Originally posted by fable ...when you've already predefined the moral systems mentioned above as being acceptable to you? I strongly doubt that we can answer your point, if you've removed every moral system from the table that you don't find agreeable. And it still remains that moral systems meeting your criteria do exist, despite the fact that you (and I, in some cases) dislike them. Our opinions aren't the issue, here.
I think you misunderstand me. I have not "pre-defined" moral systems which are acceptable to me; nor have I "removed" every moral system that I find disagreeable; nor do I think our opinions are not the issue.
Let me explain. I have not always held the beliefs I do. I had to become convinced of them - just like every individual has to become convinced of all that they believe. I am not dogmatic (regardless of whether you think I am or not), and I am perfectly open to hearing new ideas (which is one of the reasons I am here). But if you want to convince me of anything, you have to listen to what I say, understand what I am trying to express, and argue your opinions from there. If we disagree (and you and I most certainly will), fine. But please do not tell me that I have set up some system which allows for no debate. You are wrong.
That said, you may be right to say this is a dead end. I do not understand how people who believe in egalitarianism can put a common thief in jail for violation of property rights, when their entire system is based on the premise of expropriation. This is, IMO, a contradiction that makes their system unworkable. I do not believe you can have property rights protected "sometimes," or "for most people," or "when it is in the interest of the masses." You either believe in them, and protect them, or you don't. You either think slavery is an OK idea, or you don't.
@Chanak: Congratulations. I do believe you have beat out both C Elegans and High Lord Dave for the longest post!
@Scayde: I understand your frustration. For what it is worth, I, too, felt that C Elegans comments could be construed as indirect attacks on your person.
@C Elegans: I know you had no intention to offend Scayde. I know your love of debate - and I know you typically keep it on a very intellectual, impersonal basis (unlike me, sometimes ), but please be careful with the way you characterize your opposition.
Originally posted by Lazarus That said, you may be right to say this is a dead end. I do not understand how people who believe in egalitarianism can put a common thief in jail for violation of property rights, when their entire system is based on the premise of expropriation. This is, IMO, a contradiction that makes their system unworkable. I do not believe you can have property rights protected "sometimes," or "for most people," or "when it is in the interest of the masses."
I'm afraid I don't see the problem, above. If a person suddenly breaks down my front door and says she'll live in my home, no matter what I say, any government would be protecting my rights by arresting this individual, who is attempting to take what isn't theirs. Whether it's a capitalist economic system, or one that attempts to redistribute resources to better encourage the potential of all social members isn't the point. The modern legal system of every Amero-European country I can think of (including Communist ones) defines all crimes as crimes against the state, by a violation of that state's laws. This is the Roman model, and it's pretty near universal, by now.
If you had some other example in mind when you mentioned the invasion of property rights, perhaps you can state a specific example, and I'll respond to that.
But please do not tell me that I have set up some system which allows for no debate. You are wrong.
I think you're misunderstanding me. Let me try this. You stated:
But none of you can answer this one basic – so very basic! – point: there exists no moral system that would allow for the redistribution of wealth and resources on this planet.
I provided two examples of moral systems that do just that, rebutting the statement that "none of us can answer." You then *disallowed my examples,* saying, I meant a “moral system” as: a system that is moral. Admittedly, this judgment of what is moral is by my standards.
So as I see it, if this thread were reduced to its logical elements, we would have the following steps:
You: You can't show me any members of the set of moral systems that do what I request.
Me: Buddhism and Judaism are recognized moral systems that do just that.
You: Sorry, but I've defined moral systems in my own terms. Buddhism and Judaism no longer fit. You still can't do what I ask.
That's how I see our exchange, above. Can you see where I would find such terms as precluding any debate? If I'm missing what you're getting at, please let me know.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Wow! Well this has proven to be an interesting debate. I am only saddened that in areas it has been felt necessary by people on both sides of the argument, who I consider friends, to feel they have to defend themselves personally *hugs*
I have entered too late in this discussion to have the time to pick up on individual statements and comment for myself, but my own opinion is this – and spans both sides of this debate. Whilst I am with one side that we should be allowed to voluntarily donate/contribute, I am also with the other that in order to affect more than a few lives, everyone would need to commit – whether it be a monetary commitment, or by voluntarily giving up their time to help others. This IMO is unlikely to happen, so the best we can do is to look locally – to ourselves - and do the best we can. If I could ever make a difference to one or two lives, I would feel I had achieved something – I hope this does not sound arrogant – it is not intended.
