aneeshm
Deity
While reading through many threads on communism and libertarianism, I realised one fundamental difference between the way the libertarians and socialists view the world.
In one thread, it was being argued that a choice in which a person has to either work or starve is not a choice. The libertarians were insisting that it was, and that socialists that it wasn't "really" a choice. The socialists also argued that no employer should have this power over someone else - that nobody should have the capacity/power to offer a person work when his other option was starvation.
This probably stems from the two ways they have of looking at the world.
Once, man had to hunt or starve. It was a simple choice. Later, it was farm or starve. I'll use this to illustrate the key difference.
The libertarian sees this choice as something inherent to reality - a law of human nature and of the tragedy of the human condition, if you will. He is of the opinion that any system of politico-economic organisation is not capable of abolishing this choice, that it is inherent, and man will be faced with it again and again. He sees it a bit like the law of the conservation of energy, or, in the words of a famous libertarian, TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The libertarian also has no belief in the concept of "cosmic justice" - he does not believe that the universe or humanity is inherently just. He also tends to see large-scale things in terms of non-intentional systems, rather than intention-directed action by individuals.
The socialist, on the other hand, gives primacy to intention in causality, and believes that "work or starve" is not an unalterable natural imperative, but only a phase of human society, or an artificial choice, not inherent to the human condition, and therefore something which can be abolished if some key things in society are changed. It isn't a natural law, merely a perversion created by the systems currently in place. The socialist also (generally) believes in cosmic justice, or, barring that, in the achievement of cosmic-like justice - the much-loved "absolute fairness" - as much as possible in reality. He also sees intentional causality behind the behaviour of large-scale systems, such as the explanation of society in terms of "classes" and their "struggle" who are more akin to classical nations in their own right than classes of a single one.
There are many more differences, but these were the ones pertinent to the discussion, so I took them up here.
Right now, I'm not making any comments on which is the correct view, because I don't want to tilt or derail the discussion.
Thoughts?
In one thread, it was being argued that a choice in which a person has to either work or starve is not a choice. The libertarians were insisting that it was, and that socialists that it wasn't "really" a choice. The socialists also argued that no employer should have this power over someone else - that nobody should have the capacity/power to offer a person work when his other option was starvation.
This probably stems from the two ways they have of looking at the world.
Once, man had to hunt or starve. It was a simple choice. Later, it was farm or starve. I'll use this to illustrate the key difference.
The libertarian sees this choice as something inherent to reality - a law of human nature and of the tragedy of the human condition, if you will. He is of the opinion that any system of politico-economic organisation is not capable of abolishing this choice, that it is inherent, and man will be faced with it again and again. He sees it a bit like the law of the conservation of energy, or, in the words of a famous libertarian, TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The libertarian also has no belief in the concept of "cosmic justice" - he does not believe that the universe or humanity is inherently just. He also tends to see large-scale things in terms of non-intentional systems, rather than intention-directed action by individuals.
The socialist, on the other hand, gives primacy to intention in causality, and believes that "work or starve" is not an unalterable natural imperative, but only a phase of human society, or an artificial choice, not inherent to the human condition, and therefore something which can be abolished if some key things in society are changed. It isn't a natural law, merely a perversion created by the systems currently in place. The socialist also (generally) believes in cosmic justice, or, barring that, in the achievement of cosmic-like justice - the much-loved "absolute fairness" - as much as possible in reality. He also sees intentional causality behind the behaviour of large-scale systems, such as the explanation of society in terms of "classes" and their "struggle" who are more akin to classical nations in their own right than classes of a single one.
There are many more differences, but these were the ones pertinent to the discussion, so I took them up here.
Right now, I'm not making any comments on which is the correct view, because I don't want to tilt or derail the discussion.
Thoughts?
Right, cause everything just happens organically. The consumer is the sole driver of social & political change. We need a ostrichwithheadinsand smiley.
