USA was 3 hrs away from Economic, Political Collapse... last Sept. by pizmobeach

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

heh heh heh.

Good point, Rue.

It's amazing how peeps will rebel over something in one context and defend it to the death in another.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2009 3:57 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's amazing how peeps will rebel over something in one context and defend it to the death in another.

Well said Peep.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2009 4:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It's amazing how peeps will rebel over something in one context and defend it to the death in another.-Signy

Well said Peep.- Nobody

Well, if my objection was SIMPLY about handing money to somebody who didn't work for it then you'd be right. But it's not, so you're wrong. I know logic is difficult for you, so I won't bother to explain (again) how I see the problem. Scroll up, read slowly. Read aloud, if you need to. I'm sure you'll "get it" some day!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2009 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"What IS the purpose of an economy, anyway, if it isn't to take care of people ?"

Pretty scary question, isn't it ?

It's a pretty interesting question actually. The very notion that the economy has a 'purpose' is loaded with a lot of assumptions that illustrate some key differences in the way we look at it.

The economy is just a bunch of people trying to make a living for themselves, trying to get the things they want out of life. The economy has as many purposes as there are people. What we can ask about are the purposes of the laws that govern the economy. That makes some sense.

So, what are the purposes of the laws we make regarding the economy?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2009 5:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

'Economy' is the way groups of people transfer resources among themselves, including work and goods. There are as many different types of economies as there are groups of people. In so far as these groups of people are sustaining themselves, any economy is as natural and in tune with 'human nature' as any other. Considering that economies are a choice, then, it might be good to consider why we would make some choices and not others.

kpo seems to think that the 'purpose' of people is to sustain an economy - and not just any type of economy, but the capitalistic type specifically. And therefore we should choose to sacrifice the well being of the vast majority of people and have the development of great wealth in a very few, b/c if we don't capitalism fails and some great catastrophe will befall the universe.

I think the opposite, that the purpose of an economy is to sustain people. And therefore we should make choices to structure our societies to benefit the vast majority most efficiently.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2009 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think the opposite, that the purpose of an economy is to sustain people.

I agree that laws regarding the economy are, or at least should be, about the rights and well-being of people. But I still think it's misleading to think of the economy as something that has a purpose. That kind of thinking can backfire on you.

It's dangerous because it leads to the notion that if he economy isn't fulfilling it's "purpose", something should be done. And that leads to governments attempting to tune and manage the economy for maximum performance. It tempts them to consider laws not in terms of how they affect justice, but how they affect the growth of the economy. Arguably, that's how we got where we're at - whether you think it's from foolhardy deregulation or misguided attempts and economic manipulation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2009 10:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Interesting discussion.

Needs thought. Thanks Rue and Sarge.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2009 11:15 PM

NOW we're gettin to the meat of the matter, by all means go on, please...

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 2:19 AM

An economy has purpose or effects. I think the difference is rather arbitrary, and not worth arguing about, personally. Whether you believe it just has effects, or effects dictated by an over arching purpose, it still has effects and those are what's important.

If an economy is functioning well, everyone will, or should be, benefiting from an increased standard of living. Whether you think this is the purpose or the effect of a well functioning economy, would seem to be largely irrelevant.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 3:16 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Come on, think in specific terms, how can the social welfare spending be directly responsible for any of the wealth generation? All it can ideally be is kind of a lubricant for the capitalist engine, which creates the wealth.

That's not an example of any purely capitalist economies.

Why, precisely, does it have to be directly responsible any way? That would seem to be a semantic trick in order to dismiss contribution made by socialist programs. Does a public school system have a direct effect on the economy? I don't know, you tell me if you think a high standard of education in the populace will have a positive effect on a nations economy.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Exactly.

Universal health care - will it drag a society down, or will productivity actually INCREASE when people can easily get medical treatment and not have to either "walk it off" or sit around worrying a stressing about how to pay for their medicine?

Everyone here seems to agree that SOME "socialism" is a good thing. Where we fall apart is on the "how much?" question. Where does it end? What's the balance point? At what point do you take good enough care of your people that they're happy, healthy, and content to produce and generate capital and profit, and at what point do you tip over that point and start coddling them and encouraging laziness?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I thought for a bit about economy and purpose. In one sense, Sarge is right: It's a mistake to impute "purpose" to processes which are purposeless. Like evolution. People commonly think "evolution" has a "purpose": survival of the fittest, or the creation of the ultimate species (us, usually)

HOWEVER, I believe that since economics is a human endeavor it HAS a "purpose". People engage in "economic activity" for a purpose. The way we organize and regulate our economic activity is for a group purpose. Maybe our purposes are unconscious or poorly thought-out but they exist. Equating economics to evolution (which seems to be what Sarge is doing) is simply a re-statement of the capitalist Darwinian assumption: if people behave in individual ways the invisible hand will create a balanced system. That assumption negates the possibility of collective learning and wisdom. Isn't there a statement about failing to learn from history?

I'm of a different school of thought: I believe that we have the possibility of defining our future. I guess it's a very existentialist viewpoint; WE decide what is "fair", WE create our purpose, WE take responsibility for our own meaning, instead of letting "god" or "nature" or "economics" do it for us.

That also means that we must recognize that systems develop which are LARGER than we are- memes, technologies, languages, societies, institutions, religions, businesses- which have their own "food", their own reproduction, evolution, lifespan. Its as if we are the "cells" to these "bodies". But we must understand them if we are to control them instead of them controlling us. That is one of the reason swhy I find the Funding Father's document to be so interesting: it is the first CONSCIOUS attempt that I know of to create a larger institution which is both reproductive AND deliberately self-balancing: People and state. Branches of government. Inalienable rights and change.

That is why I find anarchism somewhat naive. Trying to create freedom by simply insisting that we all behave individually denies the (VERY POWERFUL and seemingly inevitable) development of these "larger-than-individuals" interactions and systems. In order to CREATE freedom one must create a SYSTEM which constantly enhances it. Then one must keep an eye on that system to make sure that it it is doing its job, and then CHANGE THE SYSTEM if it fails to perform.

For example, I think the Founding Fathers' experiment was a bold experiment. They did their best, by god, but clearly the system has enough flaws in it to be corrupted by concentrated wealth and power.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Universal health care - will it drag a society down, or will productivity actually INCREASE when people can easily get medical treatment and not have to either "walk it off" or sit around worrying a stressing about how to pay for their medicine?