Personally, I voluntarily give up both my time and money to help those less fortunate than me – I, too, have taken people into my home. That said, I am also protective of what I have achieved for myself and my family since I have worked hard for what we have. I grew up in a working class family, my parents didn’t (and still don’t) even have a bank account. What came in went straight back out. As a child, we did not have fresh milk or fruit and vegetables…we ate one meal a day (usually potatoes with canned stew poured over). We quite often did not have a winter coat, and wore ill fitting shoes until they fell apart. Most of the children in our community lived the same way, the fathers were often working down the mines, and the mothers were not expected to work – if they did it would be menial and low paid. It was expected that girls would leave school without further education, and be married with children by their early twenties, and the boys would go down the mines or into the steelworks (until they all started to close down). I do not resent any of this, we got by, I only know that I wanted a better life for myself as an adult, and for my own family as and when.
Back in the early 1980’s there was a national coal-miners strike in the UK. More than three quarters of the homes in the village I lived in were suddenly without an income, but the villagers rallied around, those that were working (albeit still earning low wages) gave to those families who were affected by the strike. Packed lunches were supplied by the school, collection centres took in clothes and toys donated by the few for the many, there was a real community spirit. To be clear, for those that don’t know, whilst these miners were striking they could neither take a wage nor claim government aid, and being a small village there were no other work opportunities. Everyone rallied around because it was a local need they were attending to, one they could relate to and sympathise with, it was their community.
So I have known what it is like to live below the breadline, even living in a prosperous country. What “capitalism” has afforded me is choice. The one thing that we cannot pack up into a shoebox and send to Kosovo, as we do locally with canned goods and packet foods. We cannot voluntarily donate a portion of the choices that have been made available to us by living in the affluent western world. I had the choice to do better for myself rather than satisfy myself that this is just the way things are – as my father did and perpetuating the poverty. I went on to further education, I moved away from the confines of the village, I got myself a job in the city and afforded myself a better standard of living. I have worked hard for this, these choices were also available to the villagers where I grew up, I took my opportunities – even though this resulted in a different level of hardship at times. I did not remain blinkered and tethered, because I had the choice not to be.
Now my fridge is always full and my kids have clothes that fit. I don’t feel greedy for wanting this for them, and for working to earn it for them. My children are now growing up in a completely different environment than I did, because I had choices and I took advantage of my opportunities to work. My argument obviously comes from a local rather than a global perspective, here, since what I have spoken of is poverty in a rich country. Those that know me will attest that I am not blind to what goes on beyond my garden gate – and neither are my children. I strived for a better life for me, I wished for my children to have the choice of further education, to have different role models and more positive influences than were what was available to me.
I have watched two arguments running here, one that discusses capitalism versus communism, and one that discusses the simple concept of sharing of resources – whether it be wealth or time. I won’t get into the debate of capitalism versus communism except to say that if capitalism affords us a choice, then this is my leaning. Whether it be the choice to make a better life for myself or the choice to help others live a better life – it should IMHO still be a choice. Regarding the debate of sharing/redistribution of wealth (call it what you will) I sense we are all on pretty much the same level, we all seem willing to give, it is whether the decision should be forced or not. I can't see that anything productive will come of forcing someone to give up what they have worked for - how could we expect them to remain motivated enough to continue grafting for their community? Educate them, and give them a choice
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
Originally posted by Yshania What “capitalism” has afforded me is choice...I won’t get into the debate of capitalism versus communism except to say that if capitalism affords us a choice, then this is my leaning.
Fascinating post, @Ysh. But I would suggest that you may not mean capitalism, up there. Capitalism is an economic system that acknowledges all resources, including symbolic liquid capital (dollars, Euros, forints, dinars, etc) as exchangeable commodities with an implicit if variable value. I think you're referring to multi-party democracies, vs single-party, centralized dictatorships.
