Voters steer Europe to the right

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 16:35
VIEWED: 24282
PAGE 13 of 23

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE

JKIDDO

Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:03 PM

Bluesun- Let me start out by saying I haven't the faintest clue as to what you're trying to say.

Quote:
Personal Freedom
Economic Freedom

Which of these 2 is the greater? If I were to impose upon you a strict system of laws that limited your lifestyle to what is given in the Biblical Old Testiment (force you to live like a puritan perhaps), would you be outraged? Would you demand change? Should I then respond to your outrage with the question: "What good is a secular society to me?" The importance of personal freedoms and economic freedoms is equivalent. In an economically free society citizens have the choice to participate or not. As I see it, you are personally choosing the latter, and thats fine. And you still indirectly benefit from all the advances in tech that were products of an openly competing free american marketplace. The hotbeds of advance in the world exist in the free markets: USA, Japan, ect..

Specifically

Quote:
In an economically free society citizens have the choice to participate or not. As I see it, you are personally choosing the latter, and thats fine.

First of all, how can I NOT participate? I have to work. I have to buy stuff. I have to use money. I have to use a bank. Every time I buy something from a company I contribute to its profits. Every time I look for a job, I'm competing against others who work for corporations, often at slave wages. Every time I bank, I participate in the banking system. When I use money, I'm beholden to the Fed. I have no idea how you think one can separate themselves from the current corporatocracy. I may not LIKE participating, but there's no way I can avoid it.

Quote:
Should I then respond to your outrage with the question: "What good is a secular society to me?

I would hope so. All economic systems are coercive, in the sense that as long as you live, work, and consume in it, you MUST participate. So every system should be able to explain itself to the populace at large.

Quote:
the advances in tech that were products of an openly competing free american marketplace. The hotbeds of advance in the world exist in the free markets: USA, Japan, ect.

Strangely, the USA is FOURTH in number of patents per GDP. The Republic of Korea is first, followed by Japan, Germany and New Zealand. I don't know what to make of that statistic, other than to say that most new products (particularly electronics) are offered first in Japan and the Nordic nations simply because the USA is not a good enough market. SO the USA is not the "hotbed" of invention and innovation that you think it is.
www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/patent_report_2007.html#P35
0_22657

Quote:
The answer is: "Whatever you endeavour to take for yourself within the law."

So apparently you offer me a system in which people are encouraged to- and celebrate the freedom to - take from each other??? Er, thanks. I think.

Quote:
My question to you is now: What is there in a marxist society for me?

Freedom.

JKIDDO

Sunday, June 14, 2009 4:05 PM

Bump for Bluesun.

AKA SignyM

KPO

Sunday, June 14, 2009 4:46 PM

Quote:
Because things are working so well now? I found this on (of all places) the Christian Science Monitor

Is capitalism fatally flawed?
By Paul McDonnold

I'm not against regulation, I'm not anti-government. Economies are like natural systems in my view; Capitalism allows an economy to be natural and therefore be healthy and vibrant, but natural systems often operate in damaging cycles and there's definitely a role for government to prevent/limit the effects of these, as well as of course regulating to enforce the rule of law (crucial for a healthy economy).

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I'm not against regulation, I'm not anti-government. Economies are like natural systems in my view; Capitalism allows an economy to be natural and therefore be healthy and vibrant,

Capitalism is a human construct, working under the dictates of human intellect. Prescribing it to natural constructs is nonsense. There's nothing natural about an economy or capitalism.

Nor for that matter is prescribing it to natural a winning argument. Prescribing 'Natural' to mean 'Good' is an actual logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Even if it was, capitalism being 'natural' would be an argument against it, the whole point of civilisation is to subvert the natural order, not recreate it.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
but natural systems often operate in damaging cycles and there's definitely a role for government to prevent/limit the effects of these, as well as of course regulating to enforce the rule of law (crucial for a healthy economy).

I really can't think of any pertinent examples. Maybe bush fires, but they're not really a great analogy.

KPO

Monday, June 15, 2009 12:46 AM

Quote:
Capitalism is a human construct, working under the dictates of human intellect. Prescribing it to natural constructs is nonsense.

Hmm, well I've got a lot more thinking to do on this subject, but you are saying everything about civilisation is a 'human construct' - and therefore talking about some of our invented systems for dealing with each other as 'natural' is nonsense?