Or like my Girlfriend who's living in Missouri at the moment. She's had some health problems, but had to stop even getting tests because she can't afford the co-pay on any more until she's paid for the ones she's had. They haven't even done anything yet, and she can't afford any more treatment. I can't think that helps her 'economic productivity' any.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Everyone here seems to agree that SOME "socialism" is a good thing. Where we fall apart is on the "how much?" question. Where does it end? What's the balance point? At what point do you take good enough care of your people that they're happy, healthy, and content to produce and generate capital and profit, and at what point do you tip over that point and start coddling them and encouraging laziness

It's useful to point that out sometimes. Most people think some socialist programs are a good idea, be it market regulation, the police, or even a military.

Of course the balance point will be different for different nations, but even so I think few get the balance right, either going to far one way or another. I think a failure in the balance will assert itself in numerous ways, say a high and growing gap between rich and poor, injustice, high crime rates.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 8:24 AM

Actually Siggy, someone apparently got around to doing a writeup on Proudhons mutualism theory of economics, which I've often tried, and usually failed badly, to explain here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) <-add manually.
It's well worth a look, and like most Anarchist schools of thought, isn't an all or nothing thing and can be adapted in any degree from lesser to larger, something well worth pondering as regards the usual problem of who controls the labor vs who controls the means of production and how the split goes.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 8:29 AM

Cit, I suppose I'm lucky because I *have* health insurance, albeit really shitty health insurance. Yet I still don't go to a doctor because of the paralyzing fear that they MIGHT find something that I won't be covered for.

So, as a result, I put it off, let it go, and then end up in a life-or-death situation, hoping to get by on treatment, and never mind a cure.

I'm not alone. In fact, the vast majority of people I know - rich and poor, insured or not - find themselves in the same boat. And given that so many small businesses find themselves shopping for employee health insurance every year or two, god forbid you DO get something listed on your records, because when your present company quadruples your rates and you go looking for a new company, your "pre-existing" condition is no longer covered. So you're screwed again.

Surely insurance companies could increase long-term profits by putting prevention and early detection higher on the priority list - but that would negatively affect their short-term profits, so they refuse to even consider it.

What I know is this: Our health care system doesn't work, period. Not even for the people it's supposed to be working for. The only people I know who have decent, uninterrupted health coverage that doesn't jerk them around consistently are those who work for the government - but we can't all be civil servants, can we?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
If an economy is functioning well, everyone will, or should be, benefiting from an increased standard of living. Whether you think this is the purpose or the effect of a well functioning economy, would seem to be largely irrelevant.

See, I think the question is extremely relevant and gets to the real core of what we ought to doing about it through government. If you see it as a system with a clear purpose, then we can act in a deliberate way to achieve that purpose. But I, and I'd guess many of us with a laissez-faire bent, aren't seeing it this way.

Even if we accept your notion that the economy should produce a "higher standard of living", that goal is very subjective. Some of us might consider that to mean more material goods and services and traditional wealth. But others of us might think that more free time and an uncomplicated lifestyle represent a higher standard of living. Those two goals aren't exactly co-aligned, and to the extent that they aren't, people will have different notions about what policies are good for the economy.

I'm not sure if the desire to pursue large-scale social reform causes one to see such activities as a 'system', or if it's the other way around but I think they're definitely related. The same issue is at the core of the health care debate, and I think it offers the same dangers. In the economy, if some people think that the good life involves owning at little as possible and keeping life simple, they're going to feel the pinch from laws and policies designed to encourage people to drive economic growth. In health care, people who look to non-traditional medicine, or who want to experiment with novel ways of assuring their health, will be punished as outliers when we pass laws that treat health care as a consistent, unified system.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:49 AM

Ayep, just like folks pay heinous sums for car insurance at Gov Gunpoint, theoretically for protections against injury or damage, but don't DARE actually file a claim if they can find any way around it.

It's bullshit, just like those "Unlimited" internet services that come down on you three months later screaming "HOW DARE YOU ACTUALLY *USE* WHAT WE'RE CHARGING YOU FOR!!".
(Talkin bout YOU, Comcast)

That brings to mind a funny thought...

I have an actual "doctor" whom I pay in cash or trade for something that needs "official" attention for legal/medical reasons, which is fairly rare.

And I have the guy who does scratch and dent work, which for me is all too common cause I tend to push physical limits, always have, and age and previous damage is starting to tell....

But he ain't a doctor, he's actually my Vet - I figure if it's good enough for my rotten spoiled cat, should be good enough for me, right ?

(insert ex's comment about how I adore that cat more than the past three women she's outlasted)

Anyhows, your commentary brought to mind something ya might find amusing Mikey - I was pondering just how FAR I would trust this guy to work on me if it came to cases, say a stab wound I didn't wanna have to explain, for example, since he's already done bruises, sprains, a broken finger, quite a few stitches and a concussion before...

And on a cost/benefit analysis, actually thinking it over in detail, I was a bit surprised at just how far I would rely on someone who isn't an M.D. to avoid the hell of dealing with the established medical system.

Remember, I've survived one near-fatal accident, and the damage was horribly compounded, almost lethally so, by the greed and neglect of that system, and in addition improverished me to a long period of homelessness, costing me a relationship, my home, my job and everything else BUT my life, thanks in great part to the exact insurance-shopping model you just mentioned.

Risk of death VS lower risk of death with gauranteed financial destitution likely to have it's own risk of death and health failure attached ?

For anything less than a miracle, I'll take the vet, thanks - and for the real wacky shite, well, there's the folks that also build my prosthetics...

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cit, I suppose I'm lucky because I *have* health insurance, albeit really shitty health insurance. Yet I still don't go to a doctor because of the paralyzing fear that they MIGHT find something that I won't be covered for.

Oh, so does she, which is what makes me damn near apoplectic. She can't afford any more treatment, because she has to pay copay charges (which I assume are like the excess I have to pay on any claims on my house insurance). The point is, she pays her health insurance, and she still can't afford to get treatment. It's like a rapist charging you for their time. As far as I'm concerned, that isn't business, it's not even insurance, it's a confidence trick with government and legal approval.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
What I know is this: Our health care system doesn't work, period. Not even for the people it's supposed to be working for. The only people I know who have decent, uninterrupted health coverage that doesn't jerk them around consistently are those who work for the government - but we can't all be civil servants, can we?

Especially not since the American government is so determined too seem small, that most US government jobs are out sourced to contractors (something like more than 10:1) despite the fact that, that, actually costs more, and makes the government bureaucracy even larger than it needs to be if they just admitted to it's real size.

But hey, the US government gets to say it's only a bureaucracy of 3 million civil servants, rather than over 30...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
If you see it as a system with a clear purpose, then we can act in a deliberate way to achieve that purpose.

I rather doubt you know how I see it.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Those two goals aren't exactly co-aligned, and to the extent that they aren't, people will have different notions about what policies are good for the economy.

They're not mutually exclusive either. One is an economic goal, and one is a social goal. Any approach to economics is a material one. Economics is the study of materials, markets and the movement of money, I'm sure you'll accuse me of trying to enforce my views on others in some Machiavellian malfeasance, but if you think there's something non-material about economies, then you don't know what an economy is.

