Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

Alright, boys, let's just step back and take a breath.

Also, as an avid watcher of Monty Python, I believe the phrase is "I fart in your general direction," not "I laugh in your general direction."

It is possible to engage in a discussion without resorting to name calling, I assure you.

It is, but human's are barbarians after all.

Um..... well, if a system is necessary because of human nature then it is the superior system. I don't see how a system can better if it does not work in the world. Not only that but the concept of evil that you promote is rather useless, we don't have the same morality, few people do so calling something evil has no value. I could call whatever I want to be evil

I never stated that they were. Business discrimination dependent upon non-important variables often becomes less in a freer system though based upon research done in the south on discrimination and black employment. The employment rate of America though is higher than that found in many continental European nations such as Germany and France though.
The only thing is that there is not going to be a gun to our heads, we should allow for social mobility but the concept of "fair" is meaningless in terms of what should be given. The depths of capitalism are less horrid than the depths before. Also, I don't think that Mises ever refers to a pie but rather a process of wealth creation, pie focuses upon a set amount, processes acknowledge change. Really though, I have not really told you to read any book by Mises though and would not even necessarily ask for that.

I don't see it as dictatorial to have what I earned, my things are my things.
Ok, they do not have the infrastructure to sell them. That is understandable given the infrastructure needed to market these things. It is not sucking up all of the available resources though, it must be recognized that improvements in the level of worldwide prosperity have been made and that worldwide inequality actually is falling.

Yeah, we aren't robots. However, the term "animal" does not mean that biological creatures experience it, it means that something is primitive, a thread you have been trying to weave throughout this entire issue. It is biological, but to call it "animal" is BEGGING for this type of confusion.
It is something important to individuals and must be regarded as it is.

We set up rules in order to promote our common welfare. I never stated that we did have total freedom. Essentially speaking, law goes back to rule utilitarian ideas with much of it going towards freedom maximization in order to allow human freedom on that front.

Human nature entails the combination of self-interest, and independent intellect that humans are described as having.

No need?? You started it!! !

No, I would not say that most animals are the same. I would say that ants and many other insects are mindless things, but many animals do have their individual characteristics.
It is not part of a collective. It does have some rudiments of personality as that oft-times goes back to genetic characteristics, but not fully developed.

Ok, so what? Future generations in their countries will have the same, the nations of the west do not have such total control as you seem to argue, and corporations, as argued in a previous video you posted do not care about nations but rather their own ideas.
The bottom of the pile is better off than it was before. Not only that but money is merely the medium of exchange, it has no importance beyond that. It must be recognized that many of the cool devices that once only belonged to the rich now are accessible by all.

The system is not insane, I'd argue that socialism creates a much worse system for economic calculation. Not only that but by putting that old salary or wage into something productive you can make it more valuable in the future anyway. I would not want the central government telling me what I can or cannot do anyway, the abstract way is much better as it relies on individual actors and not the presumptions of a single government.

Right, not that funny all things considered. But whatever, I do not sense as many personal attacks as earlier

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 04 Feb 2007, 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ok, I was just making my stance clear as I noted the attacks on my intelligence, and wanted to hammer the point in.
Well, given that we are all barbaric and no other creature is less barbaric, the term calling us barbaric really has no meaning or utility as you just compare us to some ideal rather than some real.

This is not an accurate description, I do not want vague generalities, I want SPECIFICS, specify the bad characteristics of human nature that are "immutable" self interest is not intelligable, it is so broad a term, you say there is a HUMAN nature and that cannibalism was not part of this "human nature" (self interest), so which is it? Define what it means to be self-interested. You cannot sum up human nature in a sentence. You don't have to answer right away, it will take time, so think on it for a few days and get an essay ready. Because people toss around the word "human nature" as if it meant something clearly defined and well understood.

When more or less what "human nature" is, is mutually agreed upon BS, 99% of the time.

Do you want me to grab a psychology book and then start making a general list? To be honest, some generalities in that description will exist. Cannibalism is not human nature, it is a reflection of an aspect of human nature. To say that cannibalism IS human nature is stating that all/most human beings have a deep desire to eat human flesh, that desire does not exist, however, if cannibalism did not reflect an aspect of human nature it would not have happened. Self-interest is pretty hard to define specifically, however, it essentially means that these creatures act in a manner according to what is defined as being their interests. No, I am not writing you an essay, this discussion is not worth a formal essay. People do toss around the term human nature, however, this does not mean that they have the absolute theorem of human nature, I can give you some theories on human nature if you'd like but I am not going to wait around and write an essay for you.

Among intellectuals who consider themselves "scientific," the phrase "the nature of man" is apt to have the effect of a red flag on a bull. "Man has no nature!" is the modern rallying cry and typical of the sentiment of political philosophers today was the assertion of a distinguished political theorist some years ago before a meeting of the American Political Science Association that "man's nature" is a purely theological concept that must be dismissed from any scientific discussion.

In the controversy over man's nature, and over the broader and more controversial concept of "natural law," both sides have repeatedly proclaimed that natural law and theology are inextricably intertwined. As a result, many champions of natural law, in scientific or philosophic circles, have gravely weakened their case by implying that rational, philosophical methods alone cannot establish such law: that theological faith is necessary to maintain the concept. On the other hand, the opponents of natural law have gleefully agreed; since faith in the supernatural is deemed necessary to belief in natural law, the latter concept must be tossed out of scientific, secular discourse, and be consigned to the arcane sphere of the divine studies. In consequence, the idea of a natural law founded on reason and rational inquiry has been virtually lost.

