Questions for the surprisingly far right CFC population

[inthesomeday]

Not trying to start discussions, just looking for some reasoning from capitalists, and I don't know many in the real world so I'm forced to come here, where capitalists seem to grow on trees.

Which step do you think doesn't logically follow for each thing?

Thing 1: On Problems
(0/Given: the global economic system at the moment can be defined as fundamentally capitalistic.)
1. Economics is the primary driving force of all developments in human society-- cultural conventions, political and social structures, belief systems, etc.
2. Therefore, all/most aspects of a society are drawn from economic factors.
3. This includes problems.
4. Because of the given, we can therefore reason that the world's problems are the result of capitalistic economic structures.

Thing 2: On Values
(0/Given: The conceptual rights a human being should have, in an ideal society, should reflect human need.)
1. Law is a construct; this construct should reflect the rights that a society agrees human beings should have.
2. Only when these rights can first and foremost reflect human need are met should law extend beyond human need.
3. When laws protect the ability to restrict human need, they fail to fulfill the rights of humanity.
4. Therefore laws that restrict human need should be changed to reflect human rights, which in an ideal society reflect human need.

Thing 3: On Action
(0/Given: Preventing systems of oppression is more important than preserving order or peace in situations in which that oppression breeds more violence or damage than would be required to prevent it)
1. A setting in which there are people with more power than others is a hierarchy.
2. Hierarchies are oppressive by definition.
3. Hierarchies are resistant to their own destruction as is natural to anything.
4. Therefore, change through the network of the oppressive hierarchy is impossible.
5. Given the above, however, change is still preferred under the assumption that it will not be more destructive than the hierarchy itself, and therefore, assuming it is not, action against the system of oppression is preferable to inaction or continued attempts at changing the hierarchy from within.

 

[Perfection]

I'm a liberal and I don't agree with almost any of this.

 

[caketastydelish]

'surprisingly far right'. CFC is heavily left wing. I can't think of any Trump supporters on CFC other than OneJayHawk. And before you say 'trump is an extremist', almost half the country voted for him. Mitt Romney also had virtually no support on CFC, and he was far more reasonable than Trump.

 

[Zkribbler]

I'm a liberal and I don't agree with almost any of this.

ditto

BTW: In the previous post, Cake says, "I can think..." That's gotta be a typo. He means "can't"

 

[Commodore]

If you consider CFC to be "far right", then how far left are you on the political spectrum?

Also:

Not trying to start discussions,

Then why are you here? If you aren't interested in discussing anything, then why should we bother to respond to you at all? The whole point of this forum is to have discussions, so if you don't want to start a discussion, then this thread should be counted as spam and closed by the mods.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

If you consider CFC to be "far right", then how far left are you on the political spectrum?

Also:



Then why are you here? If you aren't interested in discussing anything, then why should we bother to respond to you at all? The whole point of this forum is to have discussions, so if you don't want to start a discussion, then this thread should be counted as spam and closed by the mods.

Considering some of the things said and suggested in the OP I'm guessing so far left Karl Marx would be proud?

 

[caketastydelish]

ditto

BTW: In the previous post, Cake says, "I can think..." That's gotta be a typo. He means "can't"

Yes. Thanks for catching that.

 

[Hygro]

There's just so much more to everything

 

[civver_764]

Thing 1: On Problems
(0/Given: the global economic system at the moment can be defined as fundamentally capitalistic.)
1. Economics is the primary driving force of all developments in human society-- cultural conventions, political and social structures, belief systems, etc.
2. Therefore, all/most aspects of a society are drawn from economic factors.
3. This includes problems.
4. Because of the given, we can therefore reason that the world's problems are the result of capitalistic economic structures.

I think it's more that economics is a result of human needs, and that the world's problems stem from human needs. Suffering didn't begin with Capitalism.

Thing 2: On Values
(0/Given: The conceptual rights a human being should have, in an ideal society, should reflect human need.)
1. Law is a construct; this construct should reflect the rights that a society agrees human beings should have.
2. Only when these rights can first and foremost reflect human need are met should law extend beyond human need.
3. When laws protect the ability to restrict human need, they fail to fulfill the rights of humanity.
4. Therefore laws that restrict human need should be changed to reflect human rights, which in an ideal society reflect human need.

What are these laws that "protect the ability to restrict human need"?

