Alternative to capitalism?

[Don Roley]

Well, wouldn't that be the same justification that allows the government to tax us? Contributing to the society and nation that you benefit from? I mean, obviously giving your life and giving your money are different in the degree of sacrifice, in that one is the ultimate sacrifice, but it's the same principle, right?

Heh heh, good points. Some of us beleive that goverment (being an entity that intrudes on us) is an evil. However, since the alternative is anarchy, we beleive that it is a necessary evil that should be minimalized as possible.

I don't see how the last requirement about military service is either objective or fair. First obvious objection is a personal one of my own: what of the handicap people who CANT serve in the military to put their lives on the line? Actually, for them, it's not just risking death, it's insuring it (or is it ensuring it?). It's also saying that pacifists, or people who object to the war itself, essentially don't count as citizens of the nation, which is in no way an "objective" account. At least not in a nation that proposes freedom to speak and think as you would so long as you don't violate the rights of others to do the same.

Just some preliminaries.

Well, In Heinlein's world, they made every effort to make sure that people's handicaps did not get in the way of serving in some form where you could get shot at. If you could not walk, they would make you a cook in specially equipped kitchen on a warship, etc.

But you raise some of the points I have been thinking about. Unless there is a constituional guarentee that the goverment can only do that which is absolutely neccesary to maintain civilization, what is to prevent the citizens to building nice houses for them at the expense of the civilians? Oh yeah, and what about the idea of changing the constitution?

As you can see, the idea of how to govern people is key to the debate. The economic system is just part of a whole. Some people have been blaming capitalism for our killing of the indians, slavery, treatment of the nisei, etc. Then the same people praise the democratic system. Excuse me, were we a monarchy when these things happened?

So, we blame capitalism for that, but not democracy? It seems to me that we need to look at core issues and build from there.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Just as a general suggestion, Mr. Roley, you may very well find that discussing the supposed bias against the wealthy lot by going on a lot about, "gays," and, "Muslims," and "commies," and, "young blacks," works a lot better if you remember that there is only one, "g," in the word, "bigot."

It is also helpful to be accurate, if you're going to refer to science fiction novels for your political ideas. Pournelle's governments are a) monarchies, b) democracies taken over, essentially, by the military.

You're quite right that Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," society guarantees citizenship to ANY enlistee, so long as they stick it out, no matter what their capabilities or handicaps happen to be--in fact, the book's explicit about that, so an argument about "not passing the test," does kinda go out the window.

But unfortunately, doubt about government/corporate get-togethers appears throughout Heinlein's books. (Pournelle's not a smart enough writer to even notice.) In, "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress," the chief character is a revolutionary, fighting to get rid of an oppressive, colonialist government that is primarily interested in getting the Loonies to work harder for the corporation that esssentially owns the Moon. Of his most explicitly-political novels, "Double Star," insists upon the necessity of moral government, and upon bringing aliens into full political rights. "Citizen of the Galaxy," focuses on the efforts to expose and to eliminate slavery, which is explicitly described as being run by a giant corporation. "Red Planet," and that one set primarily on Venus, whose name I disremember, again feature freedom fighters opposed to colonialisms primarily run by corporations.

Even his weird novels, like, "Magic, Inc.," attack the giant, satanic (quite literally...its CEO is Satan's nephew, Nebiros) corporations that are attempting to get a Microsoft-like monopoly on magic so that they can make more and more money and drive the little folks out of business. The same pretty much appears in, "Starman Jones," where the earth's essentially run by guilds and businesses, and the main character can't wait to get OFF.

Oh yeah, and books like, "Space Cadet," "The Star Beast," and "Have Space Suit, Will Travel," revolve around United Nations-like governments that run either the earth or the galaxy, and are explicitly described as benificient.

In fact, about the only GOOD corporation I recollect in any of Heinlein is Harriman's in, "The Man Who Sold the Moon," a corporation clearly described as a mere front for another purpose entirely. Maybe that one in, "--We Also Walk Dogs." And I certainly admit that, "The Roads Must Roll," tells a story about a pretty nasty union...

And while stories like, "Free Men," appear to have influenced stuff like, "Red Dawn," if you actually go back and read, "Solution Unsatisfactory," you will find that the plot revolves around an Army colonel who takes over the world to protect it from what is explicitly described as a war-mongering, colony-hunting President and a weak, greedy Congress.

Personally, I like Kim Stanley Robinson's books about Mars, for thoughtful considerations of politics and capitalisms, and what's-'is-name's books such as, "Cosmonaut Keep," and, "The Star Fraction," for accounts of what is all too likely to actually happen.

Oooops, there I go again. Words, words, words. Ya ticked me off with the pointless insults, or I wouldn't've stooped to being this snooty. But then again, I have a lot of affection for those Heinlein books.

 

[Don Roley]

I will expect you to find some sort of excuse, probably one tha involves making fun of others like myself, instead of taking up my challenge.

My track record at prophicies are pretty good so far. I even got a comment about my spelling, which is the standard way of putting down a person on the internet when you want to prove your superiority and can't deal with the debate.

Ho hum, I guess I am just stupid for thinking that the goverments in "Go Tell the Spartans" and such are democracies instead of monarchies, because the "kings" have to be elected and there is a senate. The same goes for the corporation that rules the moon in Heinlein's Moon book at the bidding of (ooops) a goverment. Along with other examples of goverments letting parts of it rule over others in his books.

Guess I am just too stupid to make a contribution to this conversation.
:uhyeah:

 

[Don Roley]

You know, I realized that I have not seen a lot of actual debate going on by the other side. By debate, I mean exchange of ideas and talking about the merits and such of each.

I see them attack things like Donald Trump and big corporations. I see them make fun of other people's comments and opinions. And I see them talk about the books they read and how we should try to be as knowledgeable as they.

But I do not see much in the way of talking about central core ideals and beliefs. They attack capitalism, but are not able to offer vaild systems to replace it. Whenever I try to nail one of them down to a constant principle, they dance away instead, mocking, attacking and trying to look smarter than anyone else.

Well, I am throwing down the guantlet Here is a principle and a belief that I challenge people to find reasonable, calmly stated objection with and debate it if they would.

Here it is.

A person is born free and no one has the right to violate them. What they do that has no impact on anyone else is no one else's concern.

The system of goverment that best serves this is democracy. The economic system that best serves this is capitalism.

Anyone want to try to tell me a better system to reach this or try to point out flaws in my aurgument?

The closest has been the argument that we all owe gratitude to the varied elements that allow us to live and that we are NOT free because we have that obligation. I reject this notion because, while I beleive in paying my debts, a gift is something that is given freely. And the gift of life, etc is not something that we negotiated and knew the price of before agreeing. The idea of someone coming along and telling you that they now have control of you because of some gift given to you without asking is immoral. I don't care if it is one person or a million.

I think I have been influenced by the words of a document I hold in high esteem. Part of it reads as follows.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So men are created with rights, and among those rights is liberty- i.e. freedom. So men are born free of obligation to others. That they are created that way, does not mean they have to remain that way.

People are created equal by their creator, not the goverment. After the moment of their birth they have the unalienable rights, but they start ceasing to be equal. They will always have the same treatment as anyone else in the eyes of the law, but I really am not on equal footing with Stephen Hawkings.

The pursuit of happiness is key as well. As I wrote, people can do what they want unless it violates others. People are free to do what they seek to be happy. They can be hot shot stock brokers, or Amish farmers. I personally would not want to be a broker with it's stress, but one person's happiness is another man's nightmare. We can not judge and the language is not clear as to what happiness should be. And we can pursue it, but there is no assurance of it guarenteed in the document. No one has to help you achieve your happiness, that would violate the provision about liberty, their liberty if you forced them to achieve your happiness. Their liberty to pursue their happiness is also violated if you try to determine what that happiness should be. I may not like the pursuit of money that others do to be happy, but it is their choice, their way of being happy. I must leave them alone unless what they do has an impact on my life.

