My fear of the liberal communists...

[Bozo Erectus]

You mean Gates hasnt exploited anyone to make his fortune? I agree.

 

[The Last Conformist]

You mean Gates hasnt exploited anyone to make his fortune? I agree.

Have I been expressing myself unusually poorly lately? I seem to get misunderstood with unusual frequency of late.

No, I don't mean Gates hasn't exploited anyone. Both Gates and Soros have got rich by exploiting other people - that's how you get rich in any economic system above the subsistence level. What I mean is that when rightwingers, as they not infrequently do, complain about Mr Gates the complaint isn't about eploitation.

 

[Atropos]

Since the concept of exploitation seems to have been bandied about a fair bit, perhaps the participants could give their definitions for this concept?

My own definition is: Gaining an advantage by transactions in which the other party is forced to participate or participates without adequate knowledge. An example of the first condition would be slavery; an example of the second would be the employees and shareholders of Parmalat and Enron.

No one is forced to work for any of the companies in which Soros invests (although the alternatives may be grim), and no one is forced to buy their products. Nor, to my knowledge, have they been sued for deceptive advertising. Ergo, his behaviour is not exploitative by my definition.

I would further argue that, assuming that the two preconditions mentioned above have been met, Soros' contribution is not just possibly but certainly positive. Why? Soros has made money. Ergo, he must have bought stock in companies which rose in value after the transaction was made. Why did they rise in value? Because they were useful, i.e. because people wanted to buy their products. By investing in them, Soros transfers resources towards products which people want to buy, thereby enabling still more products to be sold.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Have I been expressing myself unusually poorly lately? I seem to get misunderstood with unusual frequency of late.

No, I don't mean Gates hasn't exploited anyone. Both Gates and Soros have got rich by exploiting other people - that's how you get rich in any economic system above the subsistence level. What I mean is that when rightwingers, as they not infrequently do, complain about Mr Gates the complaint isn't about eploitation.

I just dont understand how making lots of money because you offer goods and services to consumers that they like and buy in great quantities, is exploitation.

 

[Atlas14]

I just dont understand how making lots of money because you offer goods and services to consumers that they like and buy in great quantities, is exploitation

I haven't been following along but perhaps the workers, or employees are the ones being exploited. While Gates racks in billions each year, the common laborer that works for him may only see a tiny fraction of the money the company makes each year.

 

[Atropos]

I haven't been following along but perhaps the workers, or employees are the ones being exploited. While Gates racks in billions each year, the common laborer that works for him may only see a tiny fraction of the money the company makes each year.

Of course. The ability to see business opportunities (read: products that society wants) is much rarer and more highly valued than the ability to solder parts of a CPU together.

Once again: please define "exploitation" before using it. It is not the sort of word that means the same thing to everyone.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Exploitation, as I use the term, means using someone else for your own benefit (economical benefit, in this case). This isn't necessarily bad for that someone.

 

[Atropos]

Exploitation, as I use the term, means using someone else for your own benefit (economical benefit, in this case). This isn't necessarily bad for that someone.

If exploitation doesn't necessarily hurt anyone, then why is it necessarily a bad thing?

 

[The Last Conformist]

If exploitation doesn't necessarily hurt anyone, then why is it necessarily a bad thing?

I don't believe I've ever said or implied that exploitation is necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Atropos]

I don't believe I've ever said or implied that exploitation is necessarily a bad thing.

You haven't, but that is the way in which the word is conventionally used. Given that the thread began with an article criticizing Gates, Soros and their putative supporters, a description of Soros et al as "exploitative" implies agreement with this criticism. Moreover, a value-neutral definition of "exploitation" essentially removes the word's utility in assessing whether Soros' activities are positive or negative.

 

[FredLC]

The problem with the "universality" point is: How do you measure it? Take a poll? A majority might decide to kill a minority (e.g. in 1930s Germany where Hitler's programme was quite popular). Consult world opinion? Impossible to measure and not necessarily correct (e.g. religious persecution in the middle ages). The verdict of history? Different societies have had wildly differing goals (which rarely included economic equality), and future societies may have different goals still.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, and you mean "universality" in the sense of felicific calculus (the greatest good of the greatest number). But how do you judge that? Is it good to kill one person so that everyone else has enough food to eat?

Ultimately, the problem of setting goals is that they are ultimately set by individuals within society, and those individuals may be wrong. That's why I disagree with the notion of a common societal goal except self-preservation.

Now go enjoy yourself...You have to have better things to do this evening than read inane arguments plagiarized from Locke...

Ok, sorry for the slow reply (and I'll probably take long again after; I'm still without my connection, and I'm posting in some quasi-free time at work).

First, lemme say that I'm quite found of Locke's school of thought, and I mostly agree with the doctrine of "inalienable rights". However, just because this rights derives from an honest overview of the fundaments of soceity, itr does not mean that I think that societies can't turn against them. Remember that the very point of my argument was that soceities turn sour, and deviate from their natural goals, so we should constantly think of ways to keep them on track.

As for your argument on universality, and the difficulty to determine it, well, it's correct. We can't really achieve universality. what does not challenge the concep that we must seek it, get as close as possible, and than use that as the guideline of societal decisions. Philosophically speaking, your argument faces two other challenges; one, the fact that the will of the individual is, in many ways, also impossible to determine; and two, the fact that even if individual wills were perfectly determinable, there never were any society that did not function ruled by a class, which is smaller than the whole but also a group, prone to the same constrictions.

I have a pragmatic approach on the validity of societies: It has legitimate power only over those it represents, and it only represents those which it protects. As treating individuals differently means protecting some more than others, this is a illegitimate path for society to take, and it must than offer an equal setting for all. After that, the individual prosperity of each, derived from their personal merits, is philosophically legitimate profit; systemic gain, derived from the incapacity of society of functioning the way I described, is an idyossincracy that, sociologically speaking, should be done away with (though not with violence, but with processes that morph the society in the utopic format).

Deviation from this goal make a society invalid, and it is in this manner that I dismiss your example of the majority vote in the Nazi Germany - by activelly seeking to harm, instead of protect, some which were under it's authority, it has lost its authority over them, and all acts taken in the name of that goal became invalids, a deviation.

It's only in this very broad manner that I speak of universality - leaving room for the convenient refinements that suit each social body at each point.

Regards .