What did I just read? Ayn Rand's Philosophy.

[Traitorfish]

A long way of reiterating your point that minarchy is an armed gang.

Exactly, yes.

Well, your politics consist of rejecting armed gangs while claiming that voluntarism is not useful. So apparently I'm falling between the two chairs while you somehow are sitting on both of them, or what?

It's all in the aufheben.

 

[Ayn Rand]

It's all in the aufheben.

Of course, how could I forget

 

[Cutlass]

To a purist like you the welfare state is probably just a patronising sop thrown to the exploited worker. But nonetheless it is a form of socialism that reformers aim at and which makes capital pay its keep to the politically strong working class.

It is the opposite of socialism. A welfare state, mixed economy, and governmental regulation, are the necessary preconditions for functioning capitalism. They are the price of doing business. These things exist to cut socialism off at the knees, not to evolve in the direction of socialism.

 

[Traitorfish]

Hey, me and Cutlass agree on something.

 

[strijder20]

That chart is... what? Just ignore China, India, Arabia, what? That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever seen!

It does a pretty good on job on showing the amount of discoveries in Europe, though, but then it should have mentioned it's only about Europe (and what's Egypt doing there, in that case).
As far as I can remember, the Arabs preserved classical knowledge - thanks to them we actually still have it - so even if you decide that gunpowder, repetitive crossbows, colossal ships and the printing press are 'toys', then that graph is still incorrect when regarding the world.

 

[cegman]

strijer20
The slightly important fact that libraries and other sources of knowledge were destroyed by invasion and warfare. The other important fact that monasteries were one of the few sources of knowledge and writing because it was one of the few buildings that weren't 'usually' targets in war. I'm sorry that there are people out there that cannot understand that a collapse of civilization where people are forced to think about food and safety usually leads to a loss of some types of knowledge. Oh and there were a bunch of interesting technological advances made during the "dark ages"

 

[Ajidica]

I'm sorry that there are people out there that cannot understand that a collapse of civilization where people are forced to think about food and safety usually leads to a loss of some types of knowledge.

And what collapse are we talking about?

 

[strijder20]

strijer20
The slightly important fact that libraries and other sources of knowledge were destroyed by invasion and warfare. The other important fact that monasteries were one of the few sources of knowledge and writing because it was one of the few buildings that weren't 'usually' targets in war. I'm sorry that there are people out there that cannot understand that a collapse of civilization where people are forced to think about food and safety usually leads to a loss of some types of knowledge. Oh and there were a bunch of interesting technological advances made during the "dark ages"

I think you misunderstood my post.

 

[cegman]

I thought so too the minute I logged back on a reread what you posted. I thought you were defending it but that write up is a copy paste from something i wrote when another person posted that graph. I should've taken the time to reread what you posted to make sure I was actually posting anything useful.

 

[Eukaryote]

There have been many complex societies in history and most of them did not develop science or industry. The fact that the West developed science while Africa and India languished is owing to individuals of great ability who used their minds.

I think of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel argument as well as the history of colonialism to be better explainations for why some societies are more prosperous than others than this idea that the West just had more intellectual superheros.

Yes, it's a clear claim to the superiority of one civilisational culture over another. I don't see anything wrong in making such a comparison and then upholding the superiority of one civilisation over another if there are good grounds to do so.

I do agree that it is possible to say one culture is better than another. If I saw a culture where women weren't allowed to vote, slavery, theft, murder and rape were rampant, and boys were kidnapped in their youth to be trained as soldiers, I'd say my culture is superior to that.

 

[Cutlass]

I think of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel argument as well as the history of colonialism to be better explainations for why some societies are more prosperous than others than this idea that the West just had more intellectual superheros.



I do agree that it is possible to say one culture is better than another. If I saw a culture where women weren't allowed to vote, slavery, theft, murder and rape were rampant, and boys were kidnapped in their youth to be trained as soldiers, I'd say my culture is superior to that.

Actually, the better argument for why some societies prospered more than others is that some were more free. The superheroes were not able to impose the restrictions on the others that prevent each person from trying to maximize their own prosperity, and the government enforced the rights of all, and not just the rights of the leaders.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually, the better argument for why some societies prospered more than others is that some were more free. The superheroes were not able to impose the restrictions on the others that prevent each person from trying to maximize their own prosperity, and the government enforced the rights of all, and not just the rights of the leaders.

That's the opposite of what happened. The "rights" which you esteem so highly were first and foremost property rights, which meant in practice the rights of landlords to dominate, exploit and evict the peasant populations for economic gain. The 18th century state didn't give a crap about the "rights" of the common man, impoverished peasant or landless worker, and in some cases was quite willing to subject them to ethnic cleansing for fun and profit.

 

[Leoreth]

I do agree that it is possible to say one culture is better than another. If I saw a culture where women weren't allowed to vote, slavery, theft, murder and rape were rampant, and boys were kidnapped in their youth to be trained as soldiers, I'd say my culture is superior to that.

But you wouldn't base your metric of cultures on some ill-conceived notion of civilizatory progress and derive a right of conquest from it. At least I hope so

 

[Cutlass]

That's the opposite of what happened. The "rights" which you esteem so highly were first and foremost property rights, which meant in practice the rights of landlords to dominate, exploit and evict the peasant populations for economic gain. The 18th century state didn't give a crap about the "rights" of the common man, impoverished peasant or landless worker, and in some cases was quite willing to subject them to ethnic cleansing for fun and profit.

The point is that as rights expanded, including property rights, and were more expanded to all people, then the creation of wealth increased.

 

[Traitorfish]

The point is that as rights expanded, including property rights, and were more expanded to all people, then the creation of wealth increased.

In what sense does the usurpation of traditional property rights (most notably the rights of the commons) and the consequent concentration of property among a small minority of the population constitute a practical generalisation of property rights, exactly?

 

[Cutlass]

In what sense does the usurpation of traditional property rights (most notably the rights of the commons) and the consequent concentration of property among a small minority of the population constitute a practical generalisation of property rights, exactly?

There was a process going on about the same time which distributed political power and rights. It is the expansion of rights to all that allows the breakout from the traditional poverty. Now I don't think that every single event that was going on at the same time was necessarily good. But first rolling back the power of the kings, and then rolling back the power of the lords, and then expanding to universal suffrage, that is what brought about changes in laws and customs that resulted in the growth of wealth.

 

[Traitorfish]

There was a process going on about the same time which distributed political power and rights. It is the expansion of rights to all that allows the breakout from the traditional poverty. Now I don't think that every single event that was going on at the same time was necessarily good. But first rolling back the power of the kings, and then rolling back the power of the lords, and then expanding to universal suffrage, that is what brought about changes in laws and customs that resulted in the growth of wealth.

That all happened in the 19th century, it had nothing to do with the colonisation of the Americas. There was only one major parliamentary regime in Europe in the 18th century, and it was an illiberal oligarchy, prosperous precisely because of the willingness of the state to violent repress the multitude in the interests of the economic elite.

 

[ParkCungHee]

you are really advocating in favour of policies such as wealth redistribution and regulation etc which you know ultimately can only be maintained with force.

As I'm pretty sure I win all "model of society based on least use of force" contests ever, any model of property ownership can only be maintained with force.