Now, I will be the first to admit that the country that gave us this document, the goverment that gave us American democracy, has not always lived up to its principles. Until the 20th century, women could not vote. Slaves were held until the later half of the 19th. We went on to kill the Indians and send the Nisei Japanese to internment camps. But the democratic principles are still valid. They were just ignored. The ideas that inspired these words are still decent, even if they were ignored by not giving blacks the right to vote until the 20th century. I feel we need to get back to these principles and they are still the most just, most decent system there is.

Can anyone find any flaws with the central principles around which my arguement is based?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yep.

"The complete interdependence of modern economic life seems to have escaped them entirely." --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Roads Must Roll."

The basic problem can be explained, further, in terms of the Constitution's basic theory of rights: they are NOT unlimited, but always presented as balanced by other rights. Basically, this is because people do not live in a pure state of Nature, but as members of a society: as the Framers appear to've had very much in mind, we have in a sense already, "signed," a social contract. The famous example would be free speech, a "natural right," counterpointed by other rights, such as the right of the State to preserve order in emergencies.

The contradiction between personal and social responsibility, rights, or what have you has been part of the Constitution from the start. My understanding is that, generally speaking, it's what the tension between Jeffersonian ideas and Hamilton's are all about.

However, I haven't as yet found any part of the "original," Constitution--or anthing later--that guarantees economic and/or corporate rights, or talks about capitalism being neat-o and groovy, except of course for guaranteeing equal rights under the law for everybody, rights that have usually been taken to be rights of equal access and opportunity. It is a radical, new reading of the Constitution to read capitalism into it the way you are doing, very similar to the Supreme Court decision that spending money in political campaigns and free speech are the same thing.

Just so's you know, the general marxist account is that capitalism and democracy did indeed grow up together. That's why they are taken to be advances over feudalism, and the contradiction between the two is why they are not confused with the end-state of historical development.

Both Marx and Jefferson, however, would've recognized The Donald for the shabby little wanna-be tycoon he is: you'd be much better off carrying the can for somebody like Sir James Goldsmith, or Richard Branson, or Sam Walton, or one of the several real tycoons who are by all accounts both successful businessmen and decent people.

And if you'd like to maintain low tones, well, my advice is, don't leap into conversations with a hearty, "You're Un-American," or a loud hey dumbass, you're a useless collitch boy, or a why don't you leave this great nation and join the Amish. I'd also recommend leaving off the goofball comparasions between rich people and the victims of, say, racism--until of course, us collitch types start turning dogs and fire hoses on the wealthy, or start saying, "He's a-driving a Lex-us. Somebody git a rope."

 

[heretic888]

While preachings about the rights of the individual, let's not forget that the State has certain rights, too, which is what we usually call "social responsibilities". No man is an island --- we're all in this together.

In my opinion, it is the goal of society to balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the State. Both are of equal importance.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I'd also recommend leaving off the goofball comparasions between rich people and the victims of, say, racism--until of course, us collitch types start turning dogs and fire hoses on the wealthy, or start saying, "He's a-driving a Lex-us. Somebody git a rope."

Well yeah, nobody's busting out lynch ropes, but racism is fueled by the same type of thinking by which many liberals condemn the wealthy or upper class. Basically, you're a member of this social group, so you have to be evil. As you've noted, these liberals aren't acting out their condemnations in any forms of violence, but the belief structure is pretty much still the same.

 

[Makalakumu]

A millionaire should have not more or less voice in a democracy. But everyone should be able to keep what they make and not be a slave to 51 percent of the population. That is why I favor a minimilst goverment. And you seem to as well, except when it comes to how everyone distributes other people's wealth.

