Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And I had to bring up Magdalen laundries ...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:To which Eutychus replied
doctrines of
- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)
- gender-bending (anything goes so long as you don't speak in favour of traditional gender roles)
- political correctness (can't believe anyone voted for Trump; free speech as long as you don't say what we don't like)
- anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)
- anti-racism (racism is a huge sin that the whole white race should atone for)
and the general attitude that alternatives to this worldview are long-disproven crap that can be dismissed, part of the Bad Old Days that we're trying to get away from.
quote:I think he's right that there is a common thread, which is a sympathy with those classes of people deemed to be "under-privileged".
I'm increasingly convinced that traditional views, especially on moral issues, are bound up with particular concepts of power, and I'd say that covers just about everything on Russ' list above.
quote:Caricature - yes, certainly. A broad sketch that exaggerates the features to which one wishes to draw attention...
Originally posted by anteater:
Russ: I think your definition is a caricature..
4) Total bollocks. Who takes that view who is in your sights?
quote:The one where Noah rode a dinosaur to the Ark.
Originally posted by anteater:
Which age to you want to go back to?
quote:There's a quote from Chesterton that I think never gets old:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think he's right that there is a common thread, which is a sympathy with those classes of people deemed to be "under-privileged".
quote:From his introduction to Oliver Twist.
This is where Dickens's social revolt is of more value than mere politics and avoids the vulgarity of the novel with a purpose. His revolt is not a revolt of the commercialist against the feudalist, of the Nonconformist against the Churchman, of the Free-trader against the Protectionist, of the Liberal against the Tory. If he were among us now his revolt would not be the revolt of the Socialist against the Individualist, or of the Anarchist against the Socialist. His revolt was simply and solely the eternal revolt; it was the revolt of the weak against the strong. He did not dislike this or that argument for oppression; he disliked oppression. He disliked a certain look on the face of a man when he looks down on another man. And that look on the face is, indeed, the only thing in the world that we have really to fight between here and the fires of Hell.
... When he found that footmen and rustics were too much afraid of Sir Leicester Dedlock, he attacked Sir Leicester Dedlock; he did not care whether Sir Leicester Dedlock said he was attacking England or whether Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, said he was attacking an effete oligarchy. In that case he pleased Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, and displeased Sir Leicester Dedlock, the Aristocrat. But when he found that Mr. Rouncewell's workmen were much too frightened of Mr. Rouncewell, then he displeased Mr. Rouncewell in turn; he displeased Mr. Rouncewell very much by calling him Mr. Bounderby.
quote:I'll note that the classical economic justification for the competitive free market is that it gets rid of excessive profit. Any profit is a sign that there is room to cut prices for consumers. If prices are not being cut then there is market failure.
anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)
quote:Not a criticism of anyone. It's trying to identify a cluster of attitudes that make up this "dominant ethos".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is it a criticism of people on this forum, or people in the Labour party, or what?
quote:I admire Chesterton for his command of language, his chivalry, and his principled even-handedness. But not for the rigour of his analysis.
Dafyd quoted Chesterton:
His revolt was simply and solely the eternal revolt; it was the revolt of the weak against the strong. He did not dislike this or that argument for oppression; he disliked oppression. He disliked a certain look on the face of a man when he looks down on another man. And that look on the face is, indeed, the only thing in the world that we have really to fight between here and the fires of Hell.
quote:Help me understand how one can have a massive imbalance of power without there being misuse. I'm not seeing it.
Originally posted by Russ:
And whilst the strong will always be tempted to oppress the weak, we can't infer oppression from mere difference in strength. It is the misuse of strength that should be opposed, not its existence.
quote:You don't have a younger brother who's less capable than you are, whom you look out for ?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Help me understand how one can have a massive imbalance of power without there being misuse.
quote:Nope.
Originally posted by Russ:
You don't have a younger brother who's less capable than you are, whom you look out for ?
quote:If you believe in original sin you can infer oppression from difference in strength unless there's reason not to.
Originally posted by Russ:
And whilst the strong will always be tempted to oppress the weak, we can't infer oppression from mere difference in strength. It is the misuse of strength that should be opposed, not its existence.
quote:
His revolt was simply and solely the eternal revolt; it was the revolt of the weak against the strong. He did not dislike this or that argument for oppression; he disliked oppression. He disliked a certain look on the face of a man when he looks down on another man. And that look on the face is, indeed, the only thing in the world that we have really to fight between here and the fires of Hell.
quote:Original sin could conceivably imply that any sin you can think of will be committed by someone. Don't think it requires that every sin will be committed by everyone who has the opportunity. That seems to me too pessimistic a view.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you believe in original sin you can infer oppression from difference in strength unless there's reason not to.
quote:Indeed. Are you saying that this belief in total depravity is what underpins that mindset ? If so, guess it's for me to thank you for the suggestion and wait and see if others agree with you.
I thought you were trying to draw a portrait of the progressive mindset, rather than trying to argue against it.
quote:Not sure I follow you. How does some people being stronger, cleverer, more charismatic than others depend on people misusing those advantages to oppress others ?
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused.
quote:Any of us might and most of us do from time to time.
Originally posted by hatless:
The first interesting question is why those unequal relations develop and persist. Surely it is more than bad people doing bad things, or something disturbing you can see in some people's faces? In most cases that come to mind it seems to be the desperate and violent maintenance of inequality because of fear of change. The strong hang on to the status quo, denying the just claims of the weak, out of terror at the consequences if power were rebalanced. It is not wickedness that makes them oppress, but a fearful hopelessness. Any of us might behave in the same way.
quote:This looks like a textbook example of victim blaming. It is not the responsibility of the weak to refuse to see the strong as their enemies. For the oppressed to do that unconditionally prior to repentance by the oppressor would be cheap grace. This kind of thinking did nothing to stop child abuse in the church or in secular institutions. It is a misreading of King to think it advanced the Civil Rights Movement. And so on.
Which raises the second interesting question. What can be done? If it is not a fault in the oppressor, but the influence of history and fear, then it's possible to free both the weak and the strong. Indeed, neither can be freed without the other. If the weak will refuse to see the strong as their enemies, then the strong can perhaps learn to embrace the weak as their liberators, and oppression can be dismantled.
quote:We talk of oppression when there are entrenched systemic features and when groups of people are involved. An individual might bully or be abusive or rob people, but racism, sexism, colonialism and so on operate at another level. Apartheid South Africa didn't come about through the chance concentration there of a lot of unscrupulous racists, it was the product of a long and complex history. By the time of fully fledged apartheid both black and white were inheritors of the situation and their place within it. We have inherited sexism, racism and prejudices of many sorts. It's really not just about bad people who treat each other unjustly and look at each other in a funny way. We grow up in a world that distorts our relationships and who we are.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Any of us might and most of us do from time to time.
Originally posted by hatless:
The first interesting question is why those unequal relations develop and persist. Surely it is more than bad people doing bad things, or something disturbing you can see in some people's faces? In most cases that come to mind it seems to be the desperate and violent maintenance of inequality because of fear of change. The strong hang on to the status quo, denying the just claims of the weak, out of terror at the consequences if power were rebalanced. It is not wickedness that makes them oppress, but a fearful hopelessness. Any of us might behave in the same way.
The naive might think that the 1% hang on to 20% of the country's wealth because it's nice to have money and status. The naive might think that men (not all men) hang on to male privilege because it's nice to have power and status and have someone do the housework after you. But no: it's all because they're afraid of what would happen if they let go. Glad to have that sorted out. One does wonder how oppression got started if it's all down to fear of the consequences of stopping.
