance.
-It is better that 1 innocent suffers than 10 guilty people go free.
Because of the human fallibility, the coercive mechanisms of government ought be designed to err on the side of the citizen. As such, it is better that 10 guilty people go free than for 1 innocent person suffer at the hands of the government.
-Each individual is equal under the law.
Equality before the law is derived from the fundamental value that is inherent of a human being. Equality before the law is the only equality that matters. It is the only equality that people can even come near achieving, which is fine because it's the only kind of equality that is practically desirable.
-The ends justify the means.
This is rarely the case. I don't attempt to conceive of scenarios wherein this applies because even when it seems to, our ends are only a target and not a guarantee. Most often how we go about achieving our moral ends must be moral as well.
-The means justify the ends.
Proper means do not ensure proper ends in all cases due to the limits of knowledge and information. However, proper means can reduce culpability when proper ends are missed.
-Power is to be distributed and set against one another.
This is a matter of practicality for the maintenance of just governance. A system where governmental powers have a peaceful means to challenge other governmental powers helps to ensure that previously agreed on principles are maintained.
-Healthcare is a human right.
Human rights are fundamental, even in a state of nature, and cannot rely on the labor of one in the service of another. As such, healthcare bus not a human right. You don't own the labor of medical professionals. However, healthcare can become a statutory right. If a laws grants you that right. Though would say that makes it a privilege.
-An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
An eye for an eye, in principle, is not wrong in all cases. Ghandi said this because groups were set against groups in ongoing civil conflict that needed to end.
-He who is without sin should cast the first stone.
This was just Jesus being clever in a particular case. Sometimes stones must be thrown and they will never be thrown by saints.
-The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Needs don't weigh anything. Whether or not group circumstances allow for demands on individuals depends entirely on the matter in question.
-From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
This is nonsense. Who decides your needs? Who decides your ability? This sentiment is a recipe for slavery and totalitarianism.
-Taxation is theft.
Taxation as such is not theft. No more than living under the security provided by military and police is a theft of their services. There are, however, less coercive means of taxation that would be morally superior to our current system.
-The responsibility of consumption lies with the consumer.
If by this you mean that a person should pay their own way, I would tend to agree generally, though not in all cases.
-Censorship is a necessity in civilised society.
The forms of expression that are morally punishable by law are few and defined. Political expression must in all cases be legal in a free society.
Sometimes stones must be thrown and they will never be thrown by saints.
Yeah. I'd even go further to say that one without sin will often not understand the guilty nor the desire or use of punishment. Pacifism is often the greatest enabler of violence. It is also why one must be capable of defense even when one has no direct desire to acquire or use its means.
Taxation as such is not theft. No more than living under the security provided by military and police is a theft of their services.
True. I don't know where I stand on this one, but I've heard some talk about it, so: Is the absence of consent not relevant here? It is as though ones existence within a country is enough to consent to whatever the state and presumably its populace decides to do with you. It is essentially forcing each person to spend a portion of their life in service of welfare, or of healthcare, or of some government contract, to pakistani gender studies, or to the poor, etc. Often these are hopefully agreeable causes and may even benefit all equally, but regardless it is action enforced under penlty of imprisonment and with consent only of those that impose the particular cause in law. In what other circumstance outside of the state is it acceptable to be forced to buy something?
If by this you mean that a person should pay their own way
Sounds like you might mean cash, credit, etc. I meant the statement to mean that the individual should be allowed to buy what they want 'determine their own needs'. Even if it contributes to climate change, or to sweatshops in India, etc.
The forms of expression that are morally punishable by law are few and defined.
Why don't we flesh out some of the issues around taxation?
First, property tax is wrong on multiple fronts. In addition to paying continual rent for what you own, property tax contributes to a broken educational system. Property tax provides larger funds from richer areas. Thus, the poor are often stuck with sub par education while wealthy areas are better funded.
Taxation in general has a disincentivising effect, that's why there are "sin taxes". That's the practical reason for income tax to be replaced. If there were a federal sales tax structure then you could avoid taxation by avoiding commercial interactions. Commercial interactions, more than any other kind, owe their flourishing to state structures and institutions. As such it is more of a trade in kind to pay tax on transactions rather than on the fruit of ones labor. Furthermore, the highest volume and value of transactions are vastly disproportionately among the wealthy. In this way, a person's "fair share" is determined as a natural consequence of the tax regime.
I make these arguments with the maximization of liberty as my primary goal, but with the concerns of my left leaning friends in mind.
property tax contributes to a broken educational system
What does education have to do with property tax? Could you explain?
Commercial interactions, more than any other kind, owe their flourishing to state structures and institutions.
Forgive me for the tedium, but I'll need examples/more explanation to understand where you're coming from. If I buy a chair from a company, where are the supportive state structures involved?
As such it is more of a trade in kind to pay tax on transactions rather than on the fruit of ones labor
Is one's labour not also a commercial exchange? How is it different to hire a plumber than it is to rent a truck?
I suppose I can't say this is everywhere, but generally it is property tax that funds local schools. Wealthier areas have better public schools because property value is high there.
The cost of doing business is lowered in the US and other places with functional government. We have property and contract laws that increase trust between transacting strangers and a high degree of confidence that goods will safely get from point A to point B. Absent the government, imagine the cost of contract enforcement, the premium payed for guarantees, the security requirements for ones property. Economies don't flourish without government, they flounder and fail.
Ones labor is a commercial exchange, but it's not the only source of income. A sales tax would target only those transactions currently coded as "sales" in tax law. In don't believe that payroll is considered sales. Even so, I would consider including labor pay in a universal sales tax scheme.
No it isn't. For God's sake man, stop with this absurd language. "One" is not given any choice about whether or not to exchange their labour because if people are given a choice about whether or not to sacrifice a third of their lives labouring to make someone else richer then of course they are going to say NO!!!! Capitalism could never function if people could say no!!!
And if people can't say no, then obviously you are not describing a free and wilful commercial exchange!!!! You are describing a system which exploits people for labour!!
What about my example? Requisitioning a table from a solo carpenter?
Working for someone richer is but one option. It is the safe and risk free option and thus the most popular. But theoretically everyone can also be entrepreneurs under capitalism, or even own co-ops, or be voluntary socialists. And those that end up being 'someone richer' tend to be those that take the path of entrepreneur ship and provide for generations of their children, as well as providing those safe and risk free jobs to those that desire them. This is why your precious proletariat don't say 'No'. It is consensual. Free. You can go live on the woods if you don't want to work for money, or heck, you can even live off the taxpayer these days.
Or at least in theory anyway, in practice of course there can be many issues, for which we rely on the government to attempt to resolve. I would say it's one of the least worst systems out there.
But theoretically everyone can also be entrepreneurs under capitalism
That is one of the most stupidly naive notions I have ever heard uttered. Under capitalism, one needs significant (and rising all the time) capital to launch a career as an entrepreneur. Contrary to popular belief over in that whacko country of yours, the free market is not free.
Well, even in the worst case that you start with nothing, one can work one of those safe jobs or take loands, to the point of earning the capital necessary to offer other people to give them what they need to start their business.
You work 'a third of your life' in order to encourage others to work to provide for your needs and desires. Why else should they grow you food, teach you, entertain you, etc. unless you produce for them in kind?
Well, even in the worst case that you start with nothing, one can work one of those safe jobs or take loands
No, that isn't the worst case. This is the worst case:-
According to the USDA's latest Household Food Insecurity in the United States report, more than 35 million people in the United States struggled with hunger in 2019.
You illustrate poignantly the circular reasoning of capitalists. In a worst case you can get a job. If you can't get a job you can get a loan. Except no-one will give you a loan if you don't have a job, so we're back to the job. But, I mean, that's pretty easy right? I mean, there are 142 million jobs and only 328 million people. So at least everyone gets a job, once we dumb people down enough to completely misunderstand basic arithmetic.
The remaining households (10.5 percent, down from 11.1 percent in 2018) were food insecure at least
some time during the year, including 4.1 percent with very low food security (not significantly different from 4.3 percent in 2018). Very low food security is the more severe range
of food insecurity where one or more household members experienced reduced food
intake and disrupted eating patterns at times during the year because of limited money
and other resources for obtaining food. Among children, changes from 2018 in food insecurity and very low food security were not statistically significant. Children and adults
were food insecure in 6.5 percent of U.S. households with children in 2019; very low food
security among children was 0.6 percent. In 2019, the typical food-secure household spent
24 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and
household composition
So, the average American spends 24% more on food that these supposed malnourished, so presumably they get around 80% of the food the others do.
Now, you see, more than 2 in 3 Americans are overweight or obese. They (and much of the west) have an obesity crisis. So maybe you can see why I don't find it very alarming that people are eating 80% of what makes them overweight and obese.
Furthermore, by the standards it states in its methodology someone could qualify as one of those 35 million for any reason between them deciding to eat less food to save money, or if they forgot their wallet at home one day and missed a meal.
Conducting a Survey is the best way to get honest opinions from the people. Most companies in the USA, Canada, UK, and Mexico are conducting an online customer experience survey program to help their customers get genuine feedback regarding their recent visit. I recently participated in the Home Depot customer satisfaction survey on homedepot.com/survey official portal and shared my honest experience with them and entered into the $5000 gift card sweepstakes.
equality refers to identical treatment. equity refers to identical circumstance. roughly, i am shifting the emphasis from means to ends b/c i my concern is less in the treatment of persons and more in their material circumstances. of course, they're not wholly separable and equality will sometimes be in service of equity. but i think the emphasis is better placed on equity.
i increasingly question equity (and equality) as an ideal because i increasingly question the social function of ideals generally. ideals serve a social function of fostering and sustaining narratives, and i am broadly critical of the latter. ideals are rarely secured and the narratives which build up around them generate social expectations which can even be antithetical to the stated ideal. for instance, the ideal of equality is embedded in the classical liberal narrative of public reason and civil discourse. this generates social expectations for how marginalized and oppressed people negotiate their inequity (and inequality) which function to limit the social agency of those people and overtly benefit those oppressing them.
i think there could be practical merit, at least for the marginalized and oppressed, in recognizing that equity and equality are not only idealistic but actively detrimental to effective self-advocacy.
i think inequity is distinct from but closely related to oppression and marginalization. inequity describes the social condition of difference between two or more beings. oppression and marginalization describe the social practices which generate inequity as a condition.
classical liberalism generally predicates much of its metaphysics and ethics upon a conception of reason as objective and impartial. this generates an expectation that individuals answer to reason in their social and political activity. however, reason is in fact subjective and partial (or, put otherwise, we are not capable of objective and impartial reasoning). what is taken as reasonable is in most cases the pre-existing, dominant ideological norms and this casts resistant perspectives as unreasonable, setting the ground for the former to oppress the latter and constraining the ability of some persons' ability to negotiate their interpersonal relationships more than others. this was in some cases a transparently intentional design (e.g. kant; see emmanuel chukwudi eze's "colour of reason"). in other cases i suspect it was more inadvertent (e.g. rawls; their veil of ignorance glosses the partiality which we cannot take aside, implicitly tending to privilege dominant ideologies).
my criticism of ideals does not offer an alternative. i think ideals represent a kind of approach to existence, oriented towards pursuing what cannot be attained for its own sake. i do not think this function needs to be replaced. i think mere instrumentality to immediate interests could suffice.
classical liberalism generally predicates much of its metaphysics and ethics upon a conception of reason as objective and impartial. this generates an expectation that individuals answer to reason in their social and political activity. however, reason is in fact subjective and partial (or, put otherwise, we are not capable of objective and impartial reasoning).
No, reason is not subjective. It is absolutely objective. Two plus two is always four. Darkness always occurs in places where there is no light. We are subjective, and that can make it difficult to follow reason, but reason itself is not subjective. The universe has laws. Those laws can be understood, calculated and followed.
let me give u some advice. spend less time advising others and more time on ur reading comprehension. i knew i was writing to someone with proficiency in that area so i didn't water it down like id have to for ur dense ass.
no u grow up u petulant ignoramus. verbatim i said: "or, put otherwise, we are not capable of objective and impartial reasoning" and ur claiming i didn't say that. ur either comprehension challenged or a willful ass. either way im done w/ u.
Oppression and marginalization lead to inequity, no doubt. My question was meant to clarify whether you believe that inequity is, in all cases, evidence of oppression.
When you say that objective reasoning and impartiality are not possible, do you mean they are an ideal and therefore not fully attainable; or do you mean that he human reason is entirely partial and devoid of objectivity?
I see this post as expounding your position, but I don't see an example. Do you have a modern day, concrete example of classical liberal principles removing a person's social agency and/or causing inequity through oppression?
i do not think that inequity is necessarily evidence of oppression. i think inequity could result from e.g. a natural disaster, geography, etc. without there being the sort of (intentional) action by others towards others that i would characterize as oppression. that said, i think oppression is generally so widespread that there is little to no inequity which is not at least partially caused by oppression.
i think that 'reason' references various constructs, none of which can legitimize themselves internally without begging the question and none of which can legitimize themselves by referencing something outside of themselves without diminishing their strength by virtue of their dependency upon something extra-reasonable. so, i doubt the existence of reason itself. but beyond that, even if one supposes that (something resembling) reason does exist i further doubt that the human mind is capable of anything approaching it given how deeply compromised we are by our partiality (e.g. numerous cognitive biases). beyond that still, i am not persuaded that reason is or should be desirable.
i think my preceding remarks did provide a contemporary example, although not with the specificity which you were apparently looking for. more exactly, then, classical liberalism generates expectations that people negotiate their social existence in accordance with reason. some particular expectations include iterations of kant's categorical imperative (e.g. simplistically equating blm protests with the maga protests to diminish the scope of reasonable resistance against actual oppression), rawlsian public political culture and reasonable pluralism (i.e. frames progressivism as unreasonable and conservatism as reasonable for their respective opposition to and defense of traditional political norms, which has generated a foundation for contemporary reactionary conservatives to decry contemporary progressives as unreasonable; e.g. opposing state authority to mandate medical quarantines), etc. the general notion of 'reasonableness' forms the basis for the renunciations of oppressed people who resist their oppression as being unreasonable, emotional, etc. on the mere basis of their resistance and its form and without respect to its actual merit. as a demonstration of that, i have on multiple occasions been literally screamed at for my allegedly unreasonable and oppressive use of gender neutral language.
these interpersonal expectations and negotiations are ultimately less concerning for me than the intrapersonal effects of internalized philosophical ideals (not limited to those of classical liberalism, which was only an example). i have a rather limited concern in others and expect others to be their own agents to a considerable degree. ideals and philosophical ideologies will generally diminish that agency in others because they will have internalized the expectation that they conform themselves to the ideal or ideology. for instance, someone who has internalized the classical liberal value of reasonable pluralism will not entertain violent resistance even if people like them are being violently discriminated against by the very system they are expected to use to secure their equity. even when someone would otherwise will still act the same way that their ideal compels them to act has their agency restricted, insofar as they are not acting immediately for themselves.
i increasingly question equity (and equality) as an ideal because...
So this sounds very much like the world view of a progresive. I thought that for a progressive one of the stated goals was equity. Even your reason for dropping equity seems to be because the result that supporting it ends up with is inequitable. Perhaps there's no inconsistency here, but I can't see past it.
your partisan perspective is getting the better of you again. equity is not the exclusive purview of progressives. the equity im equivocally concerned with is that of basic needs and opportunity, which is more consistent with classical liberalism than contemporary progressivism (e.g. rawlsian principles, friedman's ubi, etc.). though, im not a classical liberal either.
my basis for questioning equity as an ideal is that the ideal is materially self-defeating (i.e. invoking equity entails inequity as a material consequence). opposing an ideal by invoking it against itself does not require adopting that ideal; i am demonstrating only that the ideal of equity is self-defeating, internally and as a self-contained system. i have no particular use for ideals which cannot generate themselves into a material reality.
valuing equity as a material reality does not require valuing equity as an ideal. i do not find material equity to be valuable in and of itself, so it would be inaccurate to think that i hold it as an ideal. to the extent that i value material equity it is because it tends to be more conducive to interpersonal relationships predicated upon mutual and voluntary respect rather than being mediated by the coercive authority of ideological narrative and state apparatus. the more pronounced the social power differential is between myself and someone else the less coercive our interactions can be. i value my quality of life and my quality of life depends to some extent on the quality of my interpersonal relationships. equity as a material reality is merely instrumental to that other end.
to clarify, i noted marginalized and oppressed people in particular because i think our material circumstance makes us more aware of the diminished quality of our interpersonal relationships. centered and oppressive people also stand to benefit from dispensing with ideals like equity, but i doubt whether we grasp the cost of our privileges upon our interpersonal relationships and i think there is some basis to doubt whether the value of improved interpersonal relationships outweighs the material loss of privilege. and i'm using rather simplistic notions of marginalization and oppression here that don't really capture the nuance of my position (i.e. i think narratives harm all of us differently while also generating benefits differently).
equity is not the exclusive purview of progressives... i think there is some basis to doubt whether the value of improved interpersonal relationships outweighs the material loss of privilege
True on the former, and no normal progressive would admit the latter. But it wasn't just equity, it was your marxist inspired viewpoint of society as a pit of oppressors and oppressed. Your wilful neglect of capitalisation. Certain words you tend to use.
to the extent that i value material equity it is because it tends to be more conducive to (better) interpersonal relationships
I can't tell the difference between the material reality of equity and its ideal here. Valuing the exclusive benefits (the relationship stuff) of equity (aside from the ignorance of inequity, whch you obviously can't attain) as a desirable goal doesn't appear to me any different from valuing the ideal. Furthermore your refutation of equity as an ideal in its inability to create it with its holding or enforcement requires that you value the results of equity in the first place.
Otherwise, I don't understand what you mean. If so, please use an example or metaphors or something.
i reject all hegelian inspired and anti-egoistic philosophies. marxism is both. drawing a tenuous connection between my perspective and marxism on the feeble grounds of (some of) my language and capitalization choices is asinine. identifying oppression in social existence is not the exclusive purview of marixists. i also explicitly stated that im using an oversimplified concept of 'oppression' that does not capture the nuance of my actual position (i.e. that i don't believe in the dialectic construction of oppressed versus oppressor). my language also draws from various other schools (e.g. libertarian conceptions of voluntariness). ur bizarre obsession with reducing everything i say and do to progressive marxism irrespective of the content of my position is rapidly exhausting my patience.
i own a gun because i value defending myself. i do not own a gun because i value the ideal of gun ownership or because i value the gun in and of itself. i avail myself of other self defense options and do not rely exclusively upon the gun, because the value is not in the gun itself. if i came to understand that the gun was not useful as i suspected it was, i would get rid of it. same deal with equity. i suppose u could say that i value guns and equity instrumentally, but that's never been the kind of value ive denied placing in equity and it functions very differently from the ideal or intrinsic value which have been under discussion.
demonstrating internal incoherence in a position does not require believing in any aspect of that position, much less the position itself. it's a common form of argumentation that uses a position and its values against itself for the purpose of defeating that position. when i say that marxism is incoherent because it alleges to address the alienation of individuals from their labor while alienating individuals from their labor in the name of the holy class war, that does not entail that i am a marxist nor that i value class war or de-alienating individuals from their labor. same deal with demonstrating that the ideal of equity is incoherent because it defeats its stated object.
in understanding that i don't value equity in and of itself, it may be helpful to further understand that i do not put any interest in pursuing absolute equity (an equity idealist would). my interest in equity exists only to the extent that it facilitates the kind if individualized and voluntary relationships that i value (and even that is instrumental to my hedonism, which i would posit as my only intrinsic value). imposing equity along some axis will always generate inequity along some other axis;. e.g. if i concern myself with wealth inequity then i generate inequity in monetary extortion. its probably most accurate to say that my indirect instrumental interest is in resisting extreme inequities, as these generate extreme relational difficulties between persons. i accept that there will always be inequity along numerous axis; my indirect interest is in minimizing their magnitude, thereby minimizing their impact upon my own interpersonal relationships (and i don't even especially care about those of others whom im not related to).
ultimately, i recognize that my alienation from others and my interest in being with others are irreconcilable. i seek only to mediate the tension between that reality and that interest as well as i may and for my own cause. as for the unmediated tension, i resign myself to it as best i can and resent existence for the suffering that it generates.
reducing everything i say and do to progressive marxism
I'm sorry. Those were the only sources of which I've seen, of what you're talking about, that I could relate it to.
I understand what you mean now. You want the statistics and anecdotes to not incite tension in your life.
In that case there are solutions outside of equity. I think there is a kind of tolerance to inequity that can be brought about through belief in self-responsibility and self betterment. I think there is a natural proclivity for people that have undergone such constructive effort to reflexively believe in that principle from earlier, 'the means justify the ends' (incoherence, as you put it, is also part of the human experience).
that is instrumental to my hedonism... i resign myself to it as best i can and resent existence for the suffering that it generates
Huh. Why hedonism? Only rational remaining option? And why tolerate suffering as a hedonist? I'm butting my nose in, but I hear only denunciations of hedonism in the wild. But I've also thought that hedonism is most free, owing to ones desires being able to form virtually any purpose at all. In fulfilling hedonistic desires one might wish to learn, create, destroy, etc. Why do you think it gets such a critical review in public?
I'm sorry. Those were the only sources of which I've seen, of what you're talking about, that I could relate it to.
Absolutely laughable. Fox News isn't a progressive Marxist source and it is very unlikely to give you a balanced view on Marxism. Repeating what the arch ideological enemies of Marxism tell you about Marxism is not the same thing as viewing progressive Marxist sources.
I've never even watched fox news. It would serve you far better not to assume all your ideological opposition to be a monolith strawman.
What I know is from personal first hand accounts of hearing progressives speak, and that it's similar to the typical marxist revolutionary identitarian rhetoric that I understand generally at a surface level as a brief former advocate for communism.
Do you have nothing better to do than follow me around and take everything I say in bad faith?
I see. So your far right anti-Marxist views are just a gift from God?
It would serve you far better not to assume all your ideological opposition to be a monolith strawman.
I didn't say you were my ideological opposition so that part is laughably ironic. Do you raging hypocrite much? Or maybe just during weekdays?
What I know is from personal first hand accounts of hearing progressives speak
Progressive Marxists speak in a country which fought a 70 year war to eliminate Marxism? Do you actually believe this retarded crap you're typing? The people you are calling progressive Marxists are predominantly laissez-faire capitalists. You're insane, and because you live in a bubble where everybody around you is equally insane, there is unfortunately very little one can do to help you understand this.
So your far right anti-Marxist views are just a gift from God?
They were a gift from talking with friends in university, talking with people here years ago, listening to independants online that read more than I, and from recoiling at the sight of how low some progressives, devoid of principles or common standards, will stoop to attain their goals.
I began to understand that good intentions are not enough. Incentives are important and can be predicted to govern much human behaviour. That lead me to pursue ideas pertaining to morality, the corruption of power, and then to ideology that strives to limit the exercise of power such as individualism, personal liberty, and capitalism. How much of that do you consider far right? I am currently trying to learn about ancaps to attempt to find a line where the pursuit of freedom can lead back to tyranny and reconcile with the idea of the state as a self-imposed tyrannical body.
I didn't say you were my ideological opposition
You didn't, I did.
The people you are calling progressive Marxists are predominantly laissez-faire capitalists
Are they? I can give some descriptions that might convince you. Some of them call for violent revolution against the 1%. Some believe in a cabal of white supremecist 'bourgeoise' that oppress the poor working minority races and they rely on the use of activism and social pressure to purge them from their power. Some advocate for peaceful revolution by infiltrating businesses and directing them as they please, firing undesirables as they go. And I'd bet most are ignorant of a lot of this, content receiving praise as they follow ever-shifting narratives.
All of these are ideas that are easily considered to be derived from marxism in the form of class struggle, socialism as a form of implementation of communism, and of class struggle applied to other collective identities. They all tend to push for equity in all outcomes, and use any inequity as evidence of the burden that drives their cause. They also tend to believe government social programs provide the solutions to all their problems (for some permanently, for others as a means to an end). They don't sound like laissez-faire capitalists to me. They are beyond principles of market co-operation, they want social or state enforced equity of both outcome and treatment; an impossible result.
They were a gift from talking with friends in university
Oh, I see. Yes, because universities have such a big reputation for being stuffed full of anti-Marxists.
talking with people here years ago, listening to independants online that read more than I, and from recoiling at the sight of how low some progressives, devoid of principles save for 'might makes right', will stoop to attain their goals.
Stop talking shit. You didn't pick up a raging far right bias from any pursuit which was intellectual, I promise you that.
I began to understand that good intentions are not enough.
Ah, the old: good is too hard, so let's try bad. Yes, I'm familiar with that one. Always makes me chuckle when I hear it.
You've written too much, and since the first part of it is self-glorifying and narcissistic, entirely absent any reason to be so, I'll be ignoring the rest.
Well it's either that or I don't have a far right bias
You do have a far right bias. The reason this may not be evident to you is because your entire country has a right wing bias. The centre is not where it should be, or indeed where it is in any other developed nation.
I've already traced my path through ideology to you.
What I actually think is that you are simply the victim of a lifetime of public relations propaganda, just like everybody else in the US. If something is all you have ever known it is very difficult to break away from it because there is an emotional investment as well as an intellectual one.
No. I'm talking about game theory.
No, you are not talking about game theory.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The road to heaven is also paved with good intentions.
If doing good is hard, the solution is not to give up (or even do the opposite). You seem to think it is, and that concerns me.
your entire country has a right wing bias. The centre is not where it should be, or indeed where it is in any other developed nation
Despite me directly telling you before, you still have no idea what my country is.
If doing good is hard, the solution is not to give up (or even do the opposite). You seem to think it is
No, I don't. As I already said, Intentions alone are insufficient. I think planning out incentives are how you get anywhere, as in game theory, towards improvement. And evidence based policy helps too where even that fails. But that's for the material. For the rest, good is achieved by a shared principled and consistent morality.
What would you even consider to be centrist anyway?
Despite me directly telling you before, you still have no idea what my country is.
Buddy, I can spot an American from 3,000 miles away just by their political views.
No, I don't.
You appear to, as I mentioned. Your response to Communism was to dismiss it on the grounds that it is idealist. You said that it takes more than good intentions. Well, good intentions are a good start. A better start than abandoning the good intentions because you believe doing good is idealist.
As I already said, Intentions alone are insufficient.
Well no. You said good intentions are insufficient, leading us to believe that the universe is somehow naturally bad and so we'd better just go along with it.
I think planning out incentives are how you get anywhere, as in game theory, towards improvement.
Game theory doesn't have anything to do with Communism. Please stop name-dropping phrases which you think sound smart, but which actually don't mean anything in the context you are using them.
What would you even consider to be centrist anyway?
Any country where there wasn't a 70 year economic and ideological war to exterminate one full half of the political spectrum.
Buddy, I can spot an American from 3,000 miles away just by their political views.
Well, you're literally 4,000 miles off the target. Again, I'm British.
Your response to Communism was to dismiss it on the grounds that it is idealist
Yes.
Well, good intentions are a good start. A better start than abandoning the good intentions because you believe doing good is idealist.
I maintan my good intentions, they merely have nothing to do wth communism.
leading us to believe that the universe is somehow naturally bad and so we'd better just go along with it.
Not at all. Just that you need to apply some thought to the incentives you create when you do make changes, even with those good intentions.
Game theory doesn't have anything to do with Communism.
Indeed it doesn't, it's a model involved in social science. It deals well with emergent systems produced by indepenadent actors with simple motivations, which is a good start as a model to understand how people and the economy react.
It doesn't sound smart at all, its name isn't especially indicative of its meaning.
Any country where...
Ok, more specific. What ideology, market system, or principles of governance would you consider to be a centrist position.
Yes. The United States government spent the better part of a century harassing Marxists out of American politics and banned the Communist Party entirely in 1954, criminalising membership.
Take your stupid, naive ass out of America and explore the rest of the world. You'll find plenty of real Marxists happy to explain the difference between liberal capitalism and socialism for you.
All of those I've talked to or heard from that came from communism tell me it's a horrible idea, they survived it and want nothing to do with it. I've spoken with someone dear to me from east Germany from before the Berlin wall fell, and often listen to a Romanian guy describe his country during communist rule. That enough 'rest of the world' for you?
The United States government spent the better part of a century harassing Marxists out of American politics and banned the Communist Party entirely in 1954, criminalising membership.
Yeah I'm not surprised. There's plenty of evidence of the USSR attempting to subvert the US, so a reaction isn't unexpected.
All of those I've talked to or heard from that came from communism tell me it's a horrible idea
So in other words, the vastly small percentage of people who defected from Communist countries and came to the United States? Quite amazing really that you don't see the problem with that. I'm guessing you haven't spoken to the various capitalists who defected across to Communist countries and see if you get a similar picture about capitalism, am I right?
I've spoken with someone dear to me from east Germany from before the Berlin wall fell, and often listen to a Romanian guy describe his country during communist rule.
That wasn't Communism you insufferable clown. That's precisely why I suggested you learn about it for yourself instead of relying on Fox News to tell you how terrible it is.
Under Communism -- true Communism -- there is no hierarchical leadership, no dictator, no class and no government. What happened in Russia was complicated. Despite the perhaps inexcusable violence the Russian revolution started with the very best intentions. But after Lenin died Stalin simply saw an opportunity for real power. He killed his political rivals and seized power for himself. He did the precise opposite of what Communist theory said he should have done, so when you simply expect me to accept the same myths and half-truths you have been indoctrinated with yourself in a country with a clear and evident anti-Communist bias, do not expect it to go smoothly.
Under Communism -- true Communism -- there is no hierarchical leadership, no dictator, no class and no government.
