Anttech
- 233
- 0
How many particular societies were there on the continental U.S. at the year 1775?
The world doesn't and will never end in the US of A!
How many particular societies were there on the continental U.S. at the year 1775?
'What is your "poverty line"? I don't see how this isn't a relative thing. A thousand years ago prosperity meant as little as owning your own house. You need a far more precise definition than that if its not going to be relative.loseyourname said:It's an example of where I think inequality is a good thing. Students who learn faster and better grasp the material should be able to obtain a better education. That's why we have honors classes and things like that. How would you like it you had no choice in school but to progress at the rate of the slowest learner in the class?
Maybe it would be best if I can better clarify the positive claim that I am making. I said it in my response to Anttech:
I think that the primary goal of any economic system should be universal prosperity.
Several qualifications:
- "Prosperity" is not being treated here as a relative thing. That is, you are not prosperous because you are either equal or unequal to your neighbor financially. If everyone lives above the poverty line, then everybody is prosperous, even if some are way more prosperous than others.
- I'm only talking about economic systems, which is what capitalism is. The nature of inequality in political power is another matter, one that should be addressed separately from economics. That is, money does not have to equal political power. The only reason it does now is the need to finance political campaigns.
I don't really see how someone can believe that. Why would a society want to live in horrendous conditions? I believe humanity will always try to pick itself up. If it can not do that, it is because someone is pushing it down. And if someone has power enough to push it down, they are not equal. This argument is flawed.I am contrasting this with the claim that the goal should be universal equality. Equality can mean that everyone is in equally bad condition. This might mean that no one has any means to assert power over another and so we may very eliminate a lot of conflict, but so what? I'd also rather have a world in which everyone is prosperous, but there is conflict, than in a world where there is no conflict, but also no prosperity.
No, not only does it not have to mean that, it can not. Unless you believe humanity to be inherently self-destructive. As illustrated above.Now before you jump in with "equality does not have to mean universal lack of prosperity," I know.
I disagree. Take your university example. The only reason that institution (let's ignore the structure of the institution it's self) would be forced to pick people at random, instead of the ones it wanted would be if there was someone with power over it aside from it's self. Therefore, it would be within an inequal society. If it were in an equal society, it would not have anyone telling it what to do, so would be free (emphasis on free, as in freedom) to admit whoever it wants.The point is only that universal lack of prosperity would qualify as equality, and would be bad, therefore equality is not necessarily a good thing. There are situations in which equality can be a bad thing. Therefore, it should not be the primary thing that an economic system strives for.
The world doesn't and will never end in the US of A!
deckart said:What I don't understand is why people have a problem with capitalism? It is one of the great freedoms we enjoy in America.
I'm an anarchistPengwuino said:(as all socialists are too busy looking stupid and asking advice for if they should grow a beard... like smurf).
*cleans ears out* ehhh? what? anyone know a good optician, zI have something bluring my sight!Well basically because there are a few problems that come out of it when placed into the real world.
I think I identify most with Anarcho-Syndicalism. But I agree with most of the Social Anarchist theories. I don't really care about the specifics, or how we get there.Dooga Blackrazor said:Smurf, you are just an Anarchist, or are you an Anarcho-Communist? To my knowledge, Anarcho-Communism is the only form of Anarchy that, in theory, would result in complete equalty.
Smurf said:I'm an anarchist![]()
Smurf said:All you need is a good theory, the rest are details!
Why would I want a job?Pengwuino said:Do you even have a job
the only thing threatening Anarchism is outside, pre-existing governments.
1. I don't see how governments promote anarchy any more than christianity was promoting atheism by crusading against islam.jimmie said:Smurf, let's go out on a limb and say that the current governments promote anarchy by competing with each other and reeking havoc on the planet, and that prior to the current governments, is an outside, pre-existing government.
What then?
![]()
Well whatever - either way, you want to change what we consider freedom today. And that's the point: I submit that the principle of equality of outcome is diametrically opposed to the idea of freedom as defined today. You're talking about switching the definitions of "round" and "flat" - but that isn't going to change the fact that flying south makes the sun rise higher in the sky. It isn't going to change the fact that never in human history has a people revolted based on the principle of equality of outcome (contrary to Marx's prediction). But people do, all the time, revolt based on the current principle of freedom and equality of opportunity.Smurf said:And I disagree. I don't see equality as limiting freedom at all. It's a matter of definition.