Now, most Communist regimes have been single-party dictatorships. (I say most, because I seem to recall the Italian Communists actually shared in at least one post-WWII government, and never sought to restrict access to other parties. And several European cities in non-Communist nations have had Communist town councils or mayors, from time to time.) But the economic ideal and the political models are not the same. Lets look at a lack of choice within a given capitalist situation, for example. The largely unbridled capitalism of 19th century Britain resulted in no choices at all for millions of people who were caught in the bottom rung of the economic ladder that fueled the industrial revolution. They had no health services, no education, no free legal representation, and not even the basic amenities of heating or plumbing in their so-called flats. I've mentioned before that recent source research has determined the lifespan of the average commercial/industrial sector common laborer (which includes everybody from steel workers to lace workers) in Bristol was 28. This was a dead-end, in an unrestricted capitalist environment where the only laws were those of a corporate employer's personal conscience.
Now, let's grey things out from the other side, that of a Communist state. One personal anecdote: I've known a fairly popular Soviet composer personally who would spend hours telling grim tales about the old Soviet control of personal lives. But he'll also tell you, if you ask, that he loves the system he hates, because if it hadn't been for it his impoverished Siberian family would never have been able to afford to send him to school--much less to a prestigious university in Leningrad, where he not only got the education he needed, but treatment for tuberculosis, and a job when he graduated. It can cut both ways. Not always, but that's my point: it isn't all black and white in capitalism and communism, because those are only ideals. Capitalism didn't result in so many millions of tragic, wasted lives in 19th century Britain. Communism didn't work to get that composer where he was. A whole set of complicating factors relating to government and culture did.
And choice, IMO, is as much about knowledge and responsibility as it is about resources and rule of law.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
I am sad I have come in really late into this interesting discussion.
It seems to me that part of what separates the two camps, in this later part of the discussion, is the view on property rights.
I think it is clear that scayde, chanak and maybe Lazarus believe that ownership is an absolute right i.e. one that holds in all circumstances.
The other camp made up of at least CE and fable holds that there are situations where it is morally right to take what is considered to be a person’s possession and give it to someone else.
I hope you will forgive me if you think I have stated the obvious at such an advanced stage of the discussion.
Thus I think that one of the fundamental question that has to be dealt with is whether we can support a principle that states that a person’s property right takes precedence over all other moral claims.
At first sight there seems to be a number of situations where another moral claim overrides a person’s property right. One example would be if a child was dying of thirst and a person nearby has more water than he needs. It seems to me that if the person with the water was unwilling to give up water to help the child it would become morally right to take the water of him, ignoring that he has a property claim on it, in order to save the child. Clearly one can think of innumerable such examples.
In fact it seems to me that the notion that there are ultimate moral principles (principles that can’t be overridden by another moral principle) is indefensible, morally and philosophically.
I would like to add more but it will have to wait till Monday.
(I hope somebody will say welcome back this time )
I didn't really bounce Eeyore. I had a cough, and I happened to be behind Eeyore, and I said "Grrrr-oppp-ptschschschz."
I don't know how helpful this is.... but I wanted to point out, since there has been quite a lot of discussion on "isms," that the political centre in most European countries, Fascist movements in places like France and Germany not withstanding, tends to lie considerably further to the left than it does in North America.
For example, in most European countries, state-sponsored, universal healthcare and a well-developed social safety net are not generally perceived as particularly radical or "Socialist." Indeed, such platforms tend to be espoused by the majority of mainstream, centrist political parties. This is particularly true of Holland and Scandinavia.
btw, Tom, welcome back
Spoiler
testingtest12
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. Spoiler
testingtest12
.......All those moments ... will be lost ... in time ... like tears in rain.
Originally posted by Scayde Those who are most capable, are inclined to share what they have, without coercion.
I had an interesting dicussion with my brother about the selfishness of very young children, where as a certain amount of of children are all "mine mine mine" I have had a few young relatives that have shocked me with their kindness, before they can even comprehend or take part in rules they are being kind of generous, I had a cousin who would take whatever he was given and give it to you, maybe break off a bit for himself but he was exceptionally nice (he's turned into a bit of a brat though ) Basically my brother was talking about how everyone comes out of the womb selfish (he is somewhat theistic) where as I used this example to point out how not every person is the same.
Well I can only speak from personal experience of charity but I am not very charitable at all by contemporary standards, I never give to charity, I occasionally put 2 pences in the charity boxes but I am a cheap skate, what can I say? ( ) However my immediate family get as much charity as I can give them, especially my brother who is trying to go somewhere with his life and I figure I can help him out financially when he runs into big problems (mobile phone bills are evil!) This is a mostly capitalistic way of working, I give charity to people I know that deserve it, I do not give to Oxfam or someone of that nature, it is ideological I suppose. I figure I know if they deserve that wealth or not, kind of callous and uncaring but then I am a bastard!
I am working class, as much as I speak with airs and my pronounciation is very proper (Ysh and T can testify ) I basically have to work for everything I get, my family has gone through some tough times and we pulled through, we work for everything we have and I think that fills one with a sense of purpose. I consider that the only good thing to come out of capitalism; purpose. Without that need for money and wealth then ones route through life would take a very different course, I have no evidence to suggest it would be better or not. I have recently been very imprecise with my conversations, erm, hopefully some of this means something
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
Originally posted by Lazarus @Chanak: Congratulations. I do believe you have beat out both C Elegans and High Lord Dave for the longest post!
@Scayde: I understand your frustration. For what it is worth, I, too, felt that C Elegans comments could be construed as indirect attacks on your person.
@C Elegans: I know you had no intention to offend Scayde. I know your love of debate - and I know you typically keep it on a very intellectual, impersonal basis (unlike me, sometimes ), but please be careful with the way you characterize your opposition.
I'm off. Y'all have a great day.
LMAO... The truth is, I whittled it down to 9,999 words.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. -[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
@Ysh: *hug* That is a beautiful post, and very well written.
I regret not being able be online very often lately; therefore, I ask those who have responded to my posts to please bear with me until I can catch up with you.
I probably won't be back online until next week...have a good weekend, everyone.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. -[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
@Ysh: Your post was very beautiful and inspiring. It touched me deeply. I know you must understand when I say how greatful I am that I was born in a country where I determined my future, and not the circumstances of my birth...
Let Freedome ring, may it one day ring for all...
Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde) The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong
Originally posted by frogus I have just read Koba The Dread (please feel free to discuss the book in here It is very good and worth reading, although it will not last long) and I feel that an important question, and one well worth asking is this -
What do you think is wrong with communism?
Why does it result in misery, death and imprisonment?
Has Communism ever worked right, and if it hasn't, could it, in theory?
A) Human nature prevents it
B) Because of the above
C) It could work with a species that was intellectual, yet was not affected by competition/greed
This post is late, short, and not well thought out. But I thought that I could *try* to contribute or SPAM
"It's not whether you get knocked down, it's if you get back up."
@Ysh: I think that perhaps you can split up the issue of sharing/not sharing into two.
One is how much wealth is distributed to someone for a specific kind and amount of work. As it works right now the factors of working hard isnt that closely connected to salary... a miner doesnt earn more than someone who just sits on a great amount of stock...
The Other side is what systems and services one should include in a government and then ofcourse have to pay for.
As you probably know Im quite red politically, But even if you think giving or not giving should be a choice could you agree with that the first of these things does not have much to do with removing peoples freedom?
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
Just a quick note that I jusr discovered. this is just directed towards Scayde and Chanak.
You argue about being born into a country with your on rights and choices available to you. Those rights include things like being able to vote for whoever you want, work how you want so forth. I'm just curious if you know that, after the American Revolution when Washington came to power, for 13 years after his inaugrination, there was a period where free election was removed from the US. What your doing, is defending a system, now, that was built on the exact same princilples as Soviet Communism. Just thought I'd throw that out.
It does not necessarily hold that an independent businessman achieves his success through the exploitation of the working class nor are most self sufficient people I know interested in prevailing over the weak any more than you are. I think it is hurtful everytime this is insinuated.
The desire to pursue your own interests in peace without harassment does not equal a human rights abuse of the needy.
No, I don’t think people in general are interested in prevailing over the weak. But I do think all of Western culture, society, politics, economical structure, media etc act according to and ideology and propose a life style that has the consequence that we live on the expense of other’s human rights and we continue to maintain that abuse. We can’t help that we were born in those societies, but we can choose whether we want to work towards a change, or keep it as it is. So in that respect, a person who does not want to contribute to a change in the unfairness of this world (unfairness in terms of equal opportunites, not that everybody should be the same) is indirectly person who support the maintenace of the present system, a system that though history has had a large impact on creating this unfairness, and keeping it. So, the right to pursue one own’s interests without harassment, would IMO depend on what the interests were and what how they would affect others. If the person in Tom’s example with the water, did not give away his excessive water, I would think that the child’s right to survive overrides his property right and his interest to keep the excessive water, and thus I would consider it moral to take some of his water and give to the child.