Trying to say that economics doesn't need to be about material things, is like saying religion doesn't have to have anything to do with the supernatural.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
In the economy, if some people think that the good life involves owning at little as possible and keeping life simple, they're going to feel the pinch from laws and policies designed to encourage people to drive economic growth. In health care, people who look to non-traditional medicine, or who want to experiment with novel ways of assuring their health, will be punished as outliers when we pass laws that treat health care as a consistent, unified system.

Really? I'll tell the Chinese medicine place I walk past on my way to work they have to shut down, because we have the NHS and SergeantX says the two can't co-exist.

You're making wild claims about what will definitely happen if these situation occur in real life, without a mind to the fact that these situations do occur in real life, and what you say definitely will happen, doesn't.

You can talk all day long about what people might want to derive from an economy, but from outside that black box, economies are either doing well, or they're not. If an economy is doing well, people can derive from it what they want, if it is doing badly, they can't. Economies are a system, whether they have an overarching guiding hand, or purpose is irrelevant, they're still a system.

An economy is a river of money. Some people want to fish the river. Some people want to sail the river. Some people want to row the river. Some people want to lie in their boat and just drift. Regardless, they all need a healthy river, and the way of deriving that healthy river is the same for all, it's outside of any particular wants or needs placed on that river. The only people who might be curbed are those that want to use the river to shit in or dam, and really I don't see the problem in saying fuck them, the same way they say "fuck everyone else". The point is it doesn't matter whether you see the rivers purpose as flowing to the sea, or just to supply you with Fish, or that it just is, the actions taken to ensure everyone gets what they want out of it is the same.

So yes, whether you see the river as having an overarching purpose or not, is entirely irrelevant. Or we can play semantics, in which case I'll remind you that you see it having an overarching purpose, the purpose of giving people the opportunity to get what they want from it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 11:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge, since you didn't respond to my post, let me ask you simply: What if the purpose of a system is to guarantee maximum individual economic freedom?

What if that kind if freedom CANNOT be achieved laissez-faire? Because it seems to me that the ONLY thing laissez-faire gets us is a lot of power for a very few and very little power for everyone else.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 11:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
If you see it as a system with a clear purpose, then we can act in a deliberate way to achieve that purpose.

I rather doubt you know how I see it.

I wasn't presuming to. That's why I said "if". I wasn't even refer to you personally, just the hypothetical.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Those two goals aren't exactly co-aligned, and to the extent that they aren't, people will have different notions about what policies are good for the economy.

They're not mutually exclusive either.

That's why I said "to the extent that they aren't".

Quote:
I'll tell the Chinese medicine place I walk past on my way to work they have to shut down, because we have the NHS and SergeantX says the two can't co-exist.

That happens quite often, though not on my say-so.

Quote:
Economies are a system, whether they have an overarching guiding hand, or purpose is irrelevant, they're still a system.

The question, is whether it's a system with clear structure and purpose or not. Sure, it's a system in-as-much-as all of reality is a system. The question rue ask was about purpose.

Quote:
The only people who might be curbed are those that want to use the river to shit in or dam, and really I don't see the problem in saying fuck them, the same way they say "fuck everyone else".

Sure, if they're harming others, fuck em all you like. That's what I consider proper economic regulation - legislate against those who harm others. But there are plenty of people who get curbed merely for being out of the mainstream, even if their actions aren't harming anyone. Using government to promote certain types of economic activities at the expense others does exactly that.

In the current situation, for example, I don't want spend more money and rack up more debt. Yet the government has decided that's what's good for the economy, so they're launching programs to push us in that direction. Many of us happen to think that prudent saving and more cautious economic growth will be a better approach in the long run. If the government weren't tinkering, we'd find out. But the cards are being deliberately stacked against us by "stimulus" programs. We're putting all our eggs in one basket and discouraging diversity. That doesn't seem like a good idea.

Quote:
... I'll remind you that you see it having an overarching purpose, the purpose of giving people the opportunity to get what they want from it.

Actually I don't think that, any more than I think that the purpose of the weather is to water crops. There can be purpose behind laws regarding economic activities, but I think that should be limited to preventing fraud and theft. Beyond that, the economic goals of individuals are too many and varied to support a systemic approach.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 11:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge, there is no such thing as an individual with "an economy". Economies are arrangements between people: divisions of labor, trade, etc. As such, they necessarily have a purpose.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge, since you didn't respond to my post, let me ask you simply: What if the purpose of a system is to guarantee maximum individual economic freedom?

Sorry, Signym. Wasn't ignoring you deliberately. Lotta distractions today.

Quote:
from earlier
I'm of a different school of thought: I believe that we have the possibility of defining our future. I guess it's a very existentialist viewpoint; WE decide what is "fair", WE create our purpose, WE take responsibility for our own meaning, instead of letting "god" or "nature" or "economics" do it for us.

Well, we've certainly been down this road before. The problem is with the "we" aspect. When there is such a thing as 100% consensus, or at least very near it, I'm okay with defining our future it that way. But we usually don't have that unanimity, so "we" becomes "50%+", and pushes the rest of us down a road we might not want to travel. And, as often happens in history, the majority might be dead wrong, in which case uniformity can have disastrous consequences.

(If you have any spare reading time this winter, see if you can find a copy of Ishmael, but Daniel Quinn. It's not at all a libertarian screed, in fact it has an idealistic liberal feel to it. The rather audacious theme of the book as that we took a wrong turn some 10,000 years ago by adopting expansionist, agrarian culture as our modus operandi - and it's been trampling every other kind of culture ever since. His conclusion is that we are risking annihilation by forcing everyone down the same path.)

Quote:
That also means that we must recognize that systems develop which are LARGER than we are- memes, technologies, languages, societies, institutions, religions, businesses- which have their own "food", their own reproduction, evolution, lifespan. Its as if we are the "cells" to these "bodies". But we must understand them if we are to control them instead of them controlling us. That is one of the reason swhy I find the Funding Father's document to be so interesting: it is the first CONSCIOUS attempt that I know of to create a larger institution which is both reproductive AND deliberately self-balancing: People and state. Branches of government. Inalienable rights and change.

That is why I find anarchism somewhat naive. Trying to create freedom by simply insisting that we all behave individually denies the (VERY POWERFUL and seemingly inevitable) development of these "larger-than-individuals" interactions and systems. In order to CREATE freedom one must create a SYSTEM which constantly enhances it. Then one must keep an eye on that system to make sure that it it is doing its job, and then CHANGE THE SYSTEM if it fails to perform.