Yes, yes, and under capitalism there's no state either. No true communism exists, no true capitalism exists. They're all mixed economies.
But it just so turns out that whenever people attempt communism it ends in poverty and often democide, and whenever people attempt capitalism it ends in people leading lives with a relatively higher standard of living.
Despite the perhaps inexcusable violence the Russian revolution started with the very best intentions.
Yes, kill the bourgeoisie, very good intentions. The entire premise is built on class warfare and revenge. Oh but I'm sure they had it coming right?
same myths and half-truths you have been indoctrinated with
Tell me, point by point, exactly what you're talking about. If you are to 'un-indoctrinate' me, you must be very very specific, and tell me where to go that I can verify what you say.
I'm sorry. Those were the only sources of which I've seen, of what you're talking about, that I could relate it to.
accepted. i just find it exasperating getting persistently reduced by people to one of the two populist political poles when im not remotely either.
I understand what you mean now. You want the statistics and anecdotes to not incite tension in your life.
im admittedly not sure what you mean by that, but i don't think it's what im saying. the tension im most concerned with is between what i want in an interpersonal relationship and what interpersonal relationships can be given ontological constraints. i want my close interpersonal relationships to be marked by intimate mutual understanding and perfectly voluntary interaction. i think these are necessary preconditions for appreciation and respect, respectively. existence precludes that understanding because of the isolation of our consciousnesses from one another and it precludes that voluntariness because of the inequity between beings. my most intimate and valued interpersonal relationships have encountered those limits, and it has left me bitter with existence.
In that case there are solutions outside of equity. I think there is a kind of tolerance to inequity that can be brought about through belief in self-responsibility and self betterment. I think there is a natural proclivity for people that have undergone such constructive effort to reflexively believe in that principle from earlier, 'the means justify the ends' (incoherence, as you put it, is also part of the human experience).
i practice responsibility for myself and expect the same from those whom i let close to me. that has not induced any kind of tolerance for inequity in myself, nor has it induced me to believe that the means justify the ends. im not sure why it would.
Huh. Why hedonism? Only rational remaining option? And why tolerate suffering as a hedonist? I'm butting my nose in, but I hear only denunciations of hedonism in the wild. But I've also thought that hedonism is most free, owing to ones desires being able to form virtually any purpose at all. In fulfilling hedonistic desires one might wish to learn, create, destroy, etc. Why do you think it gets such a critical review in public?
i did not select hedonism so much as found it to be what remained when i stripped everything else away. i think everyone is a hedonism, but most people are not inclined to recognize it about themselves. even someone who lives their lives according to some normative principle does so because it pleases them to do so. i think people tend to think negatively about hedonism for various reasons, but mostly owing to an insecurity at authoring their own lives and a deep conviction that their learned normative narratives are necessary for securing their well-being to them.
i will insist upon my original word choice, resignation rather than tolerance. the latter suggests a patience which i find thoroughly lacking in my disposition. the suffering which i resign myself to is only that which i am powerless to prevent. as discussed above, i find myself subject to particular ontological limitations - bounded consciousness and social inequity - which i cannot completely overcome. that induces suffering in me. i am resigned to that suffering because i can change neither my own constitution nor the fabric of existence. the tension between them, their conflict, cannot be resolved. consequently, i take what pleasure i can and for the rest resign myself to a hateful tolerance of existence.
i find myself subject to particular ontological limitations
Your limitations aren't ontological. They are psychological. You have a bizarre tendency to use the language of an academic to explain the ideas of an idiot. It's a common feature I've found in regular Americans that they do this; perhaps out of a need to convince each other they are intellectuals. The petrifying thing is that you don't appear to have any idea how strained it is, or that you are making it unequivocally obvious that you are ego-flexing.
Truly intelligent people understand what you do not. Intelligence is the search for simplicity, not complexity. The less energy required to produce an effect the greater the progress made.
truly intelligent people don't need to measure their brain dicks against others like you do almost obsessively.
Truly intelligent people do not go about calling others ignorant just because they’re in a sulk ......
Jace(5142)
1 point
no u grow up u petulant ignoramus. verbatim i said: "or, put otherwise, we are not capable of objective and impartial reasoning" and ur claiming i didn't say that. ur either comprehension challenged or a willful ass. either way im done w/ u.
Jace(5142)
1 point
let me give u some advice. spend less time advising others and more time on ur reading comprehension. i knew i was writing to someone with proficiency in that area so i didn't water it down like id have to for ur dense ass.
yeah this may come as a surprise but im not treating burritos shit posts seriously. i regurgitate their petty behavior back at them without consideration for consistency or reasonableness because they're vaguely conversant in the former and not at all in the latter. i don't have anything to gain from treating them seriously.
yeah this may come as a surprise but im not treating burritos shit posts
Burrito actually asked you valid questions and you were pretty petty in your responses , I recieved the same unwarranted attacks last week on a post that was not even addressing you
and what questions might those have been. in this particular thread they don't ask any. they allege that im an ego-flexing idiot with psychological issues because i can't read other peoples' minds.
unlike with burrito, u didn't do anything to provoke my incivility. i started that and won't pretend otherwise. i was a in a foul mood and taking it out on others. i'll quite likely do it again. i seriously recommend not taking me seriously.
Amarel and him arguing over the term "equity" is hilarious two puffed up egotists trying to outdo each other in in a bullshitting contest ,and both walking away thinking they said something intelligible
Well, people get their perception of inequity from personal experience of unfairness and reporting of statistics. You want that at a level where it isn't a cause of confict between you and others, yes?
If so, honestly I don't see why you find that so important, I would imagine such differences between people are typically resolvable, face to face at least - perhaps your case is exceptional, or I just lack experience, or I don't understand x)
not sure why it would.