You presume that the fear is so to speak sincere. It isn't. The fears arise in order to justify the oppression. Fears of what the gays or the poor or women or immigrants will do if given rights are created to justify the ongoing advantages to the privileged. The fearful hopelessness is itself culpable.
quote:This looks like a textbook example of victim blaming. It is not the responsibility of the weak to refuse to see the strong as their enemies. For the oppressed to do that unconditionally prior to repentance by the oppressor would be cheap grace. This kind of thinking did nothing to stop child abuse in the church or in secular institutions. It is a misreading of King to think it advanced the Civil Rights Movement. And so on.
Which raises the second interesting question. What can be done? If it is not a fault in the oppressor, but the influence of history and fear, then it's possible to free both the weak and the strong. Indeed, neither can be freed without the other. If the weak will refuse to see the strong as their enemies, then the strong can perhaps learn to embrace the weak as their liberators, and oppression can be dismantled.
In so far as there is anything in what you say, it is a half-truth, and not the primary half of the truth at that.
quote:When you say "undermine traditional gender roles" if what you are saying is people don't have the right to non-traditional roles, then yes, as a gay man I'm happy to subvert that oppression. If you're saying that those who prefer traditional gender roles for themselves but are happy to allow others non traditional roles aren't being allowed traditional gender roles, then I oppose that kind of undermining. I guess I can just create a group which believes in the lies and half truth propaganda of Fox News and their kind.
Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Are you saying that those who pick traditional roles are disparaged or that you feel they should be privileged above others because of your religious beliefs?[quote]
Seems like you're not getting the point. I'm not putting forward a position, not looking to argue the merits of traditional gender roles.
I'm suggesting that one of the characteristics - of what for want of a better name I'm calling the social progressive mindset, please do suggest a better name - is a tendency to be in favour of anything that inverts or subverts or tends to undermine traditional gender roles.
Seems like you're saying to me is that you broadly agree with the positions that I'm listing - that you see capitalism and traditional gender roles as at least somewhat problematic, and racism as a big issue that white people collectively have to deal with.
Are you happy to be considered a member of this group that I'm identifying ?
quote:I'll settle for often enough that it becomes a problem you can't just blame on a few bad apples. As has been observed, original sin is one of the few aspects of Christianity that can easily be empirically confirmed.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Original sin could conceivably imply that any sin you can think of will be committed by someone. Don't think it requires that every sin will be committed by everyone who has the opportunity. That seems to me too pessimistic a view.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you believe in original sin you can infer oppression from difference in strength unless there's reason not to.
quote:A belief in original sin is one possible motivation. C.S.Lewis believed in democracy because he thought humans were made in the image of God and therefore capable of ruling themselves, and he thought they were subject to original sin and therefore no one human being could be trusted to rule others. That doesn't mean all democrats would support democracy for that reason, but C.S.Lewis was still a democrat.
quote:Indeed. Are you saying that this belief in total depravity is what underpins that mindset ? If so, guess it's for me to thank you for the suggestion and wait and see if others agree with you.
I thought you were trying to draw a portrait of the progressive mindset, rather than trying to argue against it.
quote:I'm talking about power, to which wealth is one possible route.
quote:Not sure I follow you. How does some people being stronger, cleverer, more charismatic than others depend on people misusing those advantages to oppress others ?
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused.
Or are you only talking about wealth, and asserting that the only way for anyone to obtain or retain wealth is to oppress ?
quote:'Distorts our relationships and who we are' is a euphemism for 'makes us into bad people who treat each other unjustly'.
Originally posted by hatless:
We have inherited sexism, racism and prejudices of many sorts. It's really not just about bad people who treat each other unjustly and look at each other in a funny way. We grow up in a world that distorts our relationships and who we are.
quote:I think you need to reread Walter Wink on redemptive violence.
The fear of immigrants that right wingers feel, the white South Africans' fear of democracy and possible revenge, the fear the chauvinist feels if he were to let go of privilege and so much of his identity with it, I think these fears are real. They do not excuse injustice, of course, and perhaps there are mechanisms that exaggerate such fear, but I think it is 'sincere.'
quote:Which implies that it wasn't the direct result of trying to control a population.
I think the violence of the British in India, for example, was largely the result of the terror of being a very small number of people trying to control an immense population.
quote:Mandela notoriously never renounced the armed struggle.
We celebrate Gandhi, King, Mandela and Tutu rightly. They are not role models for every situation, but when it can be found, theirs is a better way.
quote:But the words "makes us" that you use still implies something going on beyond simply people choosing to be 'bad people who treat each other unjustly'. It suggests systems, powers etc. that cause people to act in these ways (otherwise they wouldn't be "made into bad people", they would just be bad people). Which, I think, was part of hatless' point. To suggest it's just about bad behaviour of people is to overlook these systems and powers that end up enslaving the oppressed and the oppressors (by bringing them to behave in ways that oppress and destroy).
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:'Distorts our relationships and who we are' is a euphemism for 'makes us into bad people who treat each other unjustly'.
Originally posted by hatless:
We have inherited sexism, racism and prejudices of many sorts. It's really not just about bad people who treat each other unjustly and look at each other in a funny way. We grow up in a world that distorts our relationships and who we are.
quote:That's a human perception not a reality. There's a whole spectrum between 99% resisting temptation and 1% succumbing all the way through to 1% resisting and 99% succumbing. Any arbitrary line you draw between a "few bad apples" perspective and a "systemic problem" perspective is just an arbitrary line. And those who resist temptation deserve better than to be lumped in with the abusers.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I'll settle for often enough that it becomes a problem you can't just blame on a few bad apples.
Originally posted by Russ:
Original sin could conceivably imply that any sin you can think of will be committed by someone. Don't think it requires that every sin will be committed by everyone who has the opportunity. That seems to me too pessimistic a view.
quote:I'm struggling to see how your assertions about power in general make sense in terms of specifics.
If you act to prevent power from being misused you do so by constraining and limiting power. Just as if you stop someone misusing a freedom they're no longer free in that respect so if you stop someone from misusing a power they no longer have that power.
quote:I'm talking about power, to which wealth is one possible route.
[QUOTE][qb] How does some people being stronger, cleverer, more charismatic than others depend on people misusing those advantages to oppress others ?
Or are you only talking about wealth, and asserting that the only way for anyone to obtain or retain wealth is to oppress ?
quote:You seem to want to divide humanity into "us good people" and "those bad people." As do most people, actually.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That's a human perception not a reality. There's a whole spectrum between 99% resisting temptation and 1% succumbing all the way through to 1% resisting and 99% succumbing. Any arbitrary line you draw between a "few bad apples" perspective and a "systemic problem" perspective is just an arbitrary line. And those who resist temptation deserve better than to be lumped in with the abusers.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I'll settle for often enough that it becomes a problem you can't just blame on a few bad apples.
Originally posted by Russ:
Original sin could conceivably imply that any sin you can think of will be committed by someone. Don't think it requires that every sin will be committed by everyone who has the opportunity. That seems to me too pessimistic a view.
quote:My first shot on that one seems a bit wide of the mark.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Small businesses very rarely are capitalized. One can be pro-small-business but anti-capitalism.
quote:I think the point you are missing is that progressives are interested in worker rights not in an abstract fight between weaker and stronger parties. So "siding with the employee" happens whenever the worker is being exploited - be it by a large or small employer - because the progressive is more interested in the person and his rights rather than the capitalist who is earning money by investing his capital.
Originally posted by Russ:
The argument seems to be that "social progressivism" (or should it be just "progressivism" ?) is a bias to the powerless. So that the progressive mindset is quite happy to uphold the interests of small business against big business, perceived as having greater power. But will tend to side with the employee in any conflict with a small-business employer.
quote:Actually I believe empirical research shows that in various areas there are tipping points at which a perception that everyone is doing it, or that many people are doing it, makes an activity acceptable.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That's a human perception not a reality. There's a whole spectrum between 99% resisting temptation and 1% succumbing all the way through to 1% resisting and 99% succumbing. Any arbitrary line you draw between a "few bad apples" perspective and a "systemic problem" perspective is just an arbitrary line.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I'll settle for often enough that it becomes a problem you can't just blame on a few bad apples.
Originally posted by Russ:
Original sin could conceivably imply that any sin you can think of will be committed by someone. Don't think it requires that every sin will be committed by everyone who has the opportunity. That seems to me too pessimistic a view.
quote:Shall we apply this to the playground example. In the playground all the strong children have the power to bully other children. Some of them don't bully other children even having the power. Now you come and introduce punishment for those who get caught. So some bullies stop being bullies for fear of punishment. You're removing some of the power to bully.
And those who resist temptation deserve better than to be lumped in with the abusers.
quote:Yes, but nobody is suggesting that.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
To suggest it's just about bad behaviour of people is to overlook these systems and powers that end up enslaving the oppressed and the oppressors (by bringing them to behave in ways that oppress and destroy).
quote:What Chesterton was describing was Dickens making people face up to the truth of what has happened. That is what hatless was objecting to. Until you've described what has happened as morally wrong then you haven't given anyone any reason to seek a way out.
And while they need to face up to the truth of what's happened and what they've done, they also need release, a way out, a reassurance that the world isn't going to end if what they fear most happens, more than they need reminding that they're bad people doing unjust things.
quote:I was not for a moment objecting to Dickens making people face up to the truth of, for instance, child labour. I was objecting to Chesterton's, as I see it, superficial understanding of the injustices that Dickens clearly felt very passionately about. This was not a pretext to falsely justify a prior dislike of Chesterton, it was my reaction to the paragraph you quoted.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Yes, but nobody is suggesting that.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
To suggest it's just about bad behaviour of people is to overlook these systems and powers that end up enslaving the oppressed and the oppressors (by bringing them to behave in ways that oppress and destroy).
We're having this discussion because hatless doesn't like G.K.Chesterton and so cast about for pretexts he could use to justify his dislike regardless of whether or not the pretext is relevant or appropriate.
quote:What Chesterton was describing was Dickens making people face up to the truth of what has happened. That is what hatless was objecting to. Until you've described what has happened as morally wrong then you haven't given anyone any reason to seek a way out.
And while they need to face up to the truth of what's happened and what they've done, they also need release, a way out, a reassurance that the world isn't going to end if what they fear most happens, more than they need reminding that they're bad people doing unjust things.
quote:Yes. Just like the post-exilic prophets and Jesus.
Originally posted by Russ:
The argument seems to be that "social progressivism" (or should it be just "progressivism" ?) is a bias to the powerless.
quote:And Mary.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Yes. Just like the post-exilic prophets and Jesus.
Originally posted by Russ:
The argument seems to be that "social progressivism" (or should it be just "progressivism" ?) is a bias to the powerless.
quote:Jesus learned from the best.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:And Mary.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Yes. Just like the post-exilic prophets and Jesus.
Originally posted by Russ:
The argument seems to be that "social progressivism" (or should it be just "progressivism" ?) is a bias to the powerless.
"He has cast down the mighty from their thrones
And lifted up the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
And has sent the rich away empty."
quote:Dickens was a horrible person and Chesterton exaggerated to make a point. Not sure this is really news is it? One can enjoy the vigorous mental exercise of reading Chesterton's bombastic prose without thinking it is 100% accurate or the last word on a subject.
Originally posted by hatless:
I was not for a moment objecting to Dickens making people face up to the truth of, for instance, child labour. I was objecting to Chesterton's, as I see it, superficial understanding of the injustices that Dickens clearly felt very passionately about. This was not a pretext to falsely justify a prior dislike of Chesterton, it was my reaction to the paragraph you quoted.
quote:For sure GKC was of his time. I don't think that means his basic ideas were wrong (Distributism has a lot of contemporary resonances in a way that Marxism doesn't, IMO) or that they're not basically good hearted.
I think, in part because of the work of Walter Wink, Girard, Alison and others who have examined violence and scapegoating and their justifications, that we can have a better understanding of systemic injustices and more creative ideas about how to respond to them.
quote:This seems a long-winded way of saying you don't personally like something he wrote.
Chesterton is, like C S Lewis and Hauerwas, one of those I feel I ought to like, because thoughtful people commend them, but when I read them they leave me cold. I shouldn't expect too much from someone with Chesterton's dates and background. I like his comment about the one repeated rebellion, but nothing else registered much with me. Given that deeply felt injustice is what Dickens is about, a protest on behalf of the voiceless, an affirmation of the humanity of the poor and despised, and in some books an affirmation of the possibility of redemption for the oppressor - A Christmas Carol comes to mind - I find Chesterton's comments disappointing.
quote:It doesn't need more detail. In fact I can describe it in three words - don't hurt people.
Originally posted by Russ:
The premise of that thread was that the dominant ethos of the Ship these days is a mindset that is hostile to Traditional Christianity.
I'm interested in exploring and understanding that mindset - the point of view that forms that ethos - in a little more detail.
quote:The argument is that preventing someone from moving to a country hurts them by forcing them to stay in a dangerous situation. Brexit is seen as bad because the economic impact will lead to increased poverty. I make no comment as to the accuracy of either observation.
- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)
quote:If "traditional gender roles" means subjugation of women and persecution of anyone who is LGBT, then yes they are considered bad. Because they hurt people.
- gender-bending (anything goes so long as you don't speak in favour of traditional gender roles)
quote:Political Correctness basically means "don't hurt people with words".
- political correctness (can't believe anyone voted for Trump; free speech as long as you don't say what we don't like)
quote:Capitalism is seen as bad to the extent that it involves the exploitation of workers, suppliers and/or consumers.
- anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)
quote:This one should really go without saying.
- anti-racism (racism is a huge sin that the whole white race should atone for)
quote:Well of course. Because keeping things as they are inevitably means keeping power where it currently is.
Originally posted by Russ:
The argument seems to be that "social progressivism" (or should it be just "progressivism" ?) is a bias to the powerless.
quote:Cute but stupid. Carrots are not human beings and do not have human rights. Robbing people of a decent life and eating a carrot can only be on a par to someone who just doesn't care much for people. Like capitalists, I guess.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Being a living creature is by definition exploitive. I killed a carrot today, probably it was alive when I ate it.
quote:And I suspect you'll find that the "Hostility to Traditional Christianity" is not (as is often suggested) about the "Traditional Christian" beliefs in general, but in the propensity for "Traditional Christians" to use those beliefs as a weapon to hurt others. Which, personally, I don't find to be a particularly Christian idea, however traditional it may be in some groups.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It doesn't need more detail. In fact I can describe it in three words - don't hurt people.
Originally posted by Russ:
The premise of that thread was that the dominant ethos of the Ship these days is a mindset that is hostile to Traditional Christianity.
I'm interested in exploring and understanding that mindset - the point of view that forms that ethos - in a little more detail.
The link to Christianity should be obvious.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:An ethic of "don't hurt people" sounds as if one shouldn't act in any situation unless one can make things better for everyone.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can describe it in three words - don't hurt people.
quote:The argument is that preventing someone from moving to a country hurts them by forcing them to stay in a dangerous situation. Brexit is seen as bad because the economic impact will lead to increased poverty.[/qb][/quote]
- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)
quote:No. Progressives can and do say hurtful things about those they perceive to have power or authority. Political correctness means going along with the progressive meta-narrative about who are the Oppressors and Victims and not saying anything remotely negative about the Victims.
Political Correctness basically means "don't hurt people with words".
quote:I'd agree that both authoritarian and libertarian viewpoints can stand in opposition to the progressive worldview. Which doesn't mean that any opposition is automatically from the extremes of that spectrum.
ISTM that opposition to this position comes from two main sources - those who think everybody else should believe, think and act exactly the same way as they do and those who want to be able to do whatever they want regardless of the impact on others.
quote:And if someone wields power and authority over other people, they fucking better well be ready for criticism when they use that power and authority to treat people badly. Or allow and encourage others to treat people badly. Or when they pretend that wielding power and authority has no impact on others. Or when they admit the impact but demand that their widdle feewings take priority. With great power ... well, you know the rest.
Originally posted by Russ:
... No. Progressives can and do say hurtful things about those they perceive to have power or authority. ...
quote:You're right, the link is obvious.
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Whereas progressives, so the argument goes, want to make things better for those classes of people perceived to be underprivileged or powerless. At the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power.
The link to Christianity should be obvious. ...
quote:
... He hath shewed strength with his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seat: and hath exalted the humble and meek.
He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
quote:I think that if someone has two yachts and they're forced to sell one it is stretching the meaning of the term 'hurt' to say they've been hurt. 'Hurt' generally suggests some harm more fundamental on the hierarchy of needs.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:An ethic of "don't hurt people" sounds as if one shouldn't act in any situation unless one can make things better for everyone.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can describe it in three words - don't hurt people.
quote:Interesting choices of phrase there: 'perceived to be' and 'at the expense of'. So abolishing slavery could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'. Allowing married women to own property could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'.
Whereas progressives, so the argument goes, want to make things better for those classes of people perceived to be underprivileged or powerless. At the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power.
quote:Sorry, Soror Magna. I messed up.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:You're right, the link is obvious.
The link to Christianity should be obvious. ...
quote:No, "hurt" is literally to cause someone to feel physical pain, and by analogy to act against someone's interests or cause them some form of mental anguish.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that if someone has two yachts and they're forced to sell one it is stretching the meaning of the term 'hurt' to say they've been hurt. 'Hurt' generally suggests some harm more fundamental on the hierarchy of needs.
quote:
Interesting choices of phrase there: 'perceived to be' and 'at the expense of'.
quote:Assuming you mean abolishing slavery without compensation...
So abolishing slavery could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'. Allowing married women to own property could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
I think you're asserting here a belief that those with above-average levels of wealth or power shouldn't mind if that wealth or power is taken away from them. ....
quote:I don't think it's necessarily incumbent on society to compensate people who have benefited from structural injustices when those injustices disappear.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Assuming you mean abolishing slavery without compensation...
So abolishing slavery could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'. Allowing married women to own property could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'.
quote:There are many kinds of hurt - physical pain is one of them, but it can also be economic, emotional, or physical in other ways. Not having enough to eat, being refused access to adequate medical care, having reduced retirement benefits, or not being able to have your loved ones visit you when you are dying in the hospital are all examples of hurt, even if some don't involve physical pain.
Originally posted by Russ:
No, "hurt" is literally to cause someone to feel physical pain, and by analogy to act against someone's interests or cause them some form of mental anguish.
The suggestion that anyone doesn't mind being "forced to" do anything seems to run contrary to your notion that power is a bad thing.
I think you're asserting here a belief that those with above-average levels of wealth or power shouldn't mind if that wealth or power is taken away from them. And therefore wanting to use language in a way that acknowledges as real hurts only those hurts that you think people oughtto feel.
quote:Anguish is 'Excruciating or oppressive bodily pain or suffering, such as the sufferer writhes under'. (OED).
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No, "hurt" is literally to cause someone to feel physical pain, and by analogy to act against someone's interests or cause them some form of mental anguish.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that if someone has two yachts and they're forced to sell one it is stretching the meaning of the term 'hurt' to say they've been hurt. 'Hurt' generally suggests some harm more fundamental on the hierarchy of needs.
The suggestion that anyone doesn't mind being "forced to" do anything seems to run contrary to your notion that power is a bad thing.
quote:I think that only things that are actually hurts should be described as hurts. I think that anyone who seriously thinks that the billionaire who loses a second yacht is hurt in a way comparable that someone struggling to make ends meet who loses their job and income is hurt is sociopathic.
And therefore wanting to use language in a way that acknowledges as real hurts only those hurts that you think people oughtto feel.
quote:There's not any evidence for this statement.
quote:
Interesting choices of phrase there: 'perceived to be' and 'at the expense of'.
Trying to be precise about what progressivism is and is not.
quote:Gandhi certainly acted against the interests of the British Empire.
It isn't benevolence to all. It isn't the equivalent of Gandhi's non-violent resistance to a violent regime.
quote:This is self-parody.
quote:Assuming you mean abolishing slavery without compensation...
So abolishing slavery could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'.
quote:I suggest you read a little bit about the protests against the Salt Law.
Originally posted by Russ:
Trying to be precise about what progressivism is and is not. It isn't benevolence to all. It isn't the equivalent of Gandhi's non-violent resistance to a violent regime.
quote:Here I think you're using "hurt" in the sense of "disbenefit". That seems to me an entirely normal usage,
Originally posted by Carex:
Clearly there are tens of students, perhaps over a hundred, who would not get checked for medical problems such as infections, diabetes, immunizations, etc. Denying them the access to medical care hurts them, to at least some degree.
quote:The argument on the other side is about religious belief. Some people have a religious conviction that contraception is morally wrong. Others would say that encouraging sex outside marriage is morally wrong, and that telling people how to avoid the unwanted consequences of an act constitutes encouragement.
What is the hurt on the other side?
quote:This thread isn't about Traditional Christianity. Feel free to start another.
Is that an important part of what you mean by "Traditional Christianity"?
quote:The relationship between the two is clearly in scope.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah, this thread's about the opposite, so no reference to that can be made.
quote:That's not the interesting part. The interesting part is when people who have this religious conviction feel it is important to make other people without that religious conviction behave in accordance with the religious conviction.
Originally posted by Russ:
Some people have a religious conviction that contraception is morally wrong.
quote:Remember in Russworld the mental distress is hurt. And all hurt is morally equivalent.(*)
Originally posted by orfeo:
Conservative Christians are not disliked for wanting to live in accordance with their own conscience. They are disliked for refusing other people the same courtesy.
quote:The Magniificat bears some relation to the canticle of Hannah in 1 Samuel, which is subsequently echoed in the Prophetic writings. I struggle to see how it is an "idea in Judaism" that the rich and powerful are the beneficiaries of God's largesse. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, whose views on the subject seem reasonably salient, would very vehemently disagree with you on that point.
Seems to me that the Magnificat is a reaction against the idea in Judaism that if some people are rich and powerful then the all-powerful all-just God has put them there. This "prosperity gospel" type thinking is not confined to Judaism, and seems a natural consequence of monotheism. Rejecting this idea requires a particular "hands-off" type of God. Which Jesus gives us in the parable of the wheat and the darnel...
quote:Medical care is something that humans need (not all the time but every human needs medical care in their lifetime).
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Here I think you're using "hurt" in the sense of "disbenefit". That seems to me an entirely normal usage, and with that meaning your sentence is true - these students have lost out.
Originally posted by Carex:
Clearly there are tens of students, perhaps over a hundred, who would not get checked for medical problems such as infections, diabetes, immunizations, etc. Denying them the access to medical care hurts them, to at least some degree.
quote:You mean you realise progressives aren't clones of each other and aren't all obliged to sign on to the same list of dogmas? You surprise me.
And I don't see anything wrong with the point you're making or how you're making it. Although Dafyd may disagree...
quote:If someone believes that they have an interest in living in a well-run and more egalitarian society (people in more egalitarian societies generally have higher life expectancies) and they may experience distress from seeing people struggling to make ends meet on low wages then they are harmed by living in a less egalitarian society than they would like?
So I suggest to you that a parent may experience mental distress and count it as damaging to their interests for anyone to encourage their children in immoral behaviour.
quote:You seem to be doing quite a lot of condemning already.
I'm trying to clarify what this "dominant ethos on the Ship" is before we get too far into praising it or condemning it.
quote:Setting out rights that limit anyone's power over anyone else is correcting imbalances of power. Or maybe you mean something else? You mean setting out a system of rights that enshrines traditional power wielded over other people.
Originally posted by Russ:
Does progressivism take for granted that no class of people deserves relative power and therefore considers that any traditional imbalance of power should be reversed, counting this as progress ?
(Rather than, for example, setting out a system of rights to limit anyone's power over anyone else ?)
quote:Yes. I nearly went on to articulate this, but you've captured it perfectly. The hurt of watching people not live the same way that you do.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Remember in Russworld the mental distress is hurt. And all hurt is morally equivalent.(*)
Originally posted by orfeo:
Conservative Christians are not disliked for wanting to live in accordance with their own conscience. They are disliked for refusing other people the same courtesy.
So if gay people getting married causes a Conservative Christian mental distress then the gay people are hurting the Conservative Christian. that the hurt caused to a Conservative Christian by gay people getting married is morally equivalent to any hurt caused to gay people by not being allowed to marry.(*)
(*) Actually some forms of mental distress are not hurt. Any distress that might be felt by progressives over the suffering of other people is only perceived hurt over perceived suffering. And if your hurt is caused by something you've perceived it doesn't count.
In fact any hurt caused to gay people by not being allowed to marry is probably perceived so it might not count. But distress to religious conservatives by lurid imagining of orgies and anal sex is not caused by anything perceived so it definitely does count.
I'm not condemning or criticising Russ' views here. I'm just trying to state them precisely.
quote:I think you've got a good point here, but it's not quite a direct line. What's needed in the middle is a consumer desire to continue paying as little as possible for goods, and a burying of information about how those cheap prices are achieved.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So it isn't too hard to draw a straight line between the increase of worker rights at home and the increase of grinding poverty and exploitation in factories abroad.
quote:The other factor is producers of those goods wanting to maximise their profit. It isn't strictly the consumer's fault.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I think you've got a good point here, but it's not quite a direct line. What's needed in the middle is a consumer desire to continue paying as little as possible for goods, and a burying of information about how those cheap prices are achieved.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So it isn't too hard to draw a straight line between the increase of worker rights at home and the increase of grinding poverty and exploitation in factories abroad.
quote:Well, yes - it is part of a system in which capitalist owners of enterprises have been forcing down labour costs throughout supply chains in order to maximise profits.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you've got a good point here, but it's not quite a direct line. What's needed in the middle is a consumer desire to continue paying as little as possible for goods, and a burying of information about how those cheap prices are achieved.
quote:It seems to me that the alternative is basically Cuba.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Brilliant. Your penultimate para, to confirm: that objective is a delusion? Because, as you point out, someone has to be poor for us to be rich? As Basil of Caesarea, was it, said? Therefore even Gordon Brown's 'third way'; the poor are our biggest market, is doomed? The poor we will always have with us?
quote:I don't think there is any truth in that. If we want equality in our supply chains, then we'd need to have radically different lives. Not just the 1%.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The alternate isn't Cuba. It is a state where the rich exist, but not with the staggering inequities in our current system.
quote:I don't think your realise just how much wealth the top 1% have. But I was not merely speaking of them. I forget the exact figures, but it is something like the top 10 or 20 % have 80% of the wealth. much could be changed just by lowering that. Those in the middle would need change, but not radically.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I don't think there is any truth in that. If we want equality in our supply chains, then we'd need to have radically different lives. Not just the 1%.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The alternate isn't Cuba. It is a state where the rich exist, but not with the staggering inequities in our current system.
quote:Where does wealth come from? Most of the history of wealth is taking from the many to benefit the few. The whole purpose of divine, and divinely appointed, rulers is to justify this.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If we want all the extras beyond the minimum, it is absolutely my belief that we're taking them from someone else.
quote:Actually I do know how much the 1% have and I do know how much the rest of the top 20% (which, by the way, includes almost everyone in Western Europe and North America) would have to change in order to redistribute the funds in order that the poorest could have access to the basics of healthcare, schooling, sanitation etc. And it would require a radical change.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think your realise just how much wealth the top 1% have. But I was not merely speaking of them. I forget the exact figures, but it is something like the top 10 or 20 % have 80% of the wealth. much could be changed just by lowering that. Those in the middle would need change, but not radically.
quote:Economics is magic and capital is wishful thinking. As terms, they mean almost nothing, hence the idea of continuous growth is a misnomer anyway. The reality is that in order for the richer to be able to afford to buy things, poorer people have to make them in conditions where they'd never achieve the lifestyle and never be able to afford the thing they're making.
People act as if the system were closed, as if there was only so much money to go round. And that is why the monetary system works, so change to something significantly different would be difficult.
But I'm not suggesting this. Just that the rich pay more.
quote:Obviously there are more-severe and less-severe physical pains, and it seems reasonable to say the same about the wider forms of "hurt" - mental distress and damage to interests.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Remember in Russworld the mental distress is hurt. And all hurt is morally equivalent.(*)
quote:The point is that it's a moral conviction. We humans can all be live-and-let-live about each other's different customs. But when we perceive those customs to be morally wrong (e.g. so-called "honour-killings") we feel that something should be done to prevent this wrong.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:That's not the interesting part. The interesting part is when people who have this religious conviction feel it is important to make other people without that religious conviction behave in accordance with the religious conviction...
Originally posted by Russ:
Some people have a religious conviction that contraception is morally wrong.
Conservative Christians are not disliked for wanting to live in accordance with their own conscience. They are disliked for refusing other people the same courtesy.
quote:To which the counterpoint is it's somewhat problematic to use secular law as a tool to enforce one's own moral convictions. The thing about harm is that it involves objective demonstration of harm. The thing about morals without harm is that it boils down to a form of "because I said so".
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:The point is that it's a moral conviction. We humans can all be live-and-let-live about each other's different customs. But when we perceive those customs to be morally wrong (e.g. so-called "honour-killings") we feel that something should be done to prevent this wrong.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:That's not the interesting part. The interesting part is when people who have this religious conviction feel it is important to make other people without that religious conviction behave in accordance with the religious conviction...
Originally posted by Russ:
Some people have a religious conviction that contraception is morally wrong.
Conservative Christians are not disliked for wanting to live in accordance with their own conscience. They are disliked for refusing other people the same courtesy.
The suggestion is that progressives hold a moral philosophy in which wrong is equated with hurt/harm. And therefore any objection to a harmless activity, while it may be a religious objection, is not acknowledged as a moral objection.
quote:On the Dead Horse's Thread you were using 'moral' to mean 'in accordance with a set of public procedural rules that everyone agrees upon'. Which is precisely not what you're using it to mean here.
Originally posted by Russ:
The point is that it's a moral[/b] conviction. We humans can all be live-and-let-live about each other's different customs. But when we perceive those customs to be morally wrong (e.g. so-called "honour-killings") we feel that something should be done to prevent this wrong.
quote:Progressives also regard justice and fairness as moral values, and liberty. Some (the more socialist) would regard community/solidarity as a value; some (the more libertarian) would not.
The suggestion is that progressives hold a moral philosophy in which wrong is equated with hurt/harm. And therefore any objection to a harmless activity, while it may be a religious objection, is not acknowledged as a moral objection.
quote:I agree that there's something problematic here.
Originally posted by orfeo:
it's somewhat problematic to use secular law as a tool to enforce one's own moral convictions. The thing about harm is that it involves objective demonstration of harm. The thing about morals without harm is that it boils down to a form of "because I said so".
If you don't want people to do something you think is morally wrong, by all means persuade them. But if you don't persuade them, or can't, I'm not sure the law of the land should be invoked to do your moral persuading for you.
quote:No.
Originally posted by Russ:
You seem to be arguing that:
- progressives believe that there is some well-defined level of severity of harm that counts as a hurt
- that it's morally OK to act in a way that causes small harms to people, so long as this doesn't add up to a hurt
- people in those classes deemed under-privileged or powerless are more fragile, so harm to them is more likely to count as a hurt than comparable harm to someone who is wealthy or powerful.
Have I understood your ethical position correctly ?
quote:The silence in answer to this question is deafening.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:On the Dead Horse's Thread you were using 'moral' to mean 'in accordance with a set of public procedural rules that everyone agrees upon'. Which is precisely not what you're using it to mean here.
Originally posted by Russ:
The point is that it's a moral[/b] conviction. We humans can all be live-and-let-live about each other's different customs. But when we perceive those customs to be morally wrong (e.g. so-called "honour-killings") we feel that something should be done to prevent this wrong.
Now it's possible that you've changed your mind after reflecting upon that thread. Or it's possible that on that thread you were using a purely tactical definition.
quote:Maybe you'd better expand on the contradiction you perceive, because I see none.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:On the Dead Horse's Thread you were using 'moral' to mean 'in accordance with a set of public procedural rules that everyone agrees upon'. Which is precisely not what you're using it to mean here.
Originally posted by Russ:
The point is that it's a moral[/b] conviction. We humans can all be live-and-let-live about each other's different customs. But when we perceive those customs to be morally wrong (e.g. so-called "honour-killings") we feel that something should be done to prevent this wrong.
quote:I can only speak for myself, but "we" do not think that.
Originally posted by Russ:
The quote above says that when we perceive something as a moral issue we tend to think it belongs in that framework of public rules, rather than being up for negotiation between people with different visions.
quote:What's problematic is your understanding of what I said. I did NOT advocate using the law at all, so how many people you persuade is not a step towards "okay, we can make it a law now". You've started talking about "enforcement" when my entire point was to not have enforcement.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I agree that there's something problematic here.
Originally posted by orfeo:
it's somewhat problematic to use secular law as a tool to enforce one's own moral convictions. The thing about harm is that it involves objective demonstration of harm. The thing about morals without harm is that it boils down to a form of "because I said so".
If you don't want people to do something you think is morally wrong, by all means persuade them. But if you don't persuade them, or can't, I'm not sure the law of the land should be invoked to do your moral persuading for you.
Who, for example, are the "them" you think have to be persuaded ?
Everybody ? Every individual has to be persuaded that something is morally wrong before it's OK to enforce a legal prohibition on them ? Don't think you mean that.
A majority ? You can believe in vox populi , that anything the majority choose to enforce is OK. But until relatively recently in historical terms the majority believed in the criminalisation of homosexuality. I don't think the progressive position is that gay sex became OK at the point where 50% of the population agreed...
What's the alternative ? The consensus of people who think like you do (and everybody else doesn't matter) ? I'm not convinced that's what you mean either...
quote:Seems like we're using language differently here ?
Originally posted by orfeo:
We're specifically talking about things that are merely against some people's morals, not objectively harmful. So my response is it's simply not appropriate to have a law against whatever it is.
If people don't like the thing, then they're free to not do it themselves.
quote:But you might want the government to enforce a system whereby the victims of my lies and adultery can claim recompense from me ? And make me pay the costs of such a private prosecution ?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you want to be a promiscuous liar, I will consider you an immoral piece of shit and choose to have nothing to do with you, but I have no interest in the government punishing you for it.
quote:Possibly, but not simply because of your feelings of pain over the event and everything to do with the fact that we don't want to live in a society where people abuse each other.
Originally posted by Russ:
But you might want the government to enforce a system whereby the victims of my lies and adultery can claim recompense from me ?
quote:I can't think of a situation whereby the law takes into primary account someone's hurt feelings other than maybe - at a stretch - defamation. Even there it isn't about hurt feelings as much as some material hurt that is caused by the lies.
And make me pay the costs of such a private prosecution ?
quote:I'm not really understanding why you keep generating all these "what-if" examples. They don't seem to have much relationship to real life.
Which is a different way of managing the process, but still part of the public framework of rules ?
quote:This would be an irregular verb:
Originally posted by Russ:
IIRC, I was saying on That Other Thread that the public rules - the law of the land - should "track" objective morality, conceived as a system of basic rights that apply equally to everyone (or perhaps basic wrongs that we should all refrain from). Rather than being the means for imposing one group's vision of the good life on other people.
The quote above says that when we perceive something as a moral issue we tend to think it belongs in that framework of public rules, rather than being up for negotiation between people with different visions.
quote:No, that is not how I'm using "morals". And I'm struggling to understand how you reached that conclusion.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Seems like we're using language differently here ?
Originally posted by orfeo:
We're specifically talking about things that are merely against some people's morals, not objectively harmful. So my response is it's simply not appropriate to have a law against whatever it is.
If people don't like the thing, then they're free to not do it themselves.
You're identifying wrongdoing with causing harm, and using "morals" to refer to people's preferences amongst non-wrong actions ?
Which I might describe as "customs" and agree with you that people should be free to not do it themselves but not free to make that decision for their neighbours.
Whereas in Russ-speak, "immoral" is synonymous with "wrong", the things we shouldn't do (in the absolute rather than the prudential sense of "should").
For want of a better way of distinguishing morally wrong from the sort of wrong that is factually incorrect.
quote:I agree that people don't agree. Don't think I've ever said otherwise. But clearly my choice of words is making you think that's what I mean.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:No, that is not how I'm using "morals". And I'm struggling to understand how you reached that conclusion.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Seems like we're using language differently here ?
Originally posted by orfeo:
We're specifically talking about things that are merely against some people's morals, not objectively harmful. So my response is it's simply not appropriate to have a law against whatever it is.
You're identifying wrongdoing with causing harm, and using "morals" to refer to people's preferences amongst non-wrong actions ?
I honestly no longer know what you mean by "morals", and that's not just because of our dialogue, other people are clearly having difficulty with you on this subject as well.
The problem being that you keep veering into a proposition that everyone shares the same morality. The same view of what is wrong. And this is simply untrue. A person's morals describe what they consider right and wrong, but it is just impossible to assert that everyone agrees on that.
quote:No I'm not saying that.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now you're saying that, 'Don't use contraception' is a contribution to public rules and not a means for imposing one person's vision of the good life.
quote:I'm not rejecting that outright. I'm asking who negotiates with whom. And wanting that negotiated position to track objective morality. Despite recognising that we perceive this imperfectly.
