|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 10:28:13 GMT -5
The more I've thought about this discussion, the more I think that the most important sidetrack we've taken is with the interjection of the word "free". That is the very problem. That is the essential misdirection and untruth of the entire scheme. I could copy and paste no fewer than 5 facebook "memes" that made their way across my page on just this day alone that are praising European nations for providing "free" university education.
Free.
That's the word used, and that's what too many people believe.
We believe that every program we've instituted since the New Deal has been either paid for by taxes or it has been free. Neither of those is true.
Free. We're told it, and we believe it. And we have the audacity to believe that such generosity of spirit makes us morally superior beings.
Free.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 10:34:59 GMT -5
Exactly. Although we don't care about property. An eight track player has no rights. Neither does a lamp, a tree, or an acre of land. Our government is designed to protect property owners. Not sure what your point is there. This gets to John's point earlier: Government is inevitable, in a manner of speaking. It becomes a Russellian semantic distinction at its core. If there is no government at all (the Dougian anarchistic paradise), then some manner of power structure will evolve, even if its only Doug defending his lawn furniture from his avaricious neighbors. At that point, Doug becomes the government. Whenever someone says "You can't have that. It belongs to me", they are the government, reduced to its Russellian/Dougian Platonic minimum.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 4, 2015 10:36:11 GMT -5
As long as we're theoretically nitpicking, why not add freedom? Free market? Fat free? Buy one, get one free?
Off the top of my head I can't think of a single use of free that is literally true.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 10:40:04 GMT -5
The more I've thought about this discussion, the more I think that the most important sidetrack we've taken is with the interjection of the word "free". That is the very problem. That is the essential misdirection and untruth of the entire scheme. I could copy and paste no fewer than 5 facebook "memes" that made their way across my page on just this day alone that are praising European nations for providing "free" university education. Free. That's the word used, and that's what too many people believe. We believe that every program we've instituted since the New Deal has been either paid for by taxes or it has been free. Neither of those is true. Free. We're told it, and we believe it. And we have the audacity to believe that such generosity of spirit makes us morally superior beings. Free. I have a slightly different take. Not that I disagree, but I would emphasize the horribly corrosive nature of coerced charity. I believe we have a moral obligation to help each other. I believe attempting to do so through government force is metaphysically impossible. I believe the greatest moral flaw of our age is found in the absolute elimination of the distinction between "we should help those people" and "the government should help those people". It is, in every sense of the term, brutalizing.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 10:40:33 GMT -5
As long as we're theoretically nitpicking, why not add freedom? Free market? Fat free? Buy one, get one free? Off the top of my head I can't think of a single use of free that is literally true. Is that you, Russell?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 4, 2015 10:41:36 GMT -5
Exactly. Although we don't care about property. An eight track player has no rights. Neither does a lamp, a tree, or an acre of land. Our government is designed to protect property owners. Not sure what your point is there. This gets to John's point earlier: Government is inevitable, in a manner of speaking. It becomes a Russellian semantic distinction at its core. If there is no government at all (the Dougian anarchistic paradise), then some manner of power structure will evolve, even if its only Doug defending his lawn furniture from his avaricious neighbors. At that point, Doug becomes the government. Whenever someone says "You can't have that. It belongs to me", they are the government, reduced to its Russellian/Dougian Platonic minimum. You blew right by my point in my earlier post. Communism is designed to protect the people, capitalism is designed to protect property owners. There is no value judgement in that, it's just a difference in perspective. Both are designed with the intent of benefiting people. but use different approaches. Government is not my point. There's no avoiding government once you get more than a handful of people together. It can have different names and different methods, but there is always going to be government.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 4, 2015 10:44:47 GMT -5
" I can't think of a single use of free that is literally true."
Half way on your road to conservatism.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 4, 2015 10:48:22 GMT -5
" I can't think of a single use of free that is literally true." Half way on your road to conservatism. And yet I'm 98% Democrat. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 10:49:54 GMT -5
Not sure what your point is there. This gets to John's point earlier: Government is inevitable, in a manner of speaking. It becomes a Russellian semantic distinction at its core. If there is no government at all (the Dougian anarchistic paradise), then some manner of power structure will evolve, even if its only Doug defending his lawn furniture from his avaricious neighbors. At that point, Doug becomes the government. Whenever someone says "You can't have that. It belongs to me", they are the government, reduced to its Russellian/Dougian Platonic minimum. Communism is designed to protect the people, capitalism is designed to protect property owners. Capitalism isn't designed.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jun 4, 2015 10:50:51 GMT -5
Exactly. Although we don't care about property. An eight track player has no rights. Neither does a lamp, a tree, or an acre of land. Our government is designed to protect property owners. Not sure what your point is there. This gets to John's point earlier: Government is inevitable, in a manner of speaking. It becomes a Russellian semantic distinction at its core. If there is no government at all (the Dougian anarchistic paradise), then some manner of power structure will evolve, even if its only Doug defending his lawn furniture from his avaricious neighbors. At that point, Doug becomes the government. Whenever someone says "You can't have that. It belongs to me", they are the government, reduced to its Russellian/Dougian Platonic minimum. The most basic form of government is the family and it's self correcting. Kids grow up and tell the parents where to stick it. With any other government that takes a revolution. The smaller the government the smaller the revolution. BTW capitalism isn't a freemarket it's cronyism. The free lunch went out with sending your kid to the bar for a bucket of beer.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 4, 2015 10:54:37 GMT -5
Communism is designed to protect the people, capitalism is designed to protect property owners. Capitalism isn't designed. I guess not. But it can't exist without a government designed to enable it.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 10:57:10 GMT -5
Capitalism isn't designed. I guess not. But it can't exist without a government designed to enable it. Again, that becomes a Russellian question of what you consider "government". Put it this way: If the US federal government, all the state governments, all the local governments just went away, so would socialism in the US. But we would still have capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 10:57:34 GMT -5
"I think university education should be free like it is in the European countries."