Well said. That's why I fall short of calling myself a literal anarchist. But I lean in that direction because I have yet to see a systemic approach to fighting these threats to liberty that doesn't create institutions just as threatening to liberty as the ones they presume to oppose. I think the FFs recognized this contradiction and it was the impetus for placing strong limitations on government power.

Quote:
For example, I think the Founding Fathers' experiment was a bold experiment. They did their best, by god, but clearly the system has enough flaws in it to be corrupted by concentrated wealth and power.

Of course, the libertarian premise is that these concentrations of wealth and power happen because of government policy, and not in spite of it. Obviously, that's a chicken and egg thing and difficult to prove conclusively.

Quote:
What if that kind if freedom CANNOT be achieved laissez-faire? Because it seems to me that the ONLY thing laissez-faire gets us is a lot of power for a very few and very little power for everyone else.

That's certainly the question to answer. Because I see exactly the opposite, ie the ONLY thing big government gets us is a lot of power for a very few and very little power for everyone else. Time will tell I suppose.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:06 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
While there is an economic argument for taking care of people, you will not find that argument in capitalism.

Is there anything 'in capitalism' that precludes it?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 7:46 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"While there is an economic argument for taking care of people, you will not find that argument in capitalism."

"Is there anything 'in capitalism' that precludes it?"

Yes, it's precluded by the drive to maximum profit.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 8:05 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's like a rapist charging you for their time.

Effin' A.
I have a "reading charge" for an X-Ray that these evil peeps are persuing me for that isn't "covered" & wasn't explained to me for a needless X-Ray that I'm fully willing to pay for ($26 measley dollars), but they want a money order and I want to pay it by debit card or in person by cash & they won't take it that way.
Our system basically SUCKS.
But the UK way is undesireable for some.
Go figure the resistance to it.

Hey Cit, will you sponcer me to move to your country? It would be nice to live in a relatively civilized country for a change.
But...I guess I should give Obama a chance to make things right...

The serf Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 14, 2009 8:06 PM

CHRISISALL

Double post that I blame on the US health car system

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:30 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

And folks believe that if Earth were just 1 mile closer to the sun, we'd all burn, and 1 mile further away, we'd all freeze.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That happens quite often, though not on my say-so.

I assure you that I have never once told a Chinese herbalist to shut down on anyone's say so.

Quote:
The question, is whether it's a system with clear structure and purpose or not. Sure, it's a system in-as-much-as all of reality is a system. The question rue ask was about purpose.

An economy is a system in the same way a rail network is a system, but people can still take different trains to different places. They can still get on and off at different platforms. They can still take those journeys for different reasons. But they're all trying to get somewhere.

An economy is about moving goods and money around. In fact in a capitalist economy it's about moving capital, money, around; goods and services are a means to that end. That's why it's called capitalism. Sure, people have different goals, but just like having different destinations on the train, they're all travelling.

One person may be a true capitalist, their goal may be to move lots of money from outside of their pocket, to the inside of it. Maybe someone else just really likes to make clocks, but at the end of the day they need capital to do that. If they had a rich and generous uncle to finance them, they could make clocks and keep them, or just give them away, in which case they're not taking part in the economy.

All an economy is, is money moving around. It really isn't anything more than that. Just because people come to the river for different reasons, doesn't make it anything other than a river.

So that's the purpose of the economy. And that's the purpose of regulation of an economy. Ensuring the proper and unrestricted flow of money through the economic system.

That includes laws against overt theft, but it also includes regulation against practices that have shown to cause failures within the economic system in the past, and now. Like, for instance, keeping investment and commercial banking separate.

Keeping the river flowing is the only way the disparate goals of the economy can be fulfilled, and that is it's over arching purpose. Don't confuse an overarching purpose, or regulation to keep the money flowing, as a centrally managed economy.

Quote:
Actually I don't think that, any more than I think that the purpose of the weather is to water crops.

So you wouldn't have a problem with economies being structured so that some people can't get what they want out of it then? I was trying to point out the difference between implied and overt purpose. If you think an economy is there for anyone to get what ever they want out of it, that is an implied purpose.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:34 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Double post that I blame on the US health car system

US health car system ?

You must have been educated at public schools, IF AT ALL! Man, your spelling is atrocious.

Oh, that means it's VERY BAD.

Sorry. public education. I forgot.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And folks believe that if Earth were just 1 mile closer to the sun, we'd all burn, and 1 mile further away, we'd all freeze.

Cites, please? (Since Geezer won't ever ask his favorite lap-dog to back up dubious claims)

Who are these people? Where are they?

I know YOU might believe that, but I seriously doubt there's anyone else that stupid. After all, the Earth meanders around in its orbit by some 3.5 million miles, so one mile more of less isn't going to be the difference.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Double post that I blame on the US health car system

US health car system ?

You must have been educated at public schools, IF AT ALL! Man, your spelling is atrocious.

Oh, that means it's VERY BAD.

Sorry. public education. I forgot.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Dear Kettle,

You're black!

Signed,

The Pot

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:26 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And folks believe that if Earth were just 1 mile closer to the sun, we'd all burn, and 1 mile further away, we'd all freeze.

Cites, please? (Since Geezer won't ever ask his favorite lap-dog to back up dubious claims)

Who are these people? Where are they?

I know YOU might believe that, but I seriously doubt there's anyone else that stupid. After all, the Earth meanders around in its orbit by some 3.5 million miles, so one mile more of less isn't going to be the difference.

Mike

It's called being absurd to show absurdity, genius. Gleaned from and exaggerating ( though not by too much ) the sort of discussions I've had w/ young Earth Creationist, my comment was clearly tongue in cheek. Be it one inch, foot, mile or 1000 miles, the notion that the Earth is in the " perfect " orbit which allows life , and the slightest deviation , either way, is PROOF that God® made everything.

Among my favorites ? Hearing a radio preacher talk about people finding " some ol' dog bones" and constructing gigantic lizards called Dinosaurs ! These views aren't held by just a few, random churches, found only in the back woods which might have been used for the movie , Deliverance. It's worse than you know. And when I use their ignorance as a punch line, please, don't get all bent out of shape. Again.

And my post on Chrisisall's typo ? Kinda making my point there, dummy. It was SARCASM. Might be you've heard of it ?

Don't be so petty and jump all over someone else's typos as an excuse to avoid dealing w/ the issue.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Of course, the libertarian premise is that these concentrations of wealth and power happen because of government policy, and not in spite of it. Obviously, that's a chicken and egg thing and difficult to prove conclusively.

I'm going to have a full day today, so I can just post this but may not be able to get back on until tomorrow:

Looking at the broad sweep of human civilization, once you get past "the tribe" it seems that power inevitably concentrates, along many nexuses:

The concentration of moral authority is religion.
The concentration of money is (now) called capitalism
The concentration of communication is "the media".
The concentration of guns is government.
The concentration of exploration is science.
The concentration of amusement is entertainment.

I can't think of a SINGLE society beyond "the tribe" where this hasn't happened. People willingly give up their voices, their hearts, their brains, their force, their goods, and their imaginations to others. It happens SO universally that I'm going to make an argument that I almost never make: There is something in human nature which allows it to happen. Not in everyone of course, but in enough. The feedback which KEEPS this from happening seems trivial and typically erupts only in revolution; and the forces which push it forward (the greater efficiency of the hive versus the individual) ensure in a Darwinian sense that internally united, complex societies will out-compete individualistic ones. (I believe Frem sees this quite clearly. His view, I think, is that ecological forces eventually cause the larger societies to collapse which also re-sets the human genome back towards individualism. But, I could be wrong!)

I think that YOU assume that people prefer individualism, so if we were to somehow rid ourselves of yoke of government, freedom would flourish and all would be well. Personally, I think that you're one of those 10% individualists and that you're projecting your reactions on to everyone else. But based on how I read human history ...if we were to somehow get rid of government -and all the other PTB- we would collectively rebuild them as fast as possible!

That is why I think if you desire a society which ALLOWS individual power you have to BUILD IT. For example, require that businesses be managed by the people who work in them. Require that "media" be divided into small accessible interactive units. Restrict the size of ANY function to the smallest that it needs to be to handle the problem. Teach REAL philosophy as part of the curriculum: How to ask questions. How to think. How to perceive. Individual responsibility, individual decision-making, individual risk-taking doesn't come naturally to a species which is cooperative to a fault.

Either that, or you and the other individualists like you buy a big chunk of land and live independently.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:03 AM

Quote:
if we were to somehow get rid of government -and all the other PTB- we would collectively rebuild them as fast as possible!

Stephen Kings novel "The Stand" actually bases around this, I dunno how much was stripped out for the 'normal' version, but I have the uncut big daddy hardback, and it's a monster.
http://www.amazon.com/Stand-Complete-Uncut-Stephen-King/dp/0385199570/
ref=ed_oe_h/177-3780776-6163601

Not only does it raise the issue but "after the end" it deals with the profound disgust of some of the characters towards that very occurance and their own desire to exit stage left because of it.

I'd say not so much build it, as find it - you put this idea on hard ground and start putting it into action for real, it'll draw those like-minded and cussed enough to wanna do it pretty quick...

Till some government squashes it as a threat to them, that is.
(See Also: Anarchist Catalonia)
S'why I make large point that *at this time* you couldn't do it without having to practically drown every foot of ground in blood first, something most anarchists ain't willing to do.

point: I ain't one of em, to me someone willing to kill other people for no better reason than that "the state" told them to has willingly surrendered their humanity and personhood, and as such, is naught more than a mere object, as unworthy of attachment or attention as a piece of litter you remove from your lawn and toss in the trash.

That being said, one of the reasons I don't think we're ready isn't just the violence that will come of it, but because that very attachment and cooperative instinct has been perverted to a master/slave (or parent/child if you're feeling gracious about it, which I ain't.) relationship in our society and is deliberately stunted there rather than being allowed to mature and develop in complexity.

Ergo, currently folks WITH the more complex forms of attachment and/or that potential are comparitively rare, I'd say 5% or under cause 10% is way too generous.

And of that 5%, sadly that's also a good chunk of where some really BAD people come from, cause it also includes those with NO attachments; i.e. - sociopaths, albeit ones who've been unable to warp the "rules" of our society to their benefit by being born to wealth or power.

And that's where the problem of building one starts...

...cause even most Anarchists are too damn nice.

I understand the instinct, have seen it all my life, but from a distance - whatever it is in people that makes them like other people, want to be around them, NEED their approval and bonds of community...

Whatever it is, I was either born without it for the most part, or burned it out before I recognized it's value - it's there but so muted it's like music you can't hear, and have to wall off everything else to even try to listen to.

Most folk like that wind up sociopathic in some fashion or another because they lack empathy, which thankfully I don't lack for, if I happen to actually care is another matter however.
And I retain that level of bonding at full value (or more) with animals, just not humans.

Of course, the only way to get an increase in folks who have the more complex and mature bonding values that Anarchists have, is to raise and educate them in Anarchist communities - but the only way to create Anarchist communities is to have them in the first place, thus creating a reversed chicken-egg problem bordering on catch-22.

Which I subvert at every opportunity by getting to folks before the public education system and our so-called society fully instills their "values" and allows them to calcify, simply by giving them another perspective while ripping the mask off the facade - it works better with the young because they've not yet fully trained themselves not to see the horrors, and the war between instinct and what is socially required for acceptance is as I keep sayin, a big cause of aberrent behavior in youth.

Because taking that path will, at least in these times, make them and their values forever unwelcome in this so-called society of ours, I tend to offer this only to those who've already turned their back on it or expressed the desire to do so, cause there's a certain cruelty in doing so to someone who is unawares of that fact.

And yes, I do favor a family(not just blood relation, but proximity of location and similar values)/tribe/clan theory of allowing cooperation without submission.

I've also come to hate our "Magic Number" social limit which considers anyone less old than that to be non-persons, sub-humans with less rights or regard than livestock...

And have recently come to favor re-introducing coming of age rituals imbued with modern skill tests as an alternative - however that's NOT gonna fly against the powers that be cause the LAST thing they want is folks not crushed into our society as useful little cogs being able to vote, oh helllll no.

But it's a concept that has merit, that I do believe.

We need to socially, emotionally, and spiritually "grow up" a little more before we're able to stand up from a crawl and walk that path.

Sadly, for those of us who have, elections look like... well, THIS.
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2007/07/03/spider-jerusalem-discusses-v
oting/

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That happens quite often, though not on my say-so.

I assure you that I have never once told a Chinese herbalist to shut down on anyone's say so.

Heh... cute. My point was that thinking of health care as a "system" leads us to legislating against alternative approaches and limits potential innovation.

Quote:
An economy is a system in the same way a rail network is a system, but people can still take different trains to different places. They can still get on and off at different platforms. They can still take those journeys for different reasons. But they're all trying to get somewhere.

I think the railroad analogy is a poor one in this case. Railroads do represent a designed system with deliberate purpose, but they don't reflect all the ways people might move around. The railroad network is a better analogy for something like the stock market, which is a system. To represent the entire economy in this analogy we'd need to consider all the various ways people move from place to place - which clearly isn't a "system", it's just a related class of activities.

Quote:
So that's the purpose of the economy. And that's the purpose of regulation of an economy. Ensuring the proper and unrestricted flow of money through the economic system.

I certainly disagree with this. Putting aside questions of what the "proper" flow of money is, I don't think laws regulating the economy should focus on the "flow" of money. That's what I was discussing with Signym. Laws should protect people, not money, nor the "flow" of money. In my opinion, thinking of economy of a system, with a presumed "purpose", leads to this kind of legislative approach, and to the problems we're currently dealing with.

Quote:
So you wouldn't have a problem with economies being structured so that some people can't get what they want out of it then? I was trying to point out the difference between implied and overt purpose. If you think an economy is there for anyone to get what ever they want out of it, that is an implied purpose.

I'm not sure I know what you're getting at by "structuring" an economy. I'm not even sure I see how it could be done. But then I'm clearly looking at it as a different sort of thing than you are. That's why I'm fixated on this issue of "system", because I really do think it's at the core of the different views. If one sees the economy as a designed, purposeful system, it implies and an entirely different legislative approach than the view of an economy as an aggregate of related activities.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I can't think of a SINGLE society beyond "the tribe" where this hasn't happened. People willingly give up their voices, their hearts, their brains, their force, their goods, and their imaginations to others. It happens SO universally that I'm going to make an argument that I almost never make: There is something in human nature which allows it to happen. Not in everyone of course, but in enough. The feedback which KEEPS this from happening seems trivial and typically erupts only in revolution; and the forces which push it forward (the greater efficiency of the hive versus the individual) ensure in a Darwinian sense that internally united, complex societies will out-compete individualistic ones. (I believe Frem sees this quite clearly. His view, I think, is that ecological forces eventually cause the larger societies to collapse which also re-sets the human genome back towards individualism. But, I could be wrong!)

Sure, makes sense to me. Actually, the last bit is related to the book I referenced. He acknowledges the immediate competitive edge of the "hive", even points out how it's dominated all other culture styles in recent history, but sees it as a doomed approach in the long term.

Quote:
...But based on how I read human history ...if we were to somehow get rid of government -and all the other PTB- we would collectively rebuild them as fast as possible!

I don't disagree with this either, which is why, apart for the occasional thought experiment, I don't entertain anarchy as serious option for our current culture. But I want to limit the damage done by "followers" and keep them from running roughshod over the rest of us. I simply see much less to fear from the greed of capitalists than from the fickle aspirations of democratically driven governments.

I'm kinda busy this weekend to, so I'll have to cut this short, but I have serious reservations about your notion of "mandated" freedom. Or rather the idea that a strong authority is required for, or even amenable to, personal freedom. Good discussion though.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:12 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Frem

I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what makes people the way they are.

When you consider Wulf and AnthonyT - two people with similar experiences and divergent results - it's seems to me that inborn differences can direct our responses. We are not born blank slates.

As I read the people on the board, I can see that many are echoing childhood issues ad infinitum. Which is sad to me - to live on for decades and never get anywhere different than your mindset at 3, or 7, or 12. And I'm not sure you can make up for lost opportunities, there may be periods of development that close, never to be reopened.

But, nevertheless I think it's possible (for those with reasonably intact neurology, as most of us are here) to change yourself by changing the balance of your responses and reactions from trauma-based ones to positive ones.

My thinking goes like this:

It's always possible to stunt someone achieving their potential as a person. But it's impossible to instill something that isn't there.

If you go back to your best self, you can see what that best self is you were born to be. Did you put a towel on your shoulders and pretend for all your worth you were Superman ? Did you talk to your toy, and with complete abandon put your thoughts and feelings into words ? Were you content when others were happy ?

That is your best self, the one you were born to be. That self doesn't go away. You can still tap into it, slowly and awkwardly at first, but soon with greater ability.

If you make the effort to reawaken that child and parent it in the way it should have been parented, that self can become the new you. And by that I mean rediscover those qualities and then find a way to act on them as an adult.

You see, what we tell ourselves is important. And we need to stop rehearsing pain and loss, and start rehearsing a way to move forward.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Heh... cute. My point was that thinking of health care as a "system" leads us to legislating against alternative approaches and limits potential innovation.

Places with public health care systems have healthier populations, rather disproving that assertion.

Quote:
I think the railroad analogy is a poor one in this case. Railroads do represent a designed system with deliberate purpose, but they don't reflect all the ways people might move around. The railroad network is a better analogy for something like the stock market, which is a system. To represent the entire economy in this analogy we'd need to consider all the various ways people move from place to place - which clearly isn't a "system", it's just a related class of activities.

Doesn't change anything, you have speed limits in the US.

Quote:
I certainly disagree with this. Putting aside questions of what the "proper" flow of money is, I don't think laws regulating the economy should focus on the "flow" of money.

Disagree if you want, but an economy is the flow of money, nothing more nothing less. That is its implied purpose, to move money around, the same as rivers implied purpose is the movement of water. Economies are measured in currency amounts, because that's all they are, money moving around. No more no less.

As for the proper movement of money, nothing Machiavellian there for you I'm afraid. I'm referring to money being allowed to move, and preventing people from damming the flow, which is bad for everyone, no more no less.

Quote:
That's what I was discussing with Signym. Laws should protect people, not money, nor the "flow" of money. In my opinion, thinking of economy of a system, with a presumed "purpose", leads to this kind of legislative approach, and to the problems we're currently dealing with.

Well all an economy is, is money moving around. Therefore any legislation of an economy is protection of money.

If money is moving well, you have a good economy. If money isn't moving well, you have a bad economy. If money isn't moving at all, you have no economy. So yeah, an economies implied purpose is moving money around.

I'd add that it isn't regulation that caused the problems we're currently in, it's deregulation. Over the course of the New Deal legislation there were no major economic collapses, no major stock market crashes. Since Reagan came up with the idea of deregulating everything, there's been three. It's pretty obvious what the cause is, if you're willing to actually look.

Quote:
I'm not sure I know what you're getting at by "structuring" an economy. I'm not even sure I see how it could be done.

Really, because you're the one who was talking about regulation "curbing" people earlier on.

Quote:
But then I'm clearly looking at it as a different sort of thing than you are. That's why I'm fixated on this issue of "system", because I really do think it's at the core of the different views. If one sees the economy as a designed, purposeful system, it implies and an entirely different legislative approach than the view of an economy as an aggregate of related activities.

I think you're hung up on it, because you want my case to be something its not. You're trying to paint me as advocating a communist style centralised economy, and you being the champion for laissez faire capitalism, but unfortunately I'm not advocating any such extremist thinking.

You hear me say "system" and "purpose" and you hear communist style centralised directed purpose. That's simply not how I'm using the words, and I've already said that. System is a perfect term for Economies, and system doesn't necessarily denote a centrally planned, or consciously organised entity. Further reading on the systemic nature of any given economy can be found on wikipedia as a first instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system
Laissez-faire capitalism can be found under "Hands-off" Private-oriented Systems.

When I say purpose, I don't mean "Lets build this thing and it's purpose will be X", I mean purpose the same way a rivers purpose is to take water back to the sea. And yes, in that usage, a capitalist economies purpose is to move money around. That's what it's for, that's what it does. That's why it's called CAPITALism.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:52 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"While there is an economic argument for taking care of people, you will not find that argument in capitalism."

"Is there anything 'in capitalism' that precludes it?"

Yes, it's precluded by the drive to maximum profit.

your argument assumes that maximising profit must come at the expense of people (or such is 'true capitalist theory')...

But it's common sense that to maximise profits in the long term you need to take care of people to some extent at least in the short term - even slave-holders would feed their slaves to get profit from them... and so, how would a 'true' capitalist have operated things differently sig? Starved his slaves to save money on food and maximise short term profits, and then work them to death?

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to ask you to cite a proper definition of capitalism sig; if you can show me the requirement for maximising profit in the short-term I'll accept your argument. If not, it kind of seems like you've made up your own definition of capitalism along the lines of 'human greed and short-sightedness distilled down to pure evil'

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Your assumption works only if there is a shortage of labor, which makes the laborer "worth" something. But as long as there are people desperate to work for a pittance under any circumstances, it makes more financial sense just to burn though the population and toss 'em out when they're used up.

BTW- slave-owners pretty much burned through slaves, too. Conditions in the the indigo and rice plantations and pine -pitch areas pretty much guaranteed that slaves died of malaria and malnourishment in about 18 months. So it was a death sentence for rebels and runaways And the lifespan on cotton plantations wasn't great either.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:43 PM

Quote:
I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what makes people the way they are.

By now I got a pretty good idea of the whats, it's the WHYS that I tend to focus on, hence my favor for the Jungian Shadow Question.
"What do you want ?"
As a measure of a person.

Quote:
When you consider Wulf and AnthonyT - two people with similar experiences and divergent results - it's seems to me that inborn differences can direct our responses. We are not born blank slates.

We're born with potential leanings, but that's all they are, is potentials, and while they can and do bias responses, they seem more tendancy than predestination and as such can be subverted by environment, experience and acts of will.

Quote:
And I'm not sure you can make up for lost opportunities, there may be periods of development that close, never to be reopened.

That's what I refer to as the calcification process - best example of it is how the difficulty in learning new languages spikes and keeps rising past a certain point, puberty and the early teen years also have a strong calcifying effect on mentality - and while it's sometimes possible to pry those windows back open, it's usually in response to something so traumatic that it's left a permanent schism in a persons thought process, which serves as the lever to do so, and is often not worth it if they have achieved passable functionality since the act of prying the window back open is horribly traumatic in and of itself.
While it's not really, yanno.. "never", it's close enough for most folk to be regarded as such.
Doc Perry's work tends to focus on the windows of early development and would have more information on this topic at that point - my own work tends toward the latter windows where the "final polish" goes on someones mentality before it's all locked into place and hardened.

Quote:
But, nevertheless I think it's possible (for those with reasonably intact neurology, as most of us are here) to change yourself by changing the balance of your responses and reactions from trauma-based ones to positive ones.

Reasonably intact neurology - yes, not easy, but entirely possible.
The hard part is when the trauma-based experiences have occured early enough to "stick" in very low levels like motor memory or the autonomous core/stem responses, that's almost unfixable, but in very rare cases retrainable.
(and I highly suspect the flaws that cause Tourettes reside there)
The later the trauma comes, the less "deep" into the brains development it lingers, and is as such easier to overcome and deal with.
Radical change is fairly rare, cause some wounds never do heal, and some take so much time to cure that our current system is uninterested and chooses to just slap a symptom-treatment band-aid on it for economy of effort.
Reason I detail this - is that I have stong empirical evidence that not only is it possible for those with an intact neurology, it's actually possibly although not so easy, for those with a damaged one, with the assistance of a "re-balancing" effort aided by a safe, predictable, structured environment that doesn't feed the inputs that screwed it up in the first place.
Perry does touch on this in some places himself, the importance of that environment to rebalance a screwed up HPA response system.

Quote:
It's always possible to stunt someone achieving their potential as a person. But it's impossible to instill something that isn't there.

Yes, sadly, which is why not all people can be... "repaired", cause there's nothing that was once there to repair.
That's also one of our Shadow Questions.
"Have you ever known love ?"

Quote:
If you make the effort to reawaken that child and parent it in the way it should have been parented, that self can become the new you. And by that I mean rediscover those qualities and then find a way to act on them as an adult.

Truth is, doll, that's the ONLY way some of these folk will ever get any better, and one reason we try so hard to get to them when they've not forgotten who or where that child is, in there, while they can still reach it and believe in it.
EDIT: This is what the DeeVees are, in fact, is folks who have reached back and become that, but for various (and obvious) reasons, need a surrogate "parent" to stand in for that accellerated process, which is where the cling factor comes from and why as they come to terms with who they are, it goes away.

Quote:
You see, what we tell ourselves is important. And we need to stop rehearsing pain and loss, and start rehearsing a way to move forward.

Very true, and a key point to all of the above - once the traumatic and invasive/unwanted flashbacks let off, there's also shutting down the rumination aspect, which is where the "safe harbor" environment helps oh so very much.

And imma give you one of the keys to understanding something else here, since you've obviously put a lot of thought and effort into this.

You say what we tell ourselves, about ourselves, is very important, and this I will not deny, but here it a matter for you to invest a little thought in when you have the time.

Why then, do I take such great pains to express that I am not noble, decent, or even a very nice person at all ?

That one's tricky, but if you figured all the rest of that out, and my heartfelt, profound respect for having done so, you might be able to solve that riddle.

-Frem
EDIT: To clarify a point.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:37 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And we need to stop rehearsing pain and loss, and start rehearsing a way to move forward.

Good words to live by.

Quote:
You say what we tell ourselves, about ourselves, is very important, and this I will not deny, but here it a matter for you to invest a little thought in when you have the time. Why then, do I take such great pains to express that I am not noble, decent, or even a very nice person at all ?

I'm sure I can't figure it out but maybe Rue can.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:54 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think it was earlier in this thread that I original asked, but could you provide any examples of purely capitalist economies?

Sorry it took me a while to figure out why you kept asking this - in response to my request for an exanple of an exemplary, 'pure' socialist state?

I suppose 'pure' isn't necessary, I just wanted an example of a success story that was fundamentally socialist in its economy - its industry predominantly collectively owned.

In response to your question I can list several fundamentally capitalist economies that are successes, and maybe you can inform me if they're 'pure'.

Your example Denmark, has a capitalist economy, regardez:

Quote:
Denmark, with a free market capitalist economy, and a large welfare state...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark

I think wikipedia is going off the dictionary definition of capitalism like me; essentially, an economic system whereby the means of production is privately owned.