You're rejecting the liberal paradigm in which people with irreconcilable visions of the good life negotiate rules that enable them as far as possible to live together in accordance with their respective visions of the good life.
quote:That seems to be what those whose vision involves a morality based on harm are simultaneously doing and criticising others for.
But if someone thinks their vision of the good life gives rise to moral issues then they're allowed to set that up as a rule for everyone else.
quote:How is that an "intermediate" position? All you're doing is shifting between different entities interfering with individual, personal choices. Is there a huge distinction between "you're not allowed to decide this for yourself, the decision rests with wider society" and "you're not allowed to decide this for yourself, the decision rests with your family and/or community"? Yes, there are a wide variety of outside entities other than individuals who could theoretically be vested with decision-making authority on all sorts of questions, but if you're going to frame the question in terms of personal choice versus not personal choice, anything other than letting individuals decide for themselves counts as "not personal choice".
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm saying that there are people who believe that contraception is a moral right/wrong issue and not a personal choice issue.
I'm not one of them.
And those people are no more inherently wicked than anyone else.
It might seem like society has a binary choice - to go along with or reject the proposition that contraception is a personal choice issue.
But there's an intermediate position, which is for the wider society to recognise that people disagree and therefore to allow families or communities to make their own choices, insofar as that is possible.
quote:Is it possible that this is a clumsy attempt to equate a government-supported civil court system wherein people can claim damages for contractual breaches with a morality police?
Originally posted by Russ:
But you might want the government to enforce a system whereby the victims of my lies and adultery can claim recompense from me ? And make me pay the costs of such a private prosecution ?
Which is a different way of managing the process, but still part of the public framework of rules ?
quote:You are however willing to allow that describing contraception as a moral/right wrong issue is not an error of meaning. You think that 'morality' means a system of basic rights, so that 'moral wrong' is defined as a violation of a right. The use of contraception is not a violation of a right.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I'm saying that there are people who believe that contraception is a moral right/wrong issue and not a personal choice issue.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now you're saying that, 'Don't use contraception' is a contribution to public rules and not a means for imposing one person's vision of the good life.
I'm not one of them.
quote:Nobody else on this thread has been talking in these terms. Why are you thinking about people being inherently wicked?
And those people are no more inherently wicked than anyone else.
quote:There's something problematic about saying that people disagree and therefore communities make their own choices. What happens if the people within the families or communities disagree?
It might seem like society has a binary choice - to go along with or reject the proposition that contraception is a personal choice issue.
But there's an intermediate position, which is for the wider society to recognise that people disagree and therefore to allow families or communities to make their own choices, insofar as that is possible.
quote:That's interesting. Presumably you think that negotiations might not track objective morality. Now if there is a possibility of tracking objective morality then a process of debate and discussion ought to converge upon it. So you think that depending on who is negotiating there is a possibility of the negotiating process being thrown off, presumably because some of the participants have the power to throw the process off. If some participants are able to throw off the process by irrelevant inducements (argument by threats or argument by bribes) then negotiations won't track objective morality. Is that what you're arguing?
quote:I'm not rejecting that outright. I'm asking who negotiates with whom. And wanting that negotiated position to track objective morality. Despite recognising that we perceive this imperfectly.
You're rejecting the liberal paradigm in which people with irreconcilable visions of the good life negotiate rules that enable them as far as possible to live together in accordance with their respective visions of the good life.
quote:So you're recognising that morality is included within visions of the good life and derives from visions of the good life? But you don't think imposing morality is the same as imposing a vision of the good life?
quote:That seems to be what those whose vision involves a morality based on harm are simultaneously doing and criticising others for.
But if someone thinks their vision of the good life gives rise to moral issues then they're allowed to set that up as a rule for everyone else.
quote:I had the impression some people were trying to paint conservatives as nasty oppressive people imposing their ideas on others and progressives as nice freedom-loving people who don't.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Russ, i don't know where that remark about people being non-people or wicked came from. It certainly didn't come out of anything I said.
quote:I queried why people wish to make others live in accordance with their own views, yes.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I had the impression some people were trying to paint conservatives as nasty oppressive people imposing their ideas on others and progressives as nice freedom-loving people who don't.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Russ, i don't know where that remark about people being non-people or wicked came from. It certainly didn't come out of anything I said.
Having carefully framed the issue as lying outside of any areas where they believed there to be moral duties which other people ought to comply with.
Probably wasn't you...
quote:Which sounds reasonable until the townsfolk show up at the door insisting the parents use birth control from now on ... please ... we've seen your other kids ... it's the community's choice.
Originally posted by Russ:
...
I'm saying that there are people who believe that contraception is a moral right/wrong issue and not a personal choice issue.
I'm not one of them.
And those people are no more inherently wicked than anyone else.
It might seem like society has a binary choice - to go along with or reject the proposition that contraception is a personal choice issue.
But there's an intermediate position, which is for the wider society to recognise that people disagree and therefore to allow families or communities to make their own choices, insofar as that is possible....
quote:And the answer is because they think their views are both true/correct and refer to morals (i.e. what is right or wrong) rather than custom & culture.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I queried why people wish to make others live in accordance with their own views, yes.
quote:Interesting argument. Does criminalising murder have no effect on those who believe murder is wrong ? So the only people it affects are those who don't ?
those people who believe contraception is morally wrong won't be using it. A ban has no effect on them. The people it affects are all the other people who would willingly use contraception.
quote:I don't think we must ban it for everyone.
Many of your comments seem to veer to the notion that the mere knowledge that OTHER people are using contraception is of such distress to those who think contraception is wrong, that we must ban it for everyone. Which to me is putting their "rights" far too highly.
quote:No, not just the same as I do.
Originally posted by Russ:
And the answer is because they think their views are both true/correct and refer to morals (i.e. what is right or wrong) rather than custom & culture.
Just the same as you do.
quote:Said
Dafyd talking about
the liberal paradigm in which people with irreconcilable visions of the good life negotiate rules that enable them as far as possible to live together in accordance with their respective visions of the good life.
quote:Seems to me that negotiation implies each side conceding something in order to secure some corresponding concession from the other side.
Presumably you think that negotiations might not track objective morality. Now if there is a possibility of tracking objective morality then a process of debate and discussion ought to converge upon it.
If some participants are able to throw off the process by irrelevant inducements (argument by threats or argument by bribes) then negotiations won't track objective morality. Is that what you're arguing?
quote:I apologise if I have mischaracterised your position. My impression was that you were one of several people arguing that other people ought to both live by your motto "do no harm" and abide by your judgment as to what constitutes harm.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because here's the thing about me: I don't have such blinding confidence in the rightness of all my views that I believe other people ought to live by them.
And that, Sir, is the whole point.
quote:Really? You don't think it might imply trying to find a position of mutual gain?
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that negotiation implies each side conceding something in order to secure some corresponding concession from the other side.
quote:There is no such thing as a disinterested party when it comes to ethics. So if only a conversation between disinterested parties can track objective morality tracking objective morality becomes impossible.
I don't see why such a process should converge on the right answer. Because it's not a conversation between disinterested parties.
quote:Would a situation in which community B practices honour killings on both community A and community B not be even further from morality?
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
quote:No, we are NOT all in the same boat, because once again (aside from the whole mischaracterisation thing) you are utterly failing to grasp that granting permission for things to happen is not imposing.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I apologise if I have mischaracterised your position. My impression was that you were one of several people arguing that other people ought to both live by your motto "do no harm" and abide by your judgment as to what constitutes harm.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because here's the thing about me: I don't have such blinding confidence in the rightness of all my views that I believe other people ought to live by them.
And that, Sir, is the whole point.
And then fooling yourselves that you're not trying to impose anything on anyone.
I'm really not wanting to single you out. Just to make the point that all of us humans are in the same boat.
Sorry if I've not appreciated what you're saying.
quote:I'm waiting for Abp Glenn to say that if the plebiscite passes, SSM will become compulsory. His missive on the topic, handed out on Sunday in obedience to his request, was just plain silly. Not what you'd expect from someone with his academic qualifications.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If people believe that allowing things to happen is "imposing" that thing on those who would prefer it not happen - whether that thing is contraception, gay marriage, whatever - then my goodness no wonder they walk around feeling persecuted all the time. It must be hell living in a world where billions of people are not clones of oneself.
quote:The ethic I advocated was "cause no harm", not "cause no distress". If someone is distressed that other people want to live their lives in a different way than them (when that distress is the only negative consequence for them) then that's their problem.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm saying we should not estimate that distress at zero. Not kid ourselves that we follow an ethic of "cause no distress".
quote:And how, precisely, are you assigning people to community membership here? Is this "I don't care what brown people do to each other as long as they keep it in their own areas?"
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
quote:That too. But if there are no concessions and no tradeoffs required then that suggests an absence of underlying conflict. Which is the opposite of what Chesterton is saying...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You don't think it might imply trying to find a position of mutual gain?
quote:I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm saying it's not a guaranteed outcome of a negotiation process. Because people can talk from their disinterested moral intuition or they can talk from their perceived self-interest and their partisan sympathies and their attachment to their own culture's way of doing things.
There is no such thing as a disinterested party when it comes to ethics. So if only a conversation between disinterested parties can track objective morality tracking objective morality becomes impossible.
quote:You're right - granting permission is not imposing.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:you are utterly failing to grasp that granting permission for things to happen is not imposing.
Originally posted by Russ:
And then fooling yourselves that you're not trying to impose anything on anyone.
quote:You forgot your other favorite example, using the power of the state to limit parent's "right" to send their kids to racially segregated public schools. Sort of like the "freedom of choice" of not being able to find a hotel room or restaurant that will serve 'your kind', "freedom" is being considered only from one side. In a lot of cases the 'libertarian' case for freedom of choice is just a euphemism for siding with the powerful.
Originally posted by Russ:
Say after me - progressivism is not libertarian. It's not about increasing freedom of choice.
quote:Chesterton is talking about a different situation and answering a different question.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That too. But if there are no concessions and no tradeoffs required then that suggests an absence of underlying conflict. Which is the opposite of what Chesterton is saying...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You don't think it might imply trying to find a position of mutual gain?
quote:What you call our 'disinterested moral intuition' is nothing but the unacknowledged sediment of what you are pleased to call 'our perceived self-interest our partisan sympathies and attachment to our culture's way of doing things'. There isn't any other route to objective truth here.
quote:I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm saying it's not a guaranteed outcome of a negotiation process. Because people can talk from their disinterested moral intuition or they can talk from their perceived self-interest and their partisan sympathies and their attachment to their own culture's way of doing things.
There is no such thing as a disinterested party when it comes to ethics. So if only a conversation between disinterested parties can track objective morality tracking objective morality becomes impossible.
quote:Yes we know libertarianism isn't about increasing freedom of choice. We know libertarianism is about keeping freedom of choice in the hands of the people who already have choices. What's your point in raising such a banal observation?
Originally posted by Russ:
Say after me - progressivism is not libertarian. It's not about increasing freedom of choice.
quote:Are you arguing that there's no route to objective truth? Or that there is a route and it doesn't involve an effort to be more objective by setting aside one's own partisan sympathies ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There isn't any other route to objective truth here. The more you think you're speaking from moral intuition the more you're the prisoner of your own assumptions.
quote:At the point where she first felt her life was in danger, certainly. From the outset, from before she was first tempted to the deed that incurred the wrath of her extended family ? ?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Because I'm going to have just the teensiest suspicion that the victim of an "honour killing" would quite like to have benefitted from the rest of our society's prohibition on killing people.
quote:Don't think I'm wedded to it. I see it as a possible compromise between irreconcilable views. Something that might result from a genuine negotiation.
If you're really wedded to your bullshit community private law nonsense...
quote:You might be interested in this piece of news (a group of Muslim women in India successfully fight against Muslim cultural practice in Indian civil court).
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't know the answer. I oscillate between the cynical view that we humans tend to be in favour of tight-knit communities with their own distinctive customs until what we want to do falls foul of the "social rules" of such a community.
quote:The conservative's favourite example relies on an unstated assumption that the role of "baker" and the role of "moral guardian" are readily interchangeable.
Originally posted by Russ:
When courts compel religiously-minded bakers not to distinguish between a sacrament and a blasphemy (as they see it), that's imposing not permitting.
quote:It involves increasing and widening one's sympathies rather than setting them aside.
Originally posted by Russ:
Are you arguing that there's no route to objective truth? Or that there is a route and it doesn't involve an effort to be more objective by setting aside one's own partisan sympathies ?
quote:Which is what we have nation states for.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Shifting from negotiations between people to negotiations between communities means treating communities as monolithic blocks with no overlap or intermingling.
quote:I may be understanding-impaired tonight, or sarcasm impaired. But are you saying the answer to this is "yes"???
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
quote:So what's the difference between the impartiality of setting aside one's own greater sympathy for one side and the impartiality of widening one's sympathies to include both sides equally ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:It involves increasing and widening one's sympathies rather than setting them aside.
Originally posted by Russ:
Are you arguing that there's no route to objective truth? Or that there is a route and it doesn't involve an effort to be more objective by setting aside one's own partisan sympathies ?
quote:Because some will use any sympathy you show them to bolster their power - and are very likely to use it to beat you later.
Originally posted by Russ:
So what's the difference between the impartiality of setting aside one's own greater sympathy for one side and the impartiality of widening one's sympathies to include both sides equally ?
quote:What's the difference between making a judgment after listening to both sides and making a judgement after listening to neither side?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:So what's the difference between the impartiality of setting aside one's own greater sympathy for one side and the impartiality of widening one's sympathies to include both sides equally ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It involves increasing and widening one's sympathies rather than setting them aside.
quote:You had that point. I pointed out you didn't have any other way of tracking the right answer.
I think it's the same as the point we had a short while ago about the negotiated answer not necessarily being the right answer.
quote:I don't think 'unprincipled' means what you're ostensibly claiming to mean by it.
Seems like there's something unprincipled about your approach.
quote:As a conservative believer in objective morality of course I deny that.
I think you're denying that there is a right answer that someone without sympathies - a robot judge - could reach on the basis of principles or rules.
quote:I'm not asking you to have equal sympathy with Nazis. I'm saying that Nazis have the same moral rights as any other human being. And that judging justly requires you to set aside your anti-Nazi sympathies and decide on the basis of a framework of moral rights and duties which is applicable to everyone.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You are either with the Nazis or against them. You can't say "oh I think they have a point, because there are two sides in the argument of whether black people are fully human and endowed with human rights" - because that's saying that you support their concepts of racial superiority.
These are not questions where the answer is to give both sides equal sympathy.
quote:I don't believe in free speech as an absolute, I believe it should always be weighed against the damage it does and the circumstances in which things are said.
Originally posted by Russ:
If you believe in