If I was to talk about something simple like money: money is a human invention, but it's origins stem from the need for humans to barter, and trade with each other. Money enhances this process because it's so convenient and efficient - and although it had to be invented I see it as quite a natural, and inevitable solution to a human problem. I've heard some conspiracy theorists speak of money as like a diabolical invention used to control and oppress people, and I'd like to hear their reasoning, but money still seems 'natural' to me, do you agree? If you'd prefer a different adjective to 'natural' feel free to suggest one.

But similarly, as an invention capitalism seems quite 'natural' to me, like money, or the wheel. At least it has never struck me as unnatural, like socialism.

Quote:
There's nothing natural about an economy or capitalism.

I said economies are like natural systems, so analogy was implied; even if you see nothing natural about 'human constructs' to solve problems. I think our economic systems have evolved throughout history, and there are principles of competition and survival of the fittest in a free market, similar to what we see in nature.

Quote:
Nor for that matter is prescribing it to natural a winning argument. Prescribing 'Natural' to mean 'Good' is an actual logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

I never said that 'natural' meant 'good' - I talked about the instability of some natural systems remember?

Quote:
the whole point of civilisation is to subvert the natural order, not recreate it.

Interesting, says who? I think subverting the natural order in civilisation might just be a means towards another, higher end. In any case, something like competition in industry, just like competition and survival of the fittest in the natural world, is healthy.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kpo:
but natural systems often operate in damaging cycles and there's definitely a role for government to prevent/limit the effects of these, as well as of course regulating to enforce the rule of law (crucial for a healthy economy).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really can't think of any pertinent examples. Maybe bush fires, but they're not really a great analogy.

I was thinking of this kind of graph of cyclical population levels of predators and prey:

http: //precalc.stcribby.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/original.jpg

Quite damaging for the lynxes that starve to death - it strikes me as a natural system that would benefit from some regulation.

Heads should roll

KWICKO

Monday, June 15, 2009 4:00 AM

Quote:
But similarly, as an invention capitalism seems quite 'natural' to me, like money, or the wheel. At least it has never struck me as unnatural, like socialism.

It seems to me that you view capitalism as a "natural" system because you were raised in that system. It might be that someone raised in a Marxist system sees that as the most "natural" system, or someone raised in a socialist system could see IT as the most "natural". None of them would be wrong, really. There are "natural" examples of "capitalist" behavior (a lion, for instance, might want something, take it, and have it, without sharing, but merely for its own good) as well as of "socialist" behavior, where the whole herd or school or flock act as one, and the individuals are ripped apart by the "capitalist" predators that follow.

I'm just sayin'...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CITIZEN

Monday, June 15, 2009 11:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Hmm, well I've got a lot more thinking to do on this subject, but you are saying everything about civilisation is a 'human construct' - and therefore talking about some of our invented systems for dealing with each other as 'natural' is nonsense?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
If I was to talk about something simple like money: money is a human invention, but it's origins stem from the need for humans to barter, and trade with each other. Money enhances this process because it's so convenient and efficient - and although it had to be invented I see it as quite a natural, and inevitable solution to a human problem.

Barter and Trade are unnatural constructs of proto-human civilisation. They're off-shoots of Humans ability to create tools and organisations, technology, that creates surpluses. Bartering and trade are not a requirement of Human survival, they're a requirement of Human civilisation, which is by definition not natural.

The need for cars are a more efficient form of the Horse and carriage, which grew from the Human need to move about, but that's hardly an argument for Cars being natural.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I've heard some conspiracy theorists speak of money as like a diabolical invention used to control and oppress people, and I'd like to hear their reasoning, but money still seems 'natural' to me, do you agree?

No, it's a form of technology and societal organisation, there's nothing natural about money. That would be one reason why Money doen't grow on trees...

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
If you'd prefer a different adjective to 'natural' feel free to suggest one.

Technology? Unnatural would sit rather well.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
But similarly, as an invention capitalism seems quite 'natural' to me, like money, or the wheel. At least it has never struck me as unnatural, like socialism.

Small scale more natural human groups look more like Socialism or even Communism than any form of Capitalism. Human natural group organisations are small tribes, where the sum of everyone's work is shared out to the tribe. Using the sort of trite analysis that places economics systems as more natural than another, would seem to say Socialism is closer than Capitalism, and Communism closer still. And again this natural thing, where do you see Money or the Wheel in nature? They don't exist, because they aren't natural, they're forms of Human technology, which by definition makes them unnatural.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I said economies are like natural systems, so analogy was implied;

You also said:

Quote:
Capitalism allows an economy to be natural

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
even if you see nothing natural about 'human constructs' to solve problems. I think our economic systems have evolved throughout history, and there are principles of competition and survival of the fittest in a free market, similar to what we see in nature.