Taxes redistribute wealth to social programs. They have to happen. Roads are a social program. The military is a social program. So are the police and fire departments...we just have to pay for that stuff. I believe that every person should be taxed equally, at the same rate. Not everything you own, but at the same rate. So, if I have to give 15 % of my paycheck to the federal government, a millionaire should have to do the same. As it stands now, people who make over one millions dollars in the country pay .5 % of their income in taxes. That is what I'm talking about when I say that the system favors the rich. THAT is what I'm talking about when I say we need to equalize social responsibility for everyone. If we want to lower taxes, great. Do it for everyone and make it fair, for everyone because we all are part of this country are we not?

 

[Makalakumu]

So, if capitalism is so good and democracy is so good, I would like to ask a question...since the cornerstone of both happens to be the "free market" theory...Who thinks we are living in a free market society?"

 

[Don Roley]

The basic problem can be explained, further, in terms of the Constitution's basic theory of rights: they are NOT unlimited, but always presented as balanced by other rights. Basically, this is because people do not live in a pure state of Nature, but as members of a society: as the Framers appear to've had very much in mind, we have in a sense already, "signed," a social contract. The famous example would be free speech, a "natural right," counterpointed by other rights, such as the right of the State to preserve order in emergencies.

I see no such spirit in the document, nor see any moral vaule in it.

When you talk about rights being balanced, I say that they can be summed up with the statement that your right to swing ends at my nose. A person cannot be violated by another. This applies to all. The right to free speech is absolute. But if you slander another, you violate them. No one can shut you up or force you to state a certain statement. We have to deal with each other and give respect that we wish to recieve, but I see nothing about how we are born into a social contract with obligations and things that we owe others.

However, I haven't as yet found any part of the "original," Constitution--or anthing later--that guarantees economic and/or corporate rights, or talks about capitalism being neat-o and groovy, except of course for guaranteeing equal rights under the law for everybody, rights that have usually been taken to be rights of equal access and opportunity.

The idea of freedom, that two willing people can do whatever they want without interference from others and that the are not owned by others seems to be a central principle around which capitalism is based. It is also the spirit of the declaration I quoted IMO. I see nothing that says that there must be equal oppurtunity. We are created equal at birth. That means that there is no hereditary right to rule as existed in Europe and which the colonies were rejecting. They did not beleive that one group of men were created by God to rule over another. I see nothing that says there must be equal access and opportunity. But I am sure there are many authors that hold that opinion.

While preachings about the rights of the individual, let's not forget that the State has certain rights, too, which is what we usually call "social responsibilities". No man is an island --- we're all in this together.

There is no state as an entity. It is comprised of many, many individuals. It does not have any more right than any one of it's parts. The idea that we have social responsibilites and we are all together in this life is just another way of saying that someone else owns you. Who determines what our "social responsibilites" are? I believe each person has to make that decision for themselves. It can not be forced on them. Otherwise, without that central core of belief that a man is not to be violated by others and owes nobody anything form birth, we give justification to the acts of the goverment (dictatorship of one or of the majority) to enslave, kill, etc in the name of social responsibility and "the greater good." Unless you can show me an OBJECTIVE version of these responsibilites, then you have to say that enslaving 12 percent of the population for the greater good of the remaining 88 percent is justified. Or that the taking away of rights of the Nisei Japanese was jsutified byt he reasoning of the time.

Taxes redistribute wealth to social programs. They have to happen. Roads are a social program. The military is a social program. So are the police and fire departments...we just have to pay for that stuff. I believe that every person should be taxed equally, at the same rate. Not everything you own, but at the same rate. So, if I have to give 15 % of my paycheck to the federal government, a millionaire should have to do the same.

I agree with you to a certain extent. As I stated, I beleive the goverment is an evil, but a needed one. My big quibble is instead of saying "social programs" I would classify it as acts and institutions needed to maintain civilization, and no more. This is an objective view of what is needed, but even then the details are open to serious debate. There are things we need to protect us from all turning into some sort of Somalia. We need independent courts to settle our disputes, military, police and even groups like the EPA to prevent people from violating our rights, etc. These are vaild roles for goverment.