"Fathoming" is what writers of fiction do. Just because you can fathom it does not mean it is possible. But that's kinda a moot point, isn't it? Either way, it doesn't work and never has and as a result cannot be implimented today.It's already been fathomed by countless people before us and among us. Right now it's a matter of culture and society evolving enough to allow it to be implimented.
Smurf said:Why would I want a job?![]()
Huh? What are you talking about??Anttech said:then I am a lesser man, sorry Russ.. but so are you! And it is pure arrogance that makes you think that your ideals are not BASED on your predecessors
That's true and I never said otherwise! Its like your own point went over your head!I can't think of any man in science that hasnt used what humans have learned to build there own ideas
I never said I didn't have a job.Pengwuino said:Wow, for someone with no job, you make a lot of comments about economics![]()
Smurf said:I never said I didn't have a job.
P.S. Ad hominem![]()
Only dumbasses make assumptions, get a girlfriendPengwuino said:Only idiots don't answer questions, get a job
What on earth
Smurf said:Only dumbasses make assumptions, get a girlfriend
Oh yeah. Waay to much. In fact right now I'm being overwhelmed by mind-bogging clarity and insight. I don't know how much more of this I can take.jimmie said:Too much information?
![]()
Since when is what you want automatically a reality? See, that's the problem with Marxists - they think that they can make something a reality simply by wishing it. No, people don't want to be poor - in your mind, everyone being equal means everyone is prosperous, but every time that has been tried it has resulted in equality of poverty. In North Korea, for example, everyone not directly involved in the government had a very high level of equality - and the result was a relatively uniform chance of dying of starvation over the past 10 years (roughly 10%).Smurf said:I don't really see how someone can believe that. Why would a society want to live in horrendous conditions? I believe humanity will always try to pick itself up. If it can not do that, it is because someone is pushing it down. And if someone has power enough to push it down, they are not equal. This argument is flawed.
Perhaps, then, you should tell us what you think equality is, instead of just what it isn't. At face value, "equality" seems to mean that everyone is equalI think this is a common misconception among westerners is to equate equality with what happened in the USSR and Maoist China. Equality can not be imposed, because to impose is to destroy equality.
Get laid oldyPengwuino said:Get a job sony!
... make it stop...
... make it stop...
You are looking for equality of state/status. Status is outcome.Smurf said:I'm not a marxist. I havn't said a thing about "equality of outcome". In fact I havn't said the word "outcome" once in this entire thread.
Small scales, yes. Any system can work if the people involved agree in advance to the conditions of it. Again, that's a basic problem with your ideas. You said it yourself: you will never get a large group of people to agree unless the nature of what it means to be human "evolves" to something that it is not today. You do know that evolution requires many, many generations to happen - and even then, you can't be sure evolution is going to proceed the way you hope it will.I'm talking about equal power and anarchism. I've listed anachist colonies before and I'll list them again if you want, but despite any feelings you have about Marxist, anarchism is very possible and has been proven so on small scales worldwide.
I know you don't care, and that saddens me. Fighting against a system you can't change is self-destructive.And I don't really care if you think it can be implimented, I believe it will inevitably be implimented on a large scale too (unless capitalism kills us all first).
1. An-ar-ch-istruss_watters said:Since when is what you want automatically a reality? See, that's the problem with Marxists - they think that they can make something a reality simply by wishing it. No, people don't want to be poor - in your mind, everyone being equal means everyone is prosperous, but every time that has been tried it has resulted in equality of poverty. In North Korea, for example, everyone not directly involved in the government had a very high level of equality - and the result was a relatively uniform chance of dying of starvation over the past 10 years (roughly 10%).
If I ever said you couldn't, I retract that statement. Prosperity, in the definition that it is above "2" is quite possible with inequality. Prosperity only does so much though. The inequality would still lead to large conflicts and thus, the society would be less healthy and less happy than a society with more equality.Again (loseyourname's point), why can't you have inequality where everyone is prosperous? If on a scale of 1 to 10, poverty is below a 2 and everyone is distributed between 3 and 10, then no one is poor, but there is great inequality.