These issues fall more into the realm of ecology. I would think everyone here is aware that in the modern world, the communistic governments have been sorely remiss in addressing ecological issues. In fact, I think it is the US which probably has some of the best records in these departments.
Ecology is one of the most fundamental parts of equality IMO. It is not only a question of the rich world polluting more and consuming more resources, it is also vast problem that a lot of the heavy pollution and ineffiecient use of resources comes from the developing countries. This is not because these countries are more evil or immoral, this is due to the distributional issue of them not having the technology, knowledge and money to implement efficient environmental politics. When the Soviet Union fell, the Ukraine didn’t have the resources to clean up or keep the Chernobyl sarcophagus safe from emitting radioactivity. Still, the meltdown affected many other countries, and a new catastrophy, would too. So other countries, including the US, collected money for the sarcophagus. My question is: what solution would you have suggested in the G7 and other rich contries had not been willing to contribute? Is there another solution?
Another connection between ecology and equality is consumption of resources. For instance, the US has 4% of the worlds popultion, yet consumes almost half of the world’s electricty. The Western world consumes food, energy, natural resources...where do you think all these natural resources come from?
Regarding the US ecological record, I do not think it is very good, but that is another issue. Let me just say that the US has much leaner pollution laws than Europe, which in turn has much leaner acts than Oceania. The US is a the largest environmental danger in the world in both absolute and per capita terms. (Measured in production of pollution, consumption of energy and environmental degradation like decrease in biodiversity).
The fact that they are deprived of rights in certain parts of the world has much more to do with the local governments they have in place, than the success or failure of a self sufficient worker who may, or may not earn more money than they do.
I disagree the local governments are the main reason. Europe has exploited the third world for hundreds of years. The US quickly followed. The European colonisation of Africa? The US removing elected governments and installing one that suited their purposes in South America? These and many other events has had a profund effect on development in different regions. What is your opinion of how the South of Sahara region became so poor and Europe or US so rich? Now when I know you do not agree with Social Darwinism, and thus reject the “survival of the fittest” model as explanation for differences in societies and wellfare, what is explanation do you propose? Do you not think that US or Europe have been and still are part in how those corrupt goverments can keep the population in deprived of rights?
No, it is up to you to take the responsibility for your life, and make the most you can out of it. We will not all end up at the same point, but we are each intitled to the fruits of our own labor. To take this from anyone and redistribute it to another is thievery, and slavery, both of which are appallingly immoral.
Whereas I find this statement valid in a soceity where everybody was born with equal opportunities, I cannot see how it valid for the population in the developing countries, nor the people born disabled or ill in the rich world. How do you take responsibility for you life and make the most of it when your family sold you as a sex-slave at age 8, because that was the only means they had to support the rest of the family? How do you take responsibility of your life when you were born with severe disease and you can’t afford any treatment? It seems to me that we are talking about two different populations of poor people here. And I am talking about one who is several steps from having access to a situations where the individual can choose anything at all. Equal opportunities means the right to have that choice. Hundreds of millions of people don’t even have this choice.
If a person is not able, for whatever reason to contribute to society, then he is a drain on the productive members. In my ideal, these people are cared for out of love and compassion. Charity given out of free will to a fellow human being in need.
In the system you propose, there is no free will, only slavery, servitude, and plunder. So it would seem, that in your eyes, the needy are worth more, and entitled to more consideration, that the self reliant members of the group. Otherwise, what would give them the right to take that which they have not earned?
I understand your ideals, I think, but for the reasons I previously stated, I don’t believe charity can work as more than a short term solution. Not that we don’t need short time solutions too, but I believe a solild, long term change must come through changes in the political structures, values and beliefs. Why must a system allowing for equal opportunities and equal distribution of resources result in slavery and plunder? To me, the right to property is secondary to the right to survive. As I have discussed with Lazarus, freedom to me include both negative and positive freedom, and for free will to act there must be a opportunity to make a choice. And the aim of the system I propose, is to assure everybody has equal opportunities to survive, and to choose.
In my opinion, there is something fundamentally flawed in the political and economical structures, when equal work does not result in equal earnings. The large companies in the rich world are not only expoiting the natural resources in the developing countries, they also use the population as cheap manual labour simply becasue they can pay them much less than our societies would allow legally. Is that not thievery and slavery? Does a needy person has less right to survival than a rich person to his excessive earnings?
No, it is not right to push my neighbor aside. That is his table. He has the right to enjoy his meal, just as I do. My neighbor does not have the right to push me aside, because he likes my dinner better than his either.
So to continue this allegory, we agree that both of you have the same rights to eat the meal. I’m getting the feeling that we do not differ so much is consequences, rather in attribution to causes and in what methods we believe would solving the problem.
To illustrate the issue of cause: Let’s say a magical unicorn came around and gave me a huge portion of food, whereas my neighbour got a severe disease instead. My portion of food is enourmous, it is more than I will need over my lifetime. My neighbour have no food and he can’t get any, since his disease prohibit him from working and earn a living.
Now, being born reasonably healthy in a rich country, is a lucky coincidence, just as the magical unicorn. I have worked hard to get the job I have and I still work very hard for my earnings, but the luck of being born with all those opportunities is nothing I did anything to deserve, I merely used those opportunites. And my point is that neither of us deserved this, we were lucky, just as the child who just died from starvation in Somalia did nothing to his fate, he was unlucky. My point is that 1. it is humane and moral to share your excess, thus preventing this child from dying (this I know you agree with) and 2. it should even be an obligation since we in the rich world have the opportunites to share, to make choices, and affect the politics of this world and 3. we are indirectly responsible for the state of the 3rd world since our soceities have both participated in creating this state and continue to maintain it.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Then we agree on this much, perhaps it is in our definitions of rights that we differ. I do not feel one person has the right to impose their will or needs on another. I do not feel one person has the right to another persons mind, body or property. It seems you do. I think this is henous.
No, not mind, body and property. Only property, if one person don’t need it in order to survive, and the other person needs it to survive. Our property is not a fundamental part of ourselves, of you and me as human beings. Our mind and body is. To me there is a difference.
No….I do not believe in the strong over the weak, and more than the weak over the strong…
I am sorry to drag this up again, but please believe me, I genuinely don’t understand. You said:
My comments are a harsh reflection of the basic survival instinct present in all animals. Capitalism is a reflection of nature. Survival of the fittest. I make no apologies for my belief system.
So, what do you mean then with the “survival of the fittest” in polical or economical terms? To me, the "fittest" in socioeconomical terms, are the richest and most resourceful...those have much better opportunites to surive.
And, just to make sure no futher misunderstandings will occur, I’d like to demonstrate by two examples what I think is greedy:
Bush did not agree to decrease the cost for antiretroviral drugs for developing countries where half of the population are HIV infected, because he stated it might be hurtful to the US drug industry. That I think is greedy.
Russia, China and the US did not want to sign the anti-landmine treaty because it might be hurtful to their weapon industries. That, I think is greedy.
And finally...do you sympathise with Ayn Rand’s philosophy? I’m asking because I am still trying to understand the way you reason....If you had been following the Social Darwinistic line of thought, then I would have understood what underlying reasoning made our opinions differ. Now, if you with Ayn Rand’s thinking, that would give me clearer idea of your way of reasoning. Although I still wouldn’t agree, I think I at least would understand better. I am not so familiar with Rational Objectivism, but I know a little bit of Rand’s writing.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
The fact is, the United States attempted to aid Somalia in the recent past in a military manner, by striking at a sore point in their suffering. This was of course unpopular, I note…after all, the US is a “greedy” capitalist regime. Why would we want to help people suffering in Somalia?
What event are you referring to here? I really hope you are not referring to the failed US/UN mission in 1993 when the US and the UN came there to help (well*) and it ended with the US withdrawing the military forces after having slaughtered 100s of innocent Somalians?
If this is what you are referring to, I can explain to you why it was impopular in Somalia. It was not because they viewed the US is a greedy capitalist nation. It was because the US and the UN soldiers killed hundreds of innocent people, tried to disarm the civil population by force in order to stop the civil war, and overthrow a dictator the Somalians didn’t want to get rid of. US elite soldiers shot hundreds of people at the streets in Mogadishu regardless of whether they were armed or not, also women and elderly. They used human shields, they took they took hostage and killed people from the hostage. The US and UN forced together attacked one of Aidees clans meeting, and shot everybody present, again inluding women and elderly. This cannot be the event you refer to? However:
Why would you want to help the suffering people in Somalia? Because they suffer greatly, and you (we, the US and the UN member countries) have added to their suffering.
I previously asked Scayde whether she shared Social Darwinist ideology, and she did not. Now I must ask you the same, because what you state here sounds exactly like that. The poor are poor because they inflict in on themselves? We try to help but they don’t want our help? Is that what you mean?
*Aidees predecessor had signed contracts with four large US oil companies. When Aidee took power, he nullified those contracts. The UN and the US claimed they came to Somalia to protect the oil workers, to protect food transports and to overthrow the dictator Aidee and liberate the people. Albright and Boutros Boutros Ghali (sp?) talked about “nation building”.
As you know there was a civil war in Somalia at the time, and Aidee had no more or no less rights to rule Somalia than his opponets. Aidee was the leader of a large clan in Somalia, and the Somalian people didn’t want to get rid of him, but the UN and US wanted to. I don’t know why, but I am not sure the humanitaries issues exclusively was the issue.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Scayde wrote: My neighbor and I have the same standard of living, even though I work much harder, take more risks, and am more intelligent and creative than he is? Communism says we should "share in the fruits of 'my' labor? PSHAW !!! That we receive the same reward? No Thank you !!! Let the cream rise to the top. Let the rabble be left behind to beg for my scraps, or apply to me for work, as they may see fit.
...
Why would anyone want to be supported by another person, unless he is inherantly lazy.
Chanak wrote: Some work harder than others; some take more risks, and are willing to gamble and take chances.
I wrote: I think there are millions of people who are at least as intelligent, creative and risk-taking as you view yourselves, but they happened to be born in the slums of Calcutta or in the starvation of Somalia…
And Chanak ask : I’m wondering what this has to do with anything Scayde and I are talking about. To quote Dr. Walter Williams, "Poverty is mostly self-inlficted...
I’m not sure what you mean, but I’ll try to answer: At first glace, one could think my comment about Somalia and India has nothing to do with what you and Scayde are talking about since you both talk about being a reasonably healthy person, (I assume this since you both work, if any of you have a serious disease I am not aware of that and will no longer look upon you as being priviledged) living in sub-average standards in a rich country, whereas I all the time have been talking about people who do not have the basic means to survive by their own means. If you read back, you can see I am talking about the 3rd world, dying of starvation and sharing the resources of our planet in my very first post in this thread. Both Frogus and I have used Somalia and Ethiopia as typical developing countries with millions of needy people. Scaydes previous post to Frogus stated that she doesn’t think people in the developing countries are entitled anyting just because they are dying of poverty. I have stated I think they are, since I believe everybody should have the right to survive and equal opportunities.
The connection is that both you and Scayde seem to propose a worldview where the property rights of people who were born in rich countries and got the opportunity to use their “hard working, creative, intelligent and risktaking” traits, overrides the right of survival for people who where born in countries where none of those opportunites exists. And it seems that part of the argument for why property right to excessive wealth overrides the right for survival is that “hard working, creative, intelligent and risktaking”behaviour could change the sitution for anyone, the poor and needly people included. My point is that the material wealth in our contries, that give us those opportunites, is not a right, it is a lucky coincidence and thus, we who are capable to share must work towards a world where everybody will have the same opportunities. I get the feeling that we are not talking about the same kind of poverty here. You talk about having no heritage and no govermental subsidies, I talk about millions of people who were born without any possibility whatsoever to develop traits like creative, intelligent and risk-taking, people who are severly disabled or ill and can’t work, or people who live in poor developing countries where they can’t apply for a job to earn an income because there are no jobs. Those millions of people are not rabble worth to “beg for my scraps”, nor did they inflict poverty on themselves, they were born without the basic right to survive.
So what about them, why don’t they have the right to the same opportunities that we were born into? I interpret your post as saying: Millions of people are dying from starvation, from not having clean water or from disabilites or disease, could change their situation if they were more “creative, intelligent and risk-taking” so we have no responsibility for them. And besides, their poverty was mostly self-inflicted.” Is this what you meant to say? I can’t believe it was, but several things in you posts make it seem that way. So please explain further.