Thing 3: On Action
(0/Given: Preventing systems of oppression is more important than preserving order or peace in situations in which that oppression breeds more violence or damage than would be required to prevent it)
1. A setting in which there are people with more power than others is a hierarchy.
2. Hierarchies are oppressive by definition.
3. Hierarchies are resistant to their own destruction as is natural to anything.
4. Therefore, change through the network of the oppressive hierarchy is impossible.
5. Given the above, however, change is still preferred under the assumption that it will not be more destructive than the hierarchy itself, and therefore, assuming it is not, action against the system of oppression is preferable to inaction or continued attempts at changing the hierarchy from within.

I would generally agree with this...but I think you're fooling yourself if you think you can get rid of hierarchy through violence (itself an extreme form of hierarchy).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The only person who seems to understand the question is Civver.

"For the surprisingly far right CFC population" is not a statement about the CFC population in general. It is directing the question towards those who are surprisingly far right considering that they are here. Civver is that, and he answered.

Bogging down in a discussion of the obvious fact that CFC is not a far right population is destroying an otherwise interesting thread.

 

[Lord of Elves]

@inthesomeday you and I are going to get along fine.
@Perfection yes and that is why liberals are part of the problem. On every level except the superficial - cultural "toleration," Keynesian economics - liberals are identical to conservatives

 

[inthesomeday]

@ Everyone
I've found people on this site to be surprisingly more capitalistic in thought than I would ever expect, as well as far more reactionary to the ideas of change. So to me you seem further right than I'd ever expect, and then of course there are those of you who I may consider downright-- or should I say up right-- fascistic.

Anyways Tims and Civver seem to get moreso what I was asking for. The things I've put forward I consider to be very sound and reasonable logical processes so I'm wondering where in the logical reasoning those of you who support capitalism or reject revolution disagree with the development of thought. I suppose I miscommunicated when I said I'm not open to discussion on the matters, because I absolutely am, I'm just moreso hoping to give y'all a chance to talk about your beliefs and how they differ from mine before I try to persuade and/or adapt my own beliefs when presented with new ways of thinking.

So far I've found Civver's response to be most constructive, or at least most helpful to what I'm trying to glean here. To answer your question, @civver_764 ,
Laws that come to mind in terms of restricting the fulfillment of human need include laws protecting corporate commercialization of things like drinking water, food, and shelter. Then after that laws that restrict personal freedoms and the ability to interact with other human beings in consensual fashion.

Actually, for that, I'll put forward another given that stretches across all of these three things:

Given: Physiological needs should be fulfilled first and foremost, followed by conceptual "rights of man"; I.E., freedoms like speech, religion, and association. Not to say that these are not also rights of human beings, but that they should be protected second to the fulfillment of physiological needs in everybody.

See? Progress of dialogue made already.

 

[bernie14]

ok, as a righty and outright fascist by CFC standards, I'll take a stab at this….

Thing 1: On Problems
(0/Given: the global economic system at the moment can be defined as fundamentally capitalistic.)
1. Economics is the primary driving force of all developments in human society-- cultural conventions, political and social structures, belief systems, etc.
2. Therefore, all/most aspects of a society are drawn from economic factors.
3. This includes problems.
4. Because of the given, we can therefore reason that the world's problems are the result of capitalistic economic structures.

3. This includes problems benefits.
4. Because of the given, we can therefore reason that the world's benefits are the result of capitalistic economic structures.

Thing 2: On Values
(0/Given: The conceptual rights a human being should have, in an ideal society, should reflect human need.)
1. Law is a construct; this construct should reflect the rights that a society agrees human beings should have.
2. Only when these rights can first and foremost reflect human need are met should law extend beyond human need.
3. When laws protect the ability to restrict human need, they fail to fulfill the rights of humanity.
4. Therefore laws that restrict human need should be changed to reflect human rights, which in an ideal society reflect human need.

I am neither a lawyer or economist, so I will focus more on the human needs aspect. Needs and wants are more tricky than you may think. If you are sitting in relative comfort typing on your computer or own a smart phone where you can download your apps, it is fairly safe to say that your needs are met, as many of your wants…..there is A LOT of need in this world. Seeing that your methods seem rather authoritarian, how much of your wants are you willing to give up to fulfill the needs of others? For society, it may well be true that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" but that does not necessarily apply to individuals and as far as I am concerned, as long as you have the capacity of independent thought (conscious AND unconscious), you will always be an individual first and a member of society second. If you argue that I am just being purely selfish, refer back to reinterpretation of Thing 1.