And even so, Social Darwinism is in my opinion a big steaming pile of horse shit. And it leads us back to an appeal to nature, saying something is natural doesn't mean ipso-facto that it is desirable.

Quote:
I never said that 'natural' meant 'good' - I talked about the instability of some natural systems remember?

Yes you did:

Quote:
Capitalism allows an economy to be natural and therefore be healthy and vibrant

You didn't use the exact words "natural == good", but you set up the implication. "Capitalism == Natural, Natural == Something that is good and desirable".

I actually meant Appeal to Nature rather Naturalistic fallacy (although both really apply for different reasons and aspects), but at the least your statement above is a textbook example of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

"X is Y because it is natural." (Y being a desirable property)

Your statement fits perfectly, as a subtly rewording

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Monday, June 15, 2009 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
All economic systems are coercive, in the sense that as long as you live, work, and consume in it, you MUST participate.

Very busy today, sorry I cannot add much to the debate here at the moment. But I separated this one item out to say that I understand it. It's a common theme repeated by an anarchist friend of mine. I'm sure Frem understands too. And like Tyler Durden in Fight Club my buddy wants to erase the debt record and "set the people free". Twixt he and I exists the ever-present divide between Anarchists and Libertarians.

For you frem: He's much like Ian Freeman and I'm more like Mark Edge both from Free Talk Live.

My point to Signy was to teach the connection between free-markets and free-thought. A free market doesn't exclude one from a need to survive. Do not confuse your need to work with a misunderstanding of what economic freedom is. In socialized euro countries where economic freedom is less, people still have jobs. They also take home far less on average purchasing power than americans do. Worse still would be the old system behind the iron curtain of eastern europe where citizens were forced at pitchfork point to work for good the good of the people.

To much to relate and nowhere near enough time today.

KPO

Monday, June 15, 2009 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
But similarly, as an invention capitalism seems quite 'natural' to me, like money, or the wheel. At least it has never struck me as unnatural, like socialism.

It seems to me that you view capitalism as a "natural" system because you were raised in that system. It might be that someone raised in a Marxist system sees that as the most "natural" system, or someone raised in a socialist system could see IT as the most "natural". None of them would be wrong, really. There are "natural" examples of "capitalist" behavior (a lion, for instance, might want something, take it, and have it, without sharing, but merely for its own good) as well as of "socialist" behavior, where the whole herd or school or flock act as one, and the individuals are ripped apart by the "capitalist" predators that follow.

I'm just sayin'...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

True, greed/self-interest is a natural human instinct and so is sharing. What I'm more interested in though is not what is done with the spoils but the method employed to gain them in the first place. I'm talking about capitalism vs socialism as systems to create wealth. And I think the 'naturalness' of capitalism as a solution to this problem comes from the fact that it arose out of people's sincere desire to make money, whereas socialism seems heavily tainted with other agendas such as 'social justice' or whatever - I don't even think making money is its primary concern.

As for what is done with the money once it's acquired, I'm all for government intervention to ensure that it gets spread around, and people are not getting exploited, working for nothing etc. You have to consider the good of society, human beings are after all social creatures.

So there you have it, when it comes to the problem of creating wealth effectively I'm a capitalist, and when it comes to the problem of what to do with the wealth I'm a human being.

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Monday, June 15, 2009 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Do not confuse your need to work with a misunderstanding of what economic freedom is. In socialized euro countries where economic freedom is less, people still have jobs. They also take home far less on average purchasing power than americans do.

# 1 Luxembourg: $79,421.60 per capita
# 2 Qatar: $78,723.23 per capita
# 3 Bermuda: $71,067.59 per capita
# 4 Jersey: $56,159.98 per capita
# 5 Kuwait: $55,875.75 per capita
# 6 Norway: $53,285.21 per capita
# 7 Brunei: $52,432.48 per capita
# 8 Singapore: $49,879.10 per capita
# 9 Ireland: $46,628.37 per capita
# 10 United States: $45,759.46 per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_pur_pow_par_percap-purchasin
g-power-parity-per-capita

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE