Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by caketastydelish, Nov 4, 2019.
Are you an occultist, then?
My dad's cat always ate his kills. The pleasure part of it came with creating his little mausoleum of mouse skeletons in the cellar (my dad found it and thought it was pretty funny).
I don't care what a cat's motive is in killing mice. Mice are vermin.
One can treat the point at which the supply curve naturally meets the demand curve as definitively effective for private goods. This is not necessarily maximizing efficiency or volume; it is simply where the supply side's capabilities meet the demand side's willingness.
To the extent that private goods like bread have externalities like farm run-off, and public goods like defense involve individuals' efforts, there is no pure capitalism and socialism, and the curves are moved by interventions or passively generated by issues beyond institutional control, respectively.
Who ever made this world/universe didn't populate it with Angels. He populated it with free willed creatures who have differing views on everything.
Because people want it
Fixed it for you.
How does socialism/communism get rid of greed? How does it change people's values?
Now that's a symbiotic relationship!
Outside of the market liberal capitalism we call “the economy” the societal consensus and values are already primed against greed. Our modern economy is not a force of nature, and the market economy as we know it is just another human construct and not a very solid one at that. Historically, (and there are enough historians here to correct me where I’m wrong) tribal society had no place for greed within the tribe. Vikings did not elect kings on candidates spending, they sentenced the most worthy chief king and if he failed the common good he was put out, even sacrificed to the gods like Domalde. All the way to the 16th century the main power-currency was honour and title rather than monetary currency. Chances are we are still fumbling as much as they did and need to continue progress society.
The acceptance and even full incentivised exploitation of the commons within society is what has warped our current political economical discourse into this absolute farce future generations will just royally face palm. In the US - the front of capitalism for example, it’s completely unsustainable with modern democracy to have three people: Bezos, Buffett and Gates own assets in excess of 160 000 000 other Americans within the same competitive economy and society. If Freedom House and other democracy measures where consistent over time America would not be deemed a democracy today. Something has to change because that trend in not slowing down, it’s still accelerating and spreading. The powers that be does everything they can to feed into the myth and Randian analysis that all people are greedy and if you are not you will perish, trampled under the weight of the greedy masses. It’s a short-term-profit-race to the bottom. Thankfully, there are democratic political alternatives and they are slowly gaining momentum. Most prominently a spectra of Social democrats and they are at least loosely a subset of Socialism. Not that that matters much outside your question.
Because we haven't yet extracted ourselves from the emergent system that lead to our existence (i.e. : life).
Because people like to argue against the rights of others.
Because people believe that equal rights are happening "too fast".
Because it's easy to believe the worst of people who don't think or act like you do.
Because being a "devil's advocate" became a good thing to be. For some reason.
Because worrying about slippery slopes only applies to contrasting ideologies, and not your own.
Because people believe in the inherent superiority of people by dint of progress and advancement, but also completely ignore and / or argue against the historical impact of colonisation, and other ways advanced societies have gotten to where they are.
It's a lot of picking and choosing, really. The bottom line is: because people don't want to think the world is as bad as it can be, and people don't want to believe they are involved to any extent. This applies to humanity in general. We're very good at finding ways to absolve ourselves of responsibility.
I wasn't clear, you need a better word than 'effective'. Effective at what? Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the underlying theory of pricing generating efficiencies or allowing productivity increases. It's just that effective isn't the right word. Effective for who? Effective for what? If you're talkin efficiency, there are fundamental breakdowns outside of certain parameters.
You mentioned externalities, which is usually solved by increasing ownership rights. But other questions, like what happens if someone owns too much? Is it still effective? Not really, it breaks down. Capitalism as a game shuttles wealth up, that's its nature. If wealth becoming too concentrated is a potential breakdown of effectiveness, then the consequences of capitalism can be part of the problem. Does not mean that the overall concept is wrong, just that you need the occasional reset system. When you play chess, you occasionally need to reset the board in order to keep playing. It's just the way the game works
Evidence that Free Will exists is underwhelming. And, if you look at my previous post, I have no problem with the concept that we are corrupt in a fallen universe. Yet, I don't know how to use a concept like Free Will in this discussion, mainly cuz I'm not sure it exists.
This is why I'm not a pacifist. Dr. King made a good case for non-violent action - not just intellectually, but in practice - but I'm not a binary thinker, so I have room for using one tool some of the time and other, seemingly-contradictory tools elsewhere. Malcolm X's famous quote, "By any means necessary", is frequently interpreted as a call to violence (especially when combined with that photo of him peering out the window that you see on dorm-room posters), but he also talked about African-Americans buying property and owning their own businesses (e.g. controlling capital). But you've outlined why we're sometimes forced to choose a lesser evil.
Agreed. One of the ideas of capitalism is that it can somehow wrangle people's innate greed to at least be constructive and promote the common good. Well, if that was ever the notion, and it wasn't always just a pithy line of bull to sucker the hapless, it's not doing so great. Michael Douglas' "Greed is good" line was meant to be biting satire, but these days we get candidates for President saying [crap] like "corporations are people" and then it gets enacted into law (e.g. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby giving corporations freedom of religion and Citizens United v FEC giving corporations freedom of speech - incidentally, this is all from the same group of people, American conservatives, who claim to value individual rights over group rights. My [butt]).
Right, capitalism does some stuff, but it certainly didn't introduce the ills it inflames. But of course if a person comes upon a fire and throws gasoline on it, "It was already burning!" isn't a defense.
I don't see why we would need to put metaphysical and grandiose stuff to explain the state of the world. An emergent system where there are mutations will logically (necessarily ?) tends toward permanent competition between lifeforms.
I'm not even sure a different system could actually exist in our universe. Change means that some forms will naturally gets better than others at fitting in an ecological niche, and that mechanically ends up with whatever works being selected over time.
Competition, sure. Suffering, not so sure. In the early years of Gaia, I don't think there was suffering. You need consciousness.
My earlier post talks about why there is as much human suffering as their is. The OP is about the ratio or amount of suffering, but presumes its existence
With complex consciousness comes separation and longing; from those come desire and greed. All the rest follows.
Suffering is simply a mechanism to push a lifeform to improves its situation, which leads to improved chances of survival. It didn't appears because some sort of sadistic cosmic entity decided it would be fun, it appeared simply because, as everything, it worked.
There is a philosophy to be had in the idea that not all suffering is pure badness. Which is a hard pill to swallow when so much of it appears(is) meaningless and cruel(indifferent), but probably true. Much of what we describe as beautiful, and possibly much of that which makes life worth living to the extent that it is, is a product of suffering.
I'm still going with entropy. Visions of paradise usually fundamentally revolve around selectively removing the 2nd law of thermodynamics in some key way. Some visions of hell too, for that matter.
I do not understand how you fit entropy into this conversation. It could be interesting though. Help me out. I'll be back in a few hours.
I was just pointing out that suffering doesn't necessarily flow from natural selection. I don't know if the evolution of consciousness necessarily happens or if 'fluke' is a better word.
Are you just saying that you don't believe in a Creator? Neither do I. I just have no problem with the idea that we lack sufficient morals and that we live in a universe containing natural evils.
In Abrahamic faith, we say we're corrupt in a fallen universe. The underlying principle works for me. I don't need to think a Creator exists to explain why I think there's so much suffering. Life is hard, and we kinda suck.
Separate names with a comma.