Thing 3: On Action
(0/Given: Preventing systems of oppression is more important than preserving order or peace in situations in which that oppression breeds more violence or damage than would be required to prevent it)
1. A setting in which there are people with more power than others is a hierarchy.
2. Hierarchies are oppressive by definition.
3. Hierarchies are resistant to their own destruction as is natural to anything.
4. Therefore, change through the network of the oppressive hierarchy is impossible.
5. Given the above, however, change is still preferred under the assumption that it will not be more destructive than the hierarchy itself, and therefore, assuming it is not, action against the system of oppression is preferable to inaction or continued attempts at changing the hierarchy from within.

A neocon would essentially say the same thing.

 

[inthesomeday]

ok, as a righty and outright fascist by CFC standards, I'll take a stab at this….

Thanks!

3. This includes problems benefits.
4. Because of the given, we can therefore reason that the world's benefits are the result of capitalistic economic structures.

So then you essentially agree with what I've said here then? You just think that the benefits offered by capitalism outweigh its problems?

I am neither a lawyer or economist, so I will focus more on the human needs aspect. Needs and wants are more tricky than you may think. If you are sitting in relative comfort typing on your computer or own a smart phone where you can download your apps, it is fairly safe to say that your needs are met, as many of your wants…..there is A LOT of need in this world. Seeing that your methods seem rather authoritarian, how much of your wants are you willing to give up to fulfill the needs of others? For society, it may well be true that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" but that does not necessarily apply to individuals and as far as I am concerned, as long as you have the capacity of independent thought (conscious AND unconscious), you will always be an individual first and a member of society second. If you argue that I am just being purely selfish, refer back to reinterpretation of Thing 1.

Yes I have quite a bit of privilege, all of which I would gladly sacrifice to prevent poverty-- mostly because, and this is something most folks don't seem to understand, the existence of iPhones doesn't have to be reliant on soul-crushing poverty for millions. It just happens to because of-- well, refer to interpretation of thing 1. Anyways I'm discussing a bit more than I was intending to here, I'm just so appreciative of the sort of feedback I was hoping for. Again, thanks!

A neocon would essentially say the same thing.

Then they'd be right.

 

[civver_764]

So far I've found Civver's response to be most constructive, or at least most helpful to what I'm trying to glean here. To answer your question, @civver_764 ,
Laws that come to mind in terms of restricting the fulfillment of human need include laws protecting corporate commercialization of things like drinking water, food, and shelter. Then after that laws that restrict personal freedoms and the ability to interact with other human beings in consensual fashion.

OK, I see where you're coming from.

I think the language you use here is kind of funny. When you say "laws protecting corporate commercialization" isn't what you really mean "the absence of laws restricting corporate commercialization"?

And if we are not going to allow corporations to do this, who is left but the state? Do you trust the state more than corporations? An important question. History is riddled with abuses by various states.

 

[inthesomeday]

I think that without capitalist exploitation there would be no state because I think that the state is only an instrument of capitalist exploitation, but I understand that this is somewhat a radical train of thought without further explanation so for now I'll say that the best thing is that nobody commercializes things. I'm not by any measure a statist if that's what you're implying.

 

[civver_764]

I would agree that it's best if nobody commercializes things, but how are you proposing we get there?

 

[Perfection]

@Perfection yes and that is why liberals are part of the problem. On every level except the superficial - cultural "toleration," Keynesian economics - liberals are identical to conservatives

The exception list is probably a bit longer than that.

And really, a burn-it-down approach to the problems of capitalism is gonna just result in people getting burned.

 

[inthesomeday]

What I'm saying is I think it'll be fewer people than those burned every day by capitalism itself.

 

[Cutlass]

I think that without capitalist exploitation there would be no state because I think that the state is only an instrument of capitalist exploitation, but I understand that this is somewhat a radical train of thought without further explanation so for now I'll say that the best thing is that nobody commercializes things. I'm not by any measure a statist if that's what you're implying.

The state existed 6000 years before the invention of capitalism. States have existed without capitalism throughout all of history, including today. So what has capitalism got to do with the state?