It is indeed puzzling that so many modern philosophers should sniff at the very term "nature" as an injection of mysticism and the supernatural. An apple, let fall, will drop to the ground; this we all observe and acknowledge to be in the nature of the apple (as well as the world in general). Two atoms of hydrogen combined with one of oxygen will yield one molecule of water — behavior that is uniquely in the nature of hydrogen, oxygen, and water. There is nothing arcane or mystical about such observations. Why then cavil at the concept of "nature"? The world, in fact, consists of a myriad number of observable things, or entities. This is surely an observable fact. Since the world does not consist of one homogenous thing or entity alone, it follows that each one of these different things possesses differing attributes, otherwise they would all be the same thing. But if A, B, C, etc., have different attributes, it follows immediately that they have different natures. It also follows that when these various things meet and interact, a specifically delimitable and definable result will occur. In short, specific, delimitable causes will have specific delimitable effects.

The observable behavior of each of these entities is the law of their natures, and this law includes what happens as a result of the interactions. The complex that we may build up of these laws may be termed the structure of natural law. What is "mystical" about that?

In the field of purely physical laws, this concept will usually differ from modern positivistic terminology only on high philosophical levels; applied to man, however, the concept is far more controversial. And yet, if apples and stones and roses each have their specific natures, is man the only entity, the only being, that cannot have one? And if man does have a nature, why cannot it too be open to rational observation and reflection? If all things have natures, then surely man's nature is open to inspection; the current brusque rejection of the concept of the nature of man is therefore arbitrary and a priori.

One common, flip criticism by opponents of natural law is: who is to establish the alleged truths about man? The answer is not who but what: man's reason. Man's reason is objective, i.e., it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. To ask what is man's nature is to invite the answer. Go thou and study and find out! It is as if one man were to assert that the nature of copper were open to rational investigation and a critic were to challenge him to "prove" this immediately by setting forth on the spot all the laws that have been discovered about copper.

Another common charge is that natural-law theorists differ among themselves, and that therefore all natural-law theories must be discarded. This charge comes with peculiar ill grace when it comes, as it often does, from utilitarian economists. For economics has been a notoriously contentious science — and yet few people advocate tossing all economics therefore into the discard. Furthermore, difference of opinion is no excuse for discarding all sides to a dispute; the responsible person is the one who uses his reason to examine the various contentions and make up his own mind. He does not simply say a priori, "a plague on all your houses!" The fact of man's reason does not mean that error is impossible. Even such "hard" sciences as physics and chemistry have had their errors and their fervent disputes. No man is omniscient or infallible — a law, by the way, of man's nature.

The natural law ethic decrees that for all living things, "goodness" is the fulfillment of what is best for that type of creature; "goodness" is therefore relative to the nature of the creature concerned.

The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man — what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature. In a significant sense, then, natural law provides man with a "science of happiness," with the paths which will lead to his real happiness. In contrast, praxeology or economics as well as the utilitarian philosophy with which this science has been closely allied, treat "happiness" in the purely formal sense as the fulfillment of those ends which people happen — for whatever reason — to place high on their scales of value. Satisfaction of those ends yields to man his "utility" or "satisfaction" or "happiness." Value in the sense of valuation or utility is purely subjective, and decided by each individual. This procedure is perfectly proper for the formal science of praxeology, or economic theory, but not necessarily elsewhere. For in natural-law ethics, ends are demonstrated to be good or bad for man in varying degrees; value here is objective — determined by the natural law of man's being, and here "happiness" for man is considered in the commonsensical, contentual sense.

And the eminent English jurist, Sir William Blackstone, summed up the natural law and its relation to human happiness as follows:

This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law … demonstrating that this or that action tends to man's real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destruction of man's real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.

(That is from Rothbard)

I wonder what effect that will have. He probably will not like your assertion, I know I will not write an essay over this as he arrogantly suggested, and really, even he admitted earlier that capitalism was in line with human nature

I don't really see the major issue because even our opponent admitted that as it stands socialism cannot be put upon a human society.

I am not going to write an essay. I will answer questions, I suppose, up to a point, but I have other things I am more interested in that do not involve circular arguments.

my economics professor would say
"if you are not a socialist before the age of 25 you have no heart, if you are still a socialist after the age of 25 you have no brain"

That's a paraphrase of Churchill...

I figured it was someone like that, now that you mention it it sorta rings a bell. I think Churchill also said "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

Wrong

Alright, so it is falsly attributed to him to then.

according to winston's page wikiquote
* If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
o According to the Falsely Attributed Quotations page at the Churchill Centre, "there is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this." Paul Addison of Edinburgh University is quoted as stating: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"
o Also variously attributed to George Bernard Shaw and Benjamin Disraeli and Otto von Bismarck.
o Variants: Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.
If you are not a socialist by the time you are 25, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist by the time you are 35, you have no head

Please, everyone here is missing the greater problem. That problem is that Winston Churchill never existed!! I mean, sure you claim he played a major role in WW2 but really that was an actor named William Lambry who was impersonating Winston Churchill because that was considered a cool name at the time. If you don't believe me then prove that Winston Churchill was himself, try it!!