Some have told me it has helped them. In taking ownership of their situation and putting in the work to better it, they respect their position within inequity, having themselves to blame for it, good or bad. Essentially no more than the assumtion of internal ability over external influences. A belief.
i find myself subject to particular ontological limitations - bounded consciousness and social inequity
Do you consider technology to be able to help with either? The former depending on your meaning - extra-human senses, computational assistance, digital consciousness, virtual reailty. The latter owing to a potential partial post-scarcity future where perhaps inequity might be less important.
people get their perception of inequity from their personal experiences of actual inequity which are produced by extremely well-documented human cognitive biases. those are facts and im not gonna debate them like they're mere conjectures based on exaggerated victim complexes and statistical gaming (which is ur implicit suggestion). your notion that we can end inequity just by getting face to face is so naive and ignorant that i genuinely cannot fathom your perspective at all.
good for them. hasn't done shit for me. yeah, im responsible to myself for my own reactions but that doesn't magically eradicate others' bigotry. i still get discriminated against, screamed at, stalked, harassed, pathologized, diminished, etc no matter how well i react to it. i will never "respect" my position within inequity, as either an oppressed person or as an oppressor. nor will i ever blame myself for others' bigotry; they're as responsible for themselves as i am for myself.
the issue is not even that i cannot always prevent bigots from being bigots. im not remotely interested in having an intimate relationship with those assholes. the issue is that both myself and those whom i would form intimate relationships with are all positioned uniquely and inequitably within the social contexts which we share. from that there is a barrier in experiential understanding which cannot be surmounted and a coercive dynamic borne out of our relative privileges and oppressions which intrudes upon our relationships. this compounds the already insurmountable boundedness of consciousness.
the only technology which would help is technology which would enable one to experience their own mental states simultaneous with experiencing the mental states of another. a technology which transcends the biological boundary of consciousness. i don't think that's going to happen, at least not in my lifetime which is all i care about. even that kind of transcendence would only be a partial solution. it would not resolve the social inequities between myself and others which intrude upon our relationships.
people get their perception of inequity from their personal experiences of actual inequity which are produced by extremely well-documented human cognitive biases. those are facts and im not gonna debate them like they're mere conjectures based on exaggerated victim complexes and statistical gaming
On the former part, yeah, that's what I said. For the Latter, I didn't say anything about victim complexes or statistical gaming. The charitable interpretation of changing statistics would be making a positive change in a group, not literally faking the statisics.
your notion that we can end inequity just by getting face to face is so naive and ignorant that i genuinely cannot fathom your perspective at all.
Well I assumed by "intimate interpersonal relationships" you meant somone you were close with but struggled with conflict, and not someone stalking you down the street. I also thought you were talking about wealth, which perhaps explains what must have seemed a very strange example otherwise, though I suspect you already knew.
those whom i would form intimate relationships with are all positioned uniquely and inequitably within the social contexts which we share. from that there is a barrier in experiential understanding which cannot be surmounted
I don't believe you when you say it cannot be surmounted. Even if it couldn't, there are undoubtedly others with the same experiential understanding, even if not wholly, partially in each person. And so what if there isn't an identical clone of you that you can perfectly communicate with, is there no value in the exchange of ideas and experiences without demand of full experiential understanding? Is that not why you're here, where we're all anonymous?
a'ight i can admit when i read too much in the wrong direction. ur language around perception and statistics is a dog-whistle im familiar with, and tbh i still find it a bit suspect. however, it's a poor reflection on me that i didn't carry the context of our conversation through for your subsequent remarks; the idea of face to face negotiation between myself and those im close with is not naive nor is it ignorant (at least not in the sense i plainly meant), and i can understand what u were getting at.
wealth is well downstream from my primary concerns. i personally occupy a stupid number of uncommon social positions, a number of which do not commonly intersect. that makes finding someone who shares my particular composite or anything closely resembling it exceptionally difficult. im also not particularly interested in having to limit my close relationships with others to people who are similar to me. that i more or less have to do so just to be basically comprehensible is in part what i mean about the intrusion of inequity onto my interpersonal relationships (i.e. not only into particular relationships, but concerning the viability of multiple relationships from the outset). i want to know what is unique in another, not for them to be identical to me and known through that sameness. (potentially helpful or potentially distracting aside: this is a sort of political concern based in voluntary egoism.)
even were my experiential existence not so uncommon, i think i would still find inequity to be one barrier among others to the kind of relationships im interested in (i.e. it would merely be less pronounced). the distinctions which i am cognizant of between myself and others are drawn by the inequity which relies upon them for its existence and persistence (e.g. of race, gender, etc); without these distinctions of inequity i would be able to more directly engage myself and others as their immediate selves with having to attempt to get through the white noise of social interference. however much i try to stop viewing people through the lenses of inequity (e.g. of race, gender, etc.) i still find myself doing so, reflexively. i have practiced intentional non-gendering and non-racializing for years, and have paltry little to show for it.
there is some value in the exchange of ideas and experiences, but for me it is only the partial value of the perfect understanding that im interested in. i settle for imperfect but sincere attempts at understanding because the alternative of having no interpersonal relationships at all is even more intolerable to me. and while i genuinely and deeply value the close relationships i have, there is nevertheless always a sense of that settling. i recognize that this is a stupid and unrealistic longing (which is in part why i never actually make it as a demand on the people in my life; i carry my responsibility for it). i also understand roughly why i have this longing. but none of this knowledge diminishes the longing, unfortunately.
and that's the metaphysical backdrop of my existential despair in a nutshell, i guess.
there is nevertheless always a sense of that settling
I think I understand on the surface, but not the depth of it; I can't say I empathise. I've yet to meet someone that can fulfill everything at once, but it's yet to become a source of dread, and I've yet to really try. I'm a loner, still content to drown myself in material entertainment for now.
I doubt you expected anything anyway, but sorry friend.
determinism does not annihilate our values or interests (which are themselves determined in us). for instance, i presume most of us still want to be relatively safe and secure in our persons. to the extent that punishing criminals serves that interest, we have every reason to continue punishing criminals. i don't see that it matters especially whether they chose to be how they are. they are how they are and that still maters very much to the rest of us based on how we are.
determinism does not annihilate our values or interests (which are themselves determined in us).
Agreed
for instance, i presume most of us still want to be relatively safe and secure in our persons. to the extent that punishing criminals serves that interest, we have every reason to continue punishing criminals.
Why? Surely a more humane approach should be the norm given such actions are the results of determinism?
i don't see that it matters especially whether they chose to be how they are.
Because if they choose to be that way punishment is fully warranted and expected otherwise it’s inhumane
they are how they are and that still maters very much to the rest of us based on how we are.
Again how is it humane to punish them for actions that are determined?
Why? Surely a more humane approach should be the norm given such actions are the results of determinism?
to clarify, i actually think the extent to which punitive justice makes us safer is generally negative. i was just trying to give an example of how a means and ends argument could go through without free will. i agree with your rhetorical suggestion, although i suspect i do so for different reasons (i.e. practical rather than normative). id also go further and say determinism implicates individuals related to those who committed crimes in the criminal activity (e.g. in how we allocate resources between one another, how attentive we are to child abuse, etc.). if we take determinism to be true then i think criminality itself needs to be seriously re-imagined, or replaced altogether with something more credible.
Because if they choose to be that way punishment is fully warranted and expected otherwise it’s inhumane
you've just reasserted that free will is relevant without really explaining the connection. why is punishment fully warranted with free will and inhumane without it? what connects free will with justification in relationship punishment, exactly?
Again how is it humane to punish them for actions that are determined?
im not claiming that it is humane. that's not a standard i employ, generally.
you've just reasserted that free will is relevant without really explaining the connection. why is punishment fully warranted with free will and inhumane without it?
Because if one was excercising free will they could have done otherwise not so if determinism holds
9. I think it means that in order to judge another, one should be certain that their judgement is infallible, not corrupted with sin. aka A hypocrite makes for a poor judge.
14. It just means that societies require censorship to be considered civilised. Like how one might require law to be civilised, or require art to be civilised, or require an absence of slavery to be civilised etc. It would be a subjective standard.
though increasingly I question that.
Care to explain?
Nothing justifies anything
This I find interesting, not sure if you mean it when you've said so little and implied so much, so maybe an example?
If someone is being raped, are they justified in resisting? Hitting their aggressor in an attempt to knock them out and escape?
Or is it the notion of linking means, intent, and outcome that you disagree with? The wilful neglect of cause and effect?
In general I think there is a 'spirit of the law', the will of the authors, which tends to issue certain principles or outcomes. The rules are constructed in a manner so as to enforce a just means, or with limited foresight attempt to achieve a just ends. So generally I'd think when a particularly nasty end is imminent, people tend to allow a typically nasty means to advert it. And vice versa. Admittedly they are arbitary laws, but also tend to follow consensus, often even across cultures.
9&14. i understand the intended meanings. the incoherence of the statements is a consequence of the incoherence of their embedded concepts, of 'fallibility/perfection' and 'sin' for 9 and of 'society' and 'civilization' for 14.
3. i increasingly question equity (and equality) as an ideal because i increasingly question the social function of ideals generally. ideals serve a social function of fostering and sustaining narratives, and i am broadly critical of the latter. ideals are rarely secured and the narratives which build up around them generate social expectations which can even be antithetical to the stated ideal. for instance, the ideal of equality is embedded in the classical liberal narrative of public reason and civil discourse. this generates social expectations for how marginalized and oppressed people negotiate their inequity (and inequality) which function to limit the social agency of those people and overtly benefit those oppressing them. i think there could be practical merit, at least for the marginalized and oppressed, in recognizing that equity and equality are not only idealistic but actively detrimental to effective self-advocacy.
4&5. i meant it quite literally. i reject normative concepts like justification. normative claims, including justificatory claims, are subjective personal preferences whose authority has been exaggerated by allusion to something greater than the subjective personal preference which actually generates it.
I think you’re confused and your confusion has you positing contradictory positions which you in no way justify
“Society is intrinsically unattainable,” says Derrida. Several narratives concerning precapitalist socialism exist. Thus, in Vineland, Pynchon affirms the cultural paradigm of expression; in The Crying of Lot 49 he reiterates postdialectic libertarianism.
The characteristic theme of the works of Pynchon is a mythopoetical reality. The cultural paradigm of expression holds that narrativity is used to oppress the Other. In a sense, Debord uses the term ‘postdialectic libertarianism’ to denote not deconstruction, but neodeconstruction.
If one examines the cultural paradigm of expression, one is faced with a choice: either reject precapitalist socialism or conclude that reality comes from the masses. Lacan promotes the use of the modernist paradigm of discourse to deconstruct outdated perceptions of sexual identity. It could be said that if postdialectic libertarianism holds, we have to choose between postcultural sublimation and Sontagist camp.
The subject is contextualised into a postdialectic libertarianism that includes reality as a totality. Therefore, the primary theme of Pickett’s[1] model of semiotic theory is the difference between society and language.
The subject is interpolated into a precapitalist socialism that includes truth as a whole. But Lacan uses the term ‘postdialectic libertarianism’ to denote the role of the writer as observer.
Tilton[2] suggests that we have to choose between dialectic capitalism and the precapitalist paradigm of reality. Therefore, if precapitalist socialism holds, the works of Fellini are postmodern.
The subject is contextualised into a cultural paradigm of expression that includes consciousness as a paradox. It could be said that Derrida uses the term ‘cultural neodialectic theory’ to denote the stasis of textual class.
speaking of unjustified claims: your entirely unwarranted assertion that im confused, contradicting myself, and not justifying my claims. but, like, quaint opinion i guess.
and, no, excerpting odd bits of postmodernist philosophy at me is not remotely helpful. im not sure why u thought it would be.
A majority of your posts are you merely trolling , I had not encountered you in a long time until last week when you left a comment on one of my posts which was just designed to antagonise , you feign surprise when you get it back
You used to be polite and fair in debating this new mocking style is so not you but I cannot blame you as you’re in the thralls of determinism right?
somewhat, but not entirely. im being antagonistic in most of my posts, but the basic positions aren't fabricated for effect. and i don't think ive feigned surprise at any point when my incivility has been returned to me.
i still can be polite and fair in debating, but im much less inclined to be overall. being an ass isn't who i was but it's who i am right now. i suspect i like the change far less than you, but it's where i've found myself.
i'll get into it more in my other post, but i think you can blame me for it and i wouldn't fault you in the least for that. determinism doesn't preclude that.