However, that which the goverment need not do to prevent the collapse of civilization, it must not do. Otherwise you get the nasty concept behind pork barrel spending raising its head. The agricultural subsidies that go in good portion to wealthy owners are an example of something that has been foisted on us with the vaugue excuse that it is for the greater good. So we keep the violations of us to the bare minimum and no matter how nice it would be if we were all to do a certain thing, we do not use the power of the goverment to force people to fund it.

So, if capitalism is so good and democracy is so good, I would like to ask a question...since the cornerstone of both happens to be the "free market" theory...Who thinks we are living in a free market society?"

Not I. The excuse that we can violate others for the greater good is still part of the thinking today. I would like to move away from our mixed economy and back to the principles of every man owning the product of his labors without being owned by anyone else. For that I am called a greedy, xenophobic malcontent.
:supcool:

 

[Makalakumu]

I agree with you to a certain extent. As I stated, I beleive the goverment is an evil, but a needed one. My big quibble is instead of saying "social programs" I would classify it as acts and institutions needed to maintain civilization, and no more. This is an objective view of what is needed, but even then the details are open to serious debate. There are things we need to protect us from all turning into some sort of Somalia. We need independent courts to settle our disputes, military, police and even groups like the EPA to prevent people from violating our rights, etc. These are vaild roles for goverment.

However, that which the goverment need not do to prevent the collapse of civilization, it must not do. Otherwise you get the nasty concept behind pork barrel spending raising its head. The agricultural subsidies that go in good portion to wealthy owners are an example of something that has been foisted on us with the vaugue excuse that it is for the greater good. So we keep the violations of us to the bare minimum and no matter how nice it would be if we were all to do a certain thing, we do not use the power of the goverment to force people to fund it.

You know, when we get down to the details, we agree on a great many things. Sometimes these ideologic arguments are great because the bring in so many different aspects of our culture and sometimes they only divide us.

I am going to assume that you and I agree on a fair taxation scheme, something that treats nobody any different then anyone else. All income is taxed at a particular rate and there are no loopholes or subsidies (which would favor a certain group). This is what will pay for the below to whatever extent is decided upon by the people.

What do you think of this...If I were to prioritize the responsabilities of the government here is what they would be...

1. Safety - Military, police/EMS, EPA
2. Health Care - ensuring that all citizens of this country have access to health care.
3. Education - ensuring that all citizens of this country have an opportunity to participate in primary, secondar, and post secondary education.
4. Interior - main roads, national parks, and manage national lands ect
5. Commerace - Ensure that humane business practices are followed by those we do business with and ensure the consumer is offered a "free market" where competition is allowed to operate naturally.
6. Peace - department that aids people in our country and in others in resolving their differences.

In my opinion, I see this structure as a very people centered government that works for us rather then the multinational corporations.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Don Roley]

I reject everything except 1 and 6. I believe that a goverment is evil, but a needed evil to prevent the collapse into anarchy. 2 through 5 do not fill that need.

Well, 5 is one of those "kind of" areas. If you are talking about regulations that prevent business from lying to you, then yes. Lying and fraud is a violation of another and the goverment has the role of preventing one group violating another. But really, that would fall under the first catagory if you think about it.

6 is another "kind of" situation. Are you talking about mommy state type of stuff? If so, no. But we do need an independent court system so that if I feel you have done me wrong we can deal with it without me packing up my friends and going over to your house in a lynch mob.

4 only to the extent that the goverment maintains the lands it owns and is not a threat to others. (i.e. not a tinderbox fire trap.)

Remember, the core idea is that no one owns another. That they are free to do what they want unless their right to swing comes in contact with someone else's nose. The idea of one person being forced to pay for someone else's health care may seem noble, but it violates that central, core principle. I do contribute to the pediatric AIDs foundation. I do not want to be forced to do something that someone else has determined is for the greater good.

We take taxes from people only becaue the alternate is the complete collapse of civilization. Anything else will probably end up like the argicultural subsidies after we are through justifying it and putting some distance betweent he payers and the recievers.

 

[Makalakumu]

When I plastered down the criteria, I asked myself the following questions. What is going help keep this country on the cutting edge? What are some overarching things the federal government can provide without trampling states rights? Maybe it would help if I explained in a little more detail. Not too much detail though, because that would start infringing too much on a region's ability to modify and adjust.

1. Safety. The country has got to be a safe place or nothing will happen. We need police to enforce the laws. We need EMS to deal with natural disasters. And we need a military to "defend our borders" which is much different then defending our interests...I'm of the mind that we need to learn how to use the resources at our disposal otherwise we are going to have to obtain what we need through various forms skullduggery. Or, more simply put, we need to live within our means.
2. Health Care. As far as the country goes now, we have 44 million people who have no access to health services. 100 million with access to substandard services. There are 270 million people in this country and one of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in our nation beyond even that of credit cards, is medical bills. When health care is a commodity and you have no way to pay for it, then you have no access to that commodity. If everyone had access, wouldn't that help people contribute.
3. Education. Education is the greatest tool we have in our society. Education is the nuts and bolts that allows people do what they do. We already have a public education system in this country, but it isn't enough to even get you a job anymore. I would extend it, helping people find carreers and become productive adults.
4. Interior. We need to manage our interior public structures and our public lands. Not only to keep them safe, but to preserve them for future generations.
5. Commerace. Protecting people is one thing, but we also need to make sure that we have fair business practice in this country. We need to preserve the free market system and break monopolies and trusts when they appear. We need to keep alternatives on the market which encourages a healthy development of technology. There also needs to be people who are on the lookout for flagrant abuses in human rights by companies in our country and by companies outside of it. We need to hold companies inside of our country to the letter of the law and cease trading with companies who do not adhere to our standards.
6. Peace. Civil courts is one way to mediate disputes and that falls into this catagory, but there also needs to be an internation effort that seeks peaceful solutions instead of violent.

So, I guess, on the federal level, that is what I would want my government to do for all of the citizens in the United States. I think it is a fair mix of personal responsibility and social responsibility and that it will preserve our society and happiness far into the future. I feel that a government like this would give our children a better country in the future.

 

[Makalakumu]

Remember, the core idea is that no one owns another. That they are free to do what they want unless their right to swing comes in contact with someone else's nose. The idea of one person being forced to pay for someone else's health care may seem noble, but it violates that central, core principle. I do contribute to the pediatric AIDs foundation. I do not want to be forced to do something that someone else has determined is for the greater good.

Questions - what do you think is good? What if we agreed on that? What if we were neighbors and we had the power to work together to make that happen for our families? What if a few more people want to join us and they don't neccessarily agree with everything that we do, but they like the benifits of working together? What if we work our a compromise that allows us to live together and help each other out? Is this a form of democracy? At what point does it get out of control, because that is what I sense the issue is for you. You want to control what you think is good for you and your family.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

The right to free speech is absolute. But if you slander another, you violate them. No one can shut you up or force you to state a certain statement. We have to deal with each other and give respect that we wish to recieve, but I see nothing about how we are born into a social contract with obligations and things that we owe others.

There is no state as an entity. It is comprised of many, many individuals. It does not have any more right than any one of it's parts. The idea that we have social responsibilites and we are all together in this life is just another way of saying that someone else owns you. Who determines what our "social responsibilites" are? I believe each person has to make that decision for themselves. It can not be forced on them. Otherwise, without that central core of belief that a man is not to be violated by others and owes nobody anything form birth, we give justification to the acts of the goverment (dictatorship of one or of the majority) to enslave, kill, etc in the name of social responsibility and "the greater good." Unless you can show me an OBJECTIVE version of these responsibilites, then you have to say that enslaving 12 percent of the population for the greater good of the remaining 88 percent is justified. Or that the taking away of rights of the Nisei Japanese was jsutified byt he reasoning of the time.

