Link for rational enlightened thinking

Post Reply New Topic

This is a link to a time line for Enlightenment thinking I urge you to read the accompaning commentary and essays...it is rationality at its finest. I suspect many noted in this timeline were like us...

http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/Histo ... eline.html

Classical liberalism is not equal with logic, but is rather a logic which among other things employs both empiricism and rationalism to support specific interests, namely those of property owners.

Yes, but it starts with self ownership the most basic of property rights....what could be more logical? Furthermore, what is more logical than empiricism and rationalism?

Empiricism is logical, not rationalism. Rationalism and deduction is almost the basis of all intellectual sh*t.

A=A must be the highpoint of human stupidity.

Moreover, ownership is as abstract as "human rights". It is just an abstraction. Classical liberalism is as empty as any religion since it does'nt recognize that man is a specie of animals, which are coping together in societies in order to survive and give better opportunities to the offspring. Property rights has only been the superstructure for that as long as we've had a scarcity-based agricultural society. But today, we must recognise the fact that people needs to get basic needs satisfied. Humans are animals.

Perhaps Rational is a beter descriptor than logic. Man is a rational being.

I've heard of John Locke, but what exactly does this have to do with him?

That could really be discussed.

Maybe the "ideal man" of the lawmakers, but the truth is that we are not wholly rational, and even if we all were rational, we would still need to have access to all information in order to make decisions. Machines are rational, and they should be. But people should not cut their hair and look for a job, but use the machines in order to liberate their creativity, their love and their passion. If we would strive to become fully rational, we would strive to repeat the behavior of machines, which is'nt liberating.

Moreover, ownership of resources [like land and means of production] are associated with scarcity. And during scarcity, someone would always be left in the outside, while during abundance, such rights are not longer necessary to safeguard our survival and well-being.

Man's rationality is based in self awareness and the awareness of others. Something machinces are incapapable of.

As to the issue of proprty rights, it must always start with self ownership...from that the idea of contracts, which leads to voluntary exchange of goods and services and as a result of this voluntary exchange scarities can be limited...readers digest version, but its all there among those listed in the timeline...for a quick primer on the economic aspects try "Economics in one Lesson" by Henry Hazzlit" ca.1947.

Man is rational being and to deny that is to deny the greatest prize of his humanity. Certainly the ways in which we maximize our utility seem irrational, however, they are acts rationally taken to reach a goal. Man does not need perfect information to make decisions, man needs sufficient information, perfect information as we all know does not exist, however, with enough information or the freedom to trade for information life continues on working. Man should strive to be rational and yet retain other human characteristics as well for if he doesn't do that then his life will not be good.

Ownership of resources is a necessity for a functioning economic system. People as can be noted seek their own interests, property rights give people incentive to use property for its most needed function, doing that is efficient and efficient use of resources creates wealth and greater abundance of goods. Scarcity is simply a part of life, as what we desire is always greater than what is necessarily available. Such rights are always necessary, for without safeguards for rights we lose our survival and well-being.

Liberalism may idealize man, however, human freedom isn't something to simply be discarded. Also, the environment is a part of the economy to a great extent and environmental damage is known as an externality and is valued as much it is felt by governments to be necessary. That we are marching off of a cliff is something a bit hard to see, and a bit too pessimistic for a creature as adaptable as ourselves. Earth's resources are limited, economic growth is unlimited however because it can be gained through the efficient use of resources.

Property rights based price systems allow for individuals to rationally economize and get what they want and they are the only effective system for getting things done as the economizing individuals themselves have a direct incentive to make things work. All the technocrats are really going to lead to is another form of unworkable fascism/socialism and a dark pit for humanity. We are in an economic system and we will always be in an economic system and we will always have a need to economize in order to maximize our gains.

What little I know about "technocracy" leads me to believe it is necessarily dependent on central planning and Hayek thouroughly debunked that notion in "The Road To Serfdom".

Who manages the buracracies? Who runs the distribution of goods and services and moreover what drives innovation if there is no greed motive or self interest? Frankly, it seems to be communism repackaged with technocrats replacing the oligarchs and machines replacing the workers and most folks just sitting on their butts.

There is no bureaucracy, because there are no money. There are a technostructure, with machine facilities and some technicians who do maintenance. The incentive is skill, the better skill you have, the higher position. There are also holons, which are project groups making innovation. Innovation could also be applied by consumers. Holons could compete about how to reach highest energy efficiency.