Chanak quote Williams: ”...- indigenously created. What are the most commonly held characteristics of the non-poor world? In non-poor countries, people tend to have greater personal liberty, property rights are protected, contracts are enforced, there's rule of law, and there's a market-oriented economic system rather than a socialistic one." Contrast this with poorer countries, whose "policies and institutional structure repel investment and cause their most talented people to leave."
I certainly do not agree with those statements Dr Walter Williams have made. I don’t agree with him in general I think, he is a conservative economist and IIRC he has also suggested that black people in South Africa might have been better off during apartheid. That’s beside the point of course, but I think this guy has a lot of strange ideas that I do not agree with. There are many economic theories around and I certainly don’t believe his to be correct. I think he is confusion cause and effect. Do you agree with him? And even if poverty was self inflicted, is that a reason not to help? Should I not help a patient who has tried to committ suicide? Suicide is the leading cause of death among young people in the rich world. Should we stop all research, all treatment, all work towards preventing suicide, because it is a self-inflicted harm?
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
@Tom: I am not the right person to way welcome back since I myself has been away so much so I couldn't really tell you'd been away, but in any casy I am happy to see you Especially in this complex discussion
Originally posted by Tom The other camp made up of at least CE and fable holds that there are situations where it is morally right to take what is considered to be a person’s possession and give it to someone else.
Just one clarification although it makes no real difference ultimately, but: I have not stated I think it is right to remove the material possesions a person consider theirs, and just give it to somebody else. Although I certainly believe property right to things we do not need in order to survive override another person's life of death, sickness and health, I have proposed a change in the political and economical structures, that would redistribute the wealth more equal thus providing more equal opportunities. One such system on a local or national level, is taxes that provide for for instance free education and health care. Other examples of such systems would be transferring more knowledge and information to poor areas, (together with basic aid needed for survival if needed, of course). There are many system that could be changed in order to provide for more equality. But I do think that we, the rich world, should pay for it as well as provide other resources (such as time, knowledge,education etc). However, if it boiled down to the rich world refusing to give and thus nothing changes for the poor population, then I think legal force should be used.
Ultimately, in an extreme situation, the consequence of my opinions is as you have stated, but wished to clarify my position so Scayde or Lazarus don't believe I'm working towards the goal of raiding their homes and bank accounts, but for the goal of a change in political and econonical structrues that may result in them (and me) earning less in relation to the poor population. (The poor population = people , people who have no home, no income, no access to health care or education etc)
In fact it seems to me that the notion that there are ultimate moral principles (principles that can’t be overridden by another moral principle) is indefensible, morally and philosophically.
This I think you remember from previous discussions that I agree with.
Perhaps you remember the discussions with MM about absolute moral when MM stated that rape was always wrong and I stated rape is a horrible crime but if you have to choose between raping a fellow prisoner or the prison camp guard will kill 50 people, is it wrong even then? Btw, that was a real life example a man I know faced in a Serbian prison camp.
In the same sense, although theft is immoral, I do think that life and death, health and sickness can override the property rights to property that are not needed for survival.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Originally posted by dragon wench I don't know how helpful this is.... but I wanted to point out, since there has been quite a lot of discussion on "isms," that the political centre in most European countries, Fascist movements in places like France and Germany not withstanding, tends to lie considerably further to the left than it does in North America.
I certainly think it is worth to point out, DW...
Just to add some perspective, I am centre-right in Scandinavia, and my Socialist friends would be deeply hurt if they knew my opinions were viewed as a Socialist or Commonist. Just like the Soviet Union media provided people with a false, simplified image of Capitalism, the US media has provided an equally false image of what communism and socialism is. And I do think it is important to define the differences, because erranous conceptualisation can often result in strawman-arguments, ie attacking positions and believes that the opponent doesn't have or hasn't claimed, but that oneself attributes to him.
An example would be: I attack Lazarus Capitalistic belief that large multinational companies should have the right to expoit natural resources in the 3rd world. But this isn't really what capitalism theory says, this is what I have been led to believe it says...I didn't read Wealth of a nation in orignal myself...
And Lazarus may not even be a Capitalist, I identify him as such based on my image of and...but is he really a Capitalist, maybe he is more of an Ultra-liberalist, or a mi of the two?
Maybe not the most elegant example, but it's late, I have worked a lot all week and slept little and I hope you understand what I mean, anyway. I simply trying to argue for the importance of using correct definitions of things, and at least agreeing on the definitions even though we disagree in the issues discussed.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