As for your argument that counts social welfare spending as part of an economic system - because (correct me if i'm wrong) it impacts the population who then work in the system. Let me ask: is all politics socialism? Because all politics not just welfare spending, exists to impact the population - and therefore is impacting the workforce of the economy.

Is for example a policy of zero-tolerance policing in a city to tackle rampant crime rates and better establish the rule of law an economic policy, because it affects the society and thereby the workforce and the economy?

If a government launches a war for foreign oil, to keep oil prices cheap for the population at home - this affects the workforce
and their performance in the economy. This means that the policy of imperialism by your argument is part of a country's economic system - socialism?

Please explain what national policies (as well as the welfare state), should be considered part of a country's economic system, and why.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:18 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Your assumption works only if there is a shortage of labor, which makes the laborer "worth" something. But as long as there are people desperate to work for a pittance under any circumstances, it makes more financial sense just to burn though the population and toss 'em out when they're used up.

There's a demand for labour and a finite supply (which can be exhausted), so that means it is automatically worth something. And worth more if the labour required is skilled, etc. Circumstances where it is profitable to burn through labour would be exceptional (difficult to imagine in fact), and it seems strange to define an economic model as only workable in contrived exceptional cirucmstances...

Even paying starvation wages to your workforce so that they only starve slowly is still taking care of them to an extent, and so doesn't qualify as 'pure' capitalism by your current definition... Which I'm still waiting for you to cite btw - should be an interesting dictionary I feel.

Or should we just agree that there isn't anything after all 'in capitalism' to preclude taking care of your workforce?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 15, 2009 9:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There's a demand for labour and a finite supply (which can be exhausted), so that means it is automatically worth something. And worth more if the labour required is skilled, etc. Circumstances where it is profitable to burn through labour would be exceptional (difficult to imagine in fact), and it seems strange to define an economic model as only workable in contrived exceptional cirucmstances...

Except that it occurs all the time, all over the world: most of Southeast Asia,, the Marianas, virtually all of South and Central America... and back though history to the sweatshops of immigrant America and Victorian England. So how can you claim that burning through a population only occurs under contrived, exceptional circumstances when it seems to be the rule rather than the exception?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 16, 2009 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Why then, do I take such great pains to express that I am not noble, decent, or even a very nice person at all ?

Keeps you on your toes. People who think they're generally the good guy, the noble and decent hero, can so often be found persecuting others, because they're noble and decent so their acts are justified as serving a higher and better purpose.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 16, 2009 3:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Sorry it took me a while to figure out why you kept asking this - in response to my request for an exanple of an exemplary, 'pure' socialist state?

I suppose 'pure' isn't necessary, I just wanted an example of a success story that was fundamentally socialist in its economy - its industry predominantly collectively owned.

Seems a very unfair restriction to place on me, especially since you're not content to adhere to it yourself. I'm not allowed to discuss the positive merits of Socialist Social programs on an economy, but you are allowed to describe them as nothing more than a drag on the well functioning capitalist economy? I can see the rhetorical allure for you, but I don't see what is in it for me.

You brought in socialist socail programs into the argument, not me. It was you who said they have an net negative impact, I merely pointed out that the evidence is quite the opposite, that countries with more socialist social programs have better performing economies. Now you seem to want to restrict it to only the socialist economic policies?

I'm just saying that it seems unfair that you're willing to discuss socialist social policy impact on economies, right up until the evidence turns against you.

At any rate, a socialism is a very broad subject, encompassing some forms of public ownership, but those are a sub-set of socialism, not the whole thing. Socialism != Communism. Socialist economic policies would be market regulations. Regulations are a socialist economic policy, not a capitalist one. To that end I'll give you a partially socalist economy:
The United States. It has market regulations, enacted by a central state authority, the government. Denmark counts there as well. In fact there are no economies that I can think of, that don't have some form of market regulation, thus socialism.

All major economies are mixed economies, termed by wikipedia as:

Quote:
A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates a mixture of private and government ownership or control, or a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

(emphasis added)

So there you go, my example of any successful economies that include socialist elements, are all of them.

Quote:

I think wikipedia is going off the dictionary definition of capitalism like me; essentially, an economic system whereby the means of production is privately owned.

There's a lot more to the definition than that. There's many different types of economies, and most of them have primarilly private ownership of production. Denmarks direct economic policy is mostly capitalist, but it's also a mixed economy so it does, in fact include socialist aspects. But again, it was you who brought socialist social programs into consideration in economics, not me.

Quote:
As for your argument that counts social welfare spending as part of an economic system - because (correct me if i'm wrong) it impacts the population who then work in the system. Let me ask: is all politics socialism? Because all politics not just welfare spending, exists to impact the population - and therefore is impacting the workforce of the economy.

It was a counter-argument to YOUR argument bringing in welfare spending as a drag factor on an economic system. If you want me to ignore the positive aspects on the economy, YOU have to ignore any negative ones, or you're just framing the debate, and using sophistry. So let me ask YOU that question. Is all spending, government or private economic policy?

It was your argument that social programs affect the economy, I just ran with it.

Quote:
Is for example a policy of zero-tolerance policing in a city to tackle rampant crime rates and better establish the rule of law an economic policy, because it affects the society and thereby the workforce and the economy?

No, but wanting to now restrict it to direct economic policy now the evidence has turned against you, is sophistry.

Quote:

If a government launches a war for foreign oil, to keep oil prices cheap for the population at home - this affects the workforce
and their performance in the economy. This means that the policy of imperialism by your argument is part of a country's economic system - socialism?

Only if we were to confuse my argument with a strawman of it.

The definition of what constitutes a socialist social policy, is fairly well understood, and one you didn't seem to have a problem with earlier, when you were characterising them as nothing more than a 'burden' on a cpaitalist economy.

Quote:

Please explain what national policies (as well as the welfare state), should be considered part of a country's economic system, and why.

You want me to explain your argument? It was your argument that socialist programs should be taken into consideration as effecting economic policy, I was giving a counter-point to your argument. I never claimed that social programs could be considered economic policy, I claimed they could have a positive impact on an economy, in counter to your statement that they can only negatively impact it.

All I see going on here is you saying socialism is a drag factor on economies, and when I demonstrate that isn't necessarilly the case, you attempt to frame the debate in such a way as you can prove your case, by eliminating evidence that runs counter to it. If you use socialist programs as an example of a drag factor on an economy, you really can't cry foul when I argue against that position. Now, I'm sorry if I've come across a might confrontational on that point, but the spin you've attempted to put on it, is pure sophistry. It was you that brought socialist social programs up as a part of the economy, not me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 16, 2009 5:44 AM