I don't want to explain it again, I really don't like having to come up with different ways to say everything.Perhaps, then, you should tell us what you think equality is, instead of just what it isn't. At face value, "equality" seems to mean that everyone is equalin financial, political, and economic status.
Fighting against a system you can't change is self-destructive.
Marx said it would happen through imposed government. I argue it can only happen with the complete overthrow of government. Direct confrontation. Me and Marx don't agree as often as you think.russ_watters said:You are looking for equality of state/status. Status is outcome.
Regardless of whether or not you are a strict Marxist, you share a lot of ideas. Marx theorized that people would revolt because of the lack of equality of status.
Not genetic evolution, silly. Society evolving. It's like a couple hundred years ago democracy was a pretty far out idea. Now? It's the most common types of government (with varying degrees of success) in the world. This wasn't caused because people developed a 'democracy' gene. This happened because society evolved to the point people decided they wanted more control over their government. Societal evolution. Argue the terminology if you want, I'll use whatever word for it you want me to use.Small scales, yes. Any system can work if the people involved agree in advance to the conditions of it. Again, that's a basic problem with your ideas. You said it yourself: you will never get a large group of people to agree unless the nature of what it means to be human "evolves" to something that it is not today. You do know that evolution requires many, many generations to happen - and even then, you can't be sure evolution is going to proceed the way you hope it will
Me? Fighting? God no. I don't think humanity is anywhere near a point where we're ready for anarchism. Maybe when I'm old and grey colonies will be more common, but I don't expect any major revolutions in my life time.I know you don't care, and that saddens me. Fighting against a system you can't change is self-destructive
but I don't expect any major revolutions in my life time.
how do you mean?jimmie said:You are witnessing the greatest revolution of human history, and it has not yet come full-circle.
You are IN it.
Birth-pangs.
![]()
That's a nice thought. Maybe I'm just too cynical.jimmie said:I believe that there is a prevailing feeling worldwide that something "BIG" is about to happen.
There have been many signs, natural and otherwise.
No one is sure what, or when, but deep down they know something has to "give".
Let's face it, the world can't go on forever the way it is. The scientists say it is not possible.
I believe them.
![]()
jimmie said:I believe that there is a prevailing feeling worldwide that something "BIG" is about to happen.
Smurf said:Or an alkadian death cruiser?
Every generation feels there is something "BIG" about to happen. Rarely are they ever right.
jimmie said:Believing that the "system" was illusion and placing my faith in me to 'perfect' my character to become a "true" humble human being was constructive, because I am no longer affected by the "system".
However, it is possible that "I" will affect the "system".
Catalyst.
![]()
Smurf said:'What is your "poverty line"? I don't see how this isn't a relative thing. A thousand years ago prosperity meant as little as owning your own house. You need a far more precise definition than that if its not going to be relative.
I don't really see how someone can believe that. Why would a society want to live in horrendous conditions? I believe humanity will always try to pick itself up. If it can not do that, it is because someone is pushing it down. And if someone has power enough to push it down, they are not equal. This argument is flawed.
Take your university example. The only reason that institution (let's ignore the structure of the institution it's self) would be forced to pick people at random, instead of the ones it wanted would be if there was someone with power over it aside from it's self. Therefore, it would be within an inequal society. If it were in an equal society, it would not have anyone telling it what to do, so would be free (emphasis on free, as in freedom) to admit whoever it wants.
I think this is a common misconception among westerners is to equate equality with what happened in the USSR and Maoist China. Equality can not be imposed, because to impose is to destroy equality.
Perhapse not an end in it's self, it is the means in which to accomplish the most pleasant . My end goals differ significantly from yours though, I think. It's a rather low goal to have everyone be able to pay average rent and buy food. Especially since I believe this will solve nothing, or very little. You must be terribly dissapointed in the current system to have failed in even this tiny goal?loseyourname said:Universal prosperity, on the other hand, does not. As such, universal prosperity is a better goal for an economic system (anarchy, by the way, is not an economic system). Equality does not seem to me to be an end in and of itself. People that push for equality really just want everybody to prosper - in fact, I think that your assertion that equality would entail universal prosperity is evidence that you, in fact, actually want everyone to prosper.
Smurf said:It's a rather low goal to have everyone be able to pay average rent and buy food. Especially since I believe this will solve nothing, or very little. You must be terribly dissapointed in the current system to have failed in even this tiny goal?
Smurf said:Perhapse not an end in it's self, it is the means in which to accomplish the most pleasant . My end goals differ significantly from yours though, I think. It's a rather low goal to have everyone be able to pay average rent and buy food. Especially since I believe this will solve nothing, or very little. You must be terribly dissapointed in the current system to have failed in even this tiny goal?
He did? I thought he said the masses would rise up...Smurf said:Marx said it would happen through imposed government.
Still sounds like Marx to me.I argue it can only happen with the complete overthrow of government. Direct confrontation. Me and Marx don't agree as often as you think.
How do you propose to make humans change so radically without genetic evolution? Better (worse) yet, since evolution, itself, is based on competition, how do you propose to re-calibrate evolution itself? Again, we're not just talking about redirecting human evolution: what you propose requires changing the nature of evolution itself - tossing biology out the window.Not genetic evolution, silly. Society evolving.
"A copule hundred years"? 25+ (hundred years) is "a couple"?It's like a couple hundred years ago democracy was a pretty far out idea. Now? It's the most common types of government (with varying degrees of success) in the world.
The "democracy gene" (I like that - I'm going to use it) is the gene that causes people to be competitive. The one every life form in the history of the world has had - you could also call it the 'evolution gene'.This wasn't caused because people developed a 'democracy' gene. This happened because society evolved to the point people decided they wanted more control over their government. Societal evolution.
Um... you brought it up, not me.Argue the terminology if you want, I'll use whatever word for it you want me to use.
And not laziness ?Anttech said:... the reason we have this (poverty) is because of GREED...
I can relate to that. I think this should be one of the "litmus tests" of a good system: to keep "everyone - or almost - above a kind of poverty line". I'm not convinced that hard-core capitalism can do that, so I think some "social redistribution" is necessary. The entire discussion is "how much", not "whether or not".loseyourname said:By the way, smurf, part of the reason that all I ask of an ideal system is to keep everyone above the poverty line is that I myself exist barely above the poverty line, yet I cannot really imagine increased material prosperity making me any happier than I already am. In fact, I have been more materially prosperous in the past, and I am happier now. I don't consider this to be a "low" or "tiny" goal.
vanesch said:I don't know in what way, as is claimed by proponents of 1), if we let this "law of nature" handle *everything* we optimise TOTAL wealth. It does seem to do a good job of it, but I'm not sure it is entirely true, and moreover, * I don't think that this should be our goal*.
As discussed before, our goal should be reasonable happiness for most. This includes of course a certain level of total wealth, but it includes also a *distribution* of wealth. It includes the ability to be different from others, and also some equality, and I think it should try to avoid as much as possible such "poverty" that it leads to unhappiness.
I didn't say it was going to happen soon.russ_watters said:Yes, the first modern democracy is the US, at a little over 200 years, but there have been various forms of democracy for more than 2500 years. There has never been a successful government/nation of the type you describe (no, Smurf: 50 people is not enough to call it a nation or, more to the point, a successful test, so please drop that 'it's been done in small groups' thing). The "democracy gene" (I like that - I'm going to use it) is the gene that causes people to be competitive.
That's a big difference between you and me. I think that an "ideal system" (although I don't think of it that way) should result in less conflict, less violence, less inequality (which should in it's self be a goal, as well as a means), and more prosperity (But by more I mean increasing, not just being able to live) and all this should lead to -> more happiness and less suffering.loseyourname said:By the way, smurf, part of the reason that all I ask of an ideal system is to keep everyone above the poverty line is that I myself exist barely above the poverty line, yet I cannot really imagine increased material prosperity making me any happier than I already am. In fact, I have been more materially prosperous in the past, and I am happier now. I don't consider this to be a "low" or "tiny" goal.