"That's a great idea. The student loan issue is way out of hand, and an educated populace is bound to be better -- more productive and less at risk of poverty. I like this idea. Let's make University education free. Where do we get the professors who will teach without remuneration? Will they do it in their part-time as they hold down their factory jobs? Should these schools be night classes only to free up more of these volunteer professors? Where will we hold the classes? Online only, so there's no overhead?"
"Okay, okay, I didn't mean "free". You KNOW what I meant."
"Yeah, I know what you meant. And I know why the word "free" has become so commonplace. It works. It changes the entire discussion. And if I dare call you on it's use, perversely it is I who am charged with 'picky-picky, you KNOW what I meant.' . So we understand it's not free. Why does it appear to be free?"
"Because the government pays for it."
"And where does the government get the means to pay for it?"
"They print money. Shall we tackle free health care next?"
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jun 4, 2015 10:58:51 GMT -5
I guess not. But it can't exist without a government designed to enable it. Again, that becomes a Russellian question of what you consider "government". Put it this way: If the US federal government, all the state governments, all the local governments just went away, so would socialism in the US. But we would still have capitalism. I don't think so. You would have a free market not the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 4, 2015 11:05:37 GMT -5
Semantics--that is, the study of the naming of things--matters. I'd get particularly Russellian and semantic with my doctor were he to tell me, "You've got an owie on your squishy bits. You know, the icky stuff inside your tummy."
What kind of owie, I might inquire, on which particular squishy bit? Oh, says the doc with a dismissive wave of the hand, that's all just semantics. We'll do some stuff--you know, doctor stuff--and you'll feel all better.
Think of semantic rigor as like tuning your guitar before a gig. You tune because you care. And because if you don't, your audience might think, with some justification, that you're a tin-eared incompetent.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 11:07:01 GMT -5
The more I've thought about this discussion, the more I think that the most important sidetrack we've taken is with the interjection of the word "free". That is the very problem. That is the essential misdirection and untruth of the entire scheme. I could copy and paste no fewer than 5 facebook "memes" that made their way across my page on just this day alone that are praising European nations for providing "free" university education. Free. That's the word used, and that's what too many people believe. We believe that every program we've instituted since the New Deal has been either paid for by taxes or it has been free. Neither of those is true. Free. We're told it, and we believe it. And we have the audacity to believe that such generosity of spirit makes us morally superior beings. Free. I have a slightly different take. Not that I disagree, but I would emphasize the horribly corrosive nature of coerced charity. I believe we have a moral obligation to help each other. I believe attempting to do so through government force is metaphysically impossible. I believe the greatest moral flaw of our age is found in the absolute elimination of the distinction between "we should help those people" and "the government should help those people". It is, in every sense of the term, brutalizing. It also allows the recipient of the free goods and services to not feel beholden -- even to the point of good citizenship out of gratitude (since the perception is allowed to persist that the good or service was provided without anyone's sacrifice). And in our particular society, that "not beholden-ness" has exploded to a exceedingly more audacious, "It is my right." attitude.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 11:08:36 GMT -5
Again, that becomes a Russellian question of what you consider "government". Put it this way: If the US federal government, all the state governments, all the local governments just went away, so would socialism in the US. But we would still have capitalism. I don't think so. You would have a free market not the same thing. If I have a shovel, and you need a hole dug, and you pay me a chicken to dig it for you, we have capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 4, 2015 11:08:52 GMT -5
I guess not. But it can't exist without a government designed to enable it. Again, that becomes a Russellian question of what you consider "government". Put it this way: If the US federal government, all the state governments, all the local governments just went away, so would socialism in the US. But we would still have capitalism. Maybe. It wouldn't be capitalism as we know it. Without the government, just about everything would collapse. There'd be no money. Transactions would be by barter only. Stores, factories, homes, anything of value at all would be looted and possibly destroyed. There'd be no wealth other than what you could carry or hide and protect with your own physical force. But what remained could be capitalism. It could also be communism. Small cooperative clusters could form based on shared labor and shared benefits. Don't forget that America was more communist than capitalist before we invaded from Europe and took the land as our own. I think most likely we'd have both, with informal capitalistic and communistic activities, transactions and lifestyles springing up randomly.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 4, 2015 11:08:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 11:09:42 GMT -5
I have a slightly different take. Not that I disagree, but I would emphasize the horribly corrosive nature of coerced charity. I believe we have a moral obligation to help each other. I believe attempting to do so through government force is metaphysically impossible. I believe the greatest moral flaw of our age is found in the absolute elimination of the distinction between "we should help those people" and "the government should help those people". It is, in every sense of the term, brutalizing. It also allows the recipient of the free goods and services to not feel beholden -- even to the point of good citizenship out of gratitude (since the perception is allowed to persist that the good or service was provided without anyone's sacrifice). And in our particular society, that "not beholden-ness" has exploded to a exceedingly more audacious, "It is my right." attitude. The benefactor is also deprived, in a manner that is the perfect mirror image of this.
|
|