These two statements seem, at least to me, to be contradictory. In the first, you describe an absolute right to free speech, and a right not to be harmed or violated by others. These are apparently rules by which the individual wills maintain themselves. But then in the second quote, you say that there are no social responsibilities and that the state consists only of a group of individual wills, and that the enforcement of social responsibilities would lead only to mob rule. This isn't really that accurate; the right to free speech and the right not to be violated are themselves social responsibilities, which in turn are the ideas of the state. What you argue is that social responsibilities are just excuses used by the 88% to overule the 12%, which sounds surprisingly Marxist. But it's the opposite; the social responsibilities of free speech or freedom of and from religion are what prevent the 88% from overpowering the 12%. My question is, if there can't be any social responsibilities or abstract principles acting on society (since, in your view, the state is nothing more than a bunch of individuals), how can you say that there are rights to free speech or a principle that "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"?

God I hope that made sense. It's 2:30 AM, so forgive me if not.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, one is certainly entitled to an extreme "libertarian," viewpoint, though it is utterly at odds with the Constitution and the body of laws derived form the Constitution over the last 200 years....where, sorry, there really is a social contract, one set of rights really is balanced by another, and there really is stuff like the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

There is also the beginning of the damn thing: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal...."

You'll find such libertarian views beautifully represented in right-wing science fiction: the aliens land, the US gets nuked, whatever, and fer the first time a Man can really be free to be A Man, with his Big Gun a-swinging by his side, and his big-boobed woman a-snugglin' close. Or, you can read Ayn Rand's nutty (and in part unreadable) novels--I recommend the first one, "We the Living," it's shortest.

We actually live in a very sophisticated, representative democracy with a somewhat-controlled capitalism as our primary economic system. These fantasies about Complete Independence are fun (I like Pournelle's novels, at least, "Footfall," which says something not-so-good about my mind, I expect), but they are fantasies--the precise fantasy, indeed, that marx identified at the heart of, "Robinson Crusoe."

The fact is--the "objective fact," if you like--there are all sorts of things that we depend upon which we cannot possibly produce ourselves, or in any small group. Personally, I'd be happier if we mainly still lived in small towns--but we don't, and barring some catastrophe we aren't going to, and if we even began to try we would have to get into some SERIOUS population reduction.

Personally, my recommendation is that we work on understanding reality, accept the slow march of history, quit lurching about trying to fix everything in five minutes, and focus on the innumerable little things we can indeed control.

And incidentally, I continue to be stunned by the notion that rich white guys are the TRULY oppressed class, and that understanding little things like haves and have-nots is the same things as, say, racism.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

And incidentally, I continue to be stunned by the notion that rich white guys are the TRULY oppressed class, and that understanding little things like haves and have-nots is the same things as, say, racism.

I'm stunned by the fact that you found that notion in what I wrote. I never said that "rich white guys" (apparently, all wealthy people are white and male, because I only referred to the wealthy in my post) are or aren't oppressed. I never said that understanding that there are people who are better off than others is a form of racism. I simply stated that the mentality that says "you're wealthy, so you deserve my hatred and condemnation" is the same mentality that says "you're black, so you deserve my hatred and condemnation". That's it.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Maybe I shouldn't say "mentality", since most intellectuals who condemn the wealthy are in fact quite smarter than most people who hate blacks (i.e. rednecks). I think "thought process" would be better.

Just an edit.

 

[Don Roley]

When I plastered down the criteria, I asked myself the following questions. What is going help keep this country on the cutting edge?

If you are thinking of us at being at war, then you have to think about how to beat the other guy. I do not think of that first. Trying to raise everybody's boats in the water is somehow counter to the idea that everyone is free to follow their own path. The Amish do not care about America being cutting edge. If you put that as a primary criteria, then you have to marginalize their rights.

The trap you are falling into is that we are born with the conceit that we know better than anyone else what is good. After all, if what we beleive is not the best, we would change our opinion and path. But everyone else has the same type of beliefs and many of them differ from yours. So by saying that you want to impose your vision of the world in order to imporve it, you disgregard the opinions of others and their right to make their own path.

