|
Post by jdd2 on Apr 25, 2015 1:19:14 GMT -5
Nice argument. But avoids the real problem. Say you have 100 people in the country and 80 of them agree with one of your programs (doesn't matter which one). Is it moral to use force to make the other 20 go along against their will. It's a moral question. Anything else avoids the basic problem. But then anyone, any minority, whether it's five, 20, or 35, could themselves create the need for 'force,' by adamantly refusing to go along with the majority. They don't have the numbers, but thru their actions they can (hopefully) martyr themselves and caricature the system as the problem. (congress has this tactic down pat)
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 25, 2015 3:37:14 GMT -5
But it is the system that is the problem. The use of force against those who haven't used force against you. That justifies war when you haven't been attacked, slavery, genocide.
Just because it's a nice slavery doesn't make it freedom. That's the argument used when a slave owner fed slaves well, provide health care, and entertainment.
The system supports violence against those who haven't done violence. The system is the problem. Violence in small doses is still violence. That system gave us, kill a few indians and take their land. The system has time and time again proven itself a system of violence against minorities, be they indians, blacks, women, smokers, etc. Hiding it better doesn't change that. The system isn't benevolent it's violent both on an individual level and a national level.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 25, 2015 6:26:24 GMT -5
But why in the Sam Hill does it matter what labels we give those programs? MAYBE.............MAYBE...................MAYBE ...it's because civilizations have tried these solutions in the past. We didn't name them to shoot them down. We named them as we invented the philosophical concept. If the concept seemed to work, it developed a good-feeling association that continued on with the nomenclature. If the concept seemed not to work (or ended in tragic consequences) a bad-feeling association followed the nomenclature. But naming the philosophical underpinnings isn't subversive. It's how we understand all of philosophy. We may argue that definitions become skewed as philosophies become defined by opposing philosophies rather that being allowed to make their own case. But that doesn't make referring to economic philosophies by their founder's principles wrong or illegitimate. It's still valuable. In this thread I am attempting to give people a chance to define their own economic philosophy -- rather than allowing it to be defined by an opposing philosophy's characterization of it. That so many are incapable of actually expressing the parameters of their economic philosophy -- or are showing that they actually have none -- is not the fault of expressing economic philosophies in historically (or even dictionary) accepted terms. The blowback to these kinds of questions is mostly about the same kind of defensiveness that arises over religious belief -- that which is strongly and emotionally held to without the ability to actually prove in concrete terms usually does end up being argued with a greater degree of vehemence, outrage, and defensiveness.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 25, 2015 7:03:29 GMT -5
...for myself, I'm beginning to conclude that my problem isn't that we developed American socialism to the extent that we have. I think my problem is more with how we adopted it. And my fear is that, because of how we adopted it, we are blithely unaware of potential dangers ahead. We didn't go through what I think should have been necessary battles to arrive at the level of socialism we've adopted. Because we didn't fight those battles, our fate -- our doom (I fear) -- is already sealed -- and it's not socialism's fault that our fate is sealed, it's the fault of not having arrived here properly structured.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Apr 25, 2015 7:09:23 GMT -5
When I have more time, maybe I'll try to unpack the assumptions and presumptions I sense lurking in that complex question. I can see right away that the conflation of "political progress" with "centralization and/or government ownership, or even government intervention" is going to reward investigation. Also the implied direction that the presumed audience would be changing from, along with the presumption that said direction has been singular and consistent for a lifetime. I take it back. I don't know how I missed this the first time around. Or maybe I didn't miss it but forgot that I had read it and by the end of the thread thought it was all my idea. But I guess someone already had questioned the original question.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Apr 25, 2015 7:33:29 GMT -5
In this thread I am attempting to give people a chance to define their own economic philosophy -- rather than allowing it to be defined by an opposing philosophy's characterization of it. That so many are incapable of actually expressing the parameters of their economic philosophy -- or are showing that they actually have none -- is not the fault of expressing economic philosophies in historically (or even dictionary) accepted terms. The blowback to these kinds of questions is mostly about the same kind of defensiveness that arises over religious belief -- that which is strongly and emotionally held to without the ability to actually prove in concrete terms usually does end up being argued with a greater degree of vehemence, outrage, and defensiveness. When you put it that way it sounds like a fair question. But not an easy one to answer. Would I accept more "socialism?" Yes, absolutely. Dub brought up some great examples where we'd all be better off if we followed his suggestions. I might add a few more, but they'd be minor tweaks. Would I accept more "free market?" Yes, absolutely. But a lot of conservatives wouldn't necessarily like the changes that I'd suggest like offering individuals the same bankruptcy protections that corporations enjoy, eliminating tax breaks for favored types of income, eliminating the idiotic notion that corporations are people, eliminating tax breaks for fake charity/political organizations, breaking up any corporation considered "too big to fail" until it was a manageable "too small to give a shit" size, eliminating religious protections for corporations, and ... I'm sure I could think of more if I put my mind to it. But I'm guessing that the above list is already too long or totally on the wrong track in the eyes of most of those who consider themselves champions of free markets.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Apr 25, 2015 8:58:41 GMT -5
Nice argument. But avoids the real problem. Say you have 100 people in the country and 80 of them agree with one of your programs (doesn't matter which one). Is it moral to use force to make the other 20 go along against their will. It's a moral question. Anything else avoids the basic problem. But then anyone, any minority, whether it's five, 20, or 35, could themselves create the need for 'force,' by adamantly refusing to go along with the majority. They don't have the numbers, but thru their actions they can (hopefully) martyr themselves and caricature the system as the problem. (congress has this tactic down pat)Ironically I saw that last week marked the anniversary of the first major genocide of the 20th century, the Turkish slaughter of Armenians. Good to see that the Armenians chose to martyr themselves for partisan political reasons.
|
|