You want to make this country cutting edge and would turn the resources that we have towards that goal, even if people have to sacrifice. Well, there are some people who believe that we should not be cutting edge and should instead all spend our time in meditation and prayer for the improvement of the human condition. Who is correct? I know what path I would like to see this country take, but what OBJECTIVE criteria can I provide for it? The monk types, the Taliban types, the greed types, all feel as strongly and can make their case as to why society should be run in their vision. Who has the right to make the decision of where we as a society shall go? The best version I have come up with so far is to limit the impact of others to only those who desire it and just leave everything else alone. No one vision of the future that we all work for, just leaving people alone and let them try to maybe influence each other by educating and debate. If the monk type can convince BUT NOT FORCE the rest of us to spend only the minimum time working for our survival and the rest of the time contemplating reality, then how can you say that your goal of making the country cutting edge should be forced on people?

Questions - what do you think is good? What if we agreed on that? What if we were neighbors and we had the power to work together to make that happen for our families? What if a few more people want to join us and they don't neccessarily agree with everything that we do, but they like the benifits of working together? What if we work our a compromise that allows us to live together and help each other out? Is this a form of democracy? At what point does it get out of control, because that is what I sense the issue is for you. You want to control what you think is good for you and your family.

I have no problem with that as long as people are free to come and leave the group. So if you wanted to form a commune, then as long as you are not holding people at gun point to stay, I do not have ANY say in the matter. The thing is, if we are talking about the goverment of a country, then the whole idea of getting everyone to work together is going to run into problems with people who just want to be left alone, (again- the Amish) and with the idea of who gets to choose just who to determine what the greater good is.

These two statements seem, at least to me, to be contradictory. In the first, you describe an absolute right to free speech, and a right not to be harmed or violated by others. These are apparently rules by which the individual wills maintain themselves. But then in the second quote, you say that there are no social responsibilities and that the state consists only of a group of individual wills, and that the enforcement of social responsibilities would lead only to mob rule.

Because what I mean by "social responsibility" is that people somehow OWE society. Acting responsibly in society is close and I can see how you would make the mistake due to the similarity in language and you being up at 2:30. But when I say that the individual has no social responsibility, I mean that he can not be chattel for the state or other gorup of people. They cannot tell them what to do. But he, like everyone else can't violate anyone else. He can't be forced, and he can't force others. The rule applies to all.

Did that make sense?

Well, one is certainly entitled to an extreme "libertarian," viewpoint, though it is utterly at odds with the Constitution and the body of laws derived form the Constitution over the last 200 years....where, sorry, there really is a social contract, one set of rights really is balanced by another, and there really is stuff like the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

There is also the beginning of the damn thing: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal...."

Equal protection under the law. Great. No one can be exempt from the laws. Compare that with the way they used to run things in monarchies where the king could shoot peasents if he wanted, but not vice versa. I can not treat you differently under the law than you can me. The whole thing about social responsibility I was talking about. The rules must apply equally to all. It does not mean that the goverment is supposed to insure that every person is the equal of another in terms of business, eduation, etc, nor set the stage for that.

The Declaration of Independence said that, "all men are created equal." It says nothing about that being the role of the goverment. I have no hereditary right to rule over you. No race of people are created with the devine right of kings. We were created equal. If you read the document, you see that this is the state of being BEFORE the goverment comes along. But of course, someone has to lead. He is not going to be equal to everyone else (except, in the eyes of the law and how he is treated by the legal system) but those nasty colonists decided to choose their leaders by democracy and not worry about bloodlines.

The rest of your post unfortunatley degenerated into more mocking about things like big boobed women rather than anything serious to debate.

 

[Tgace]

"All men are created equal". What they do to elevate or debase themselves after their creation is up to them.

What are we saying here, that after death all of a "rich white guys" assets should go to the state so his children have to start out poor and work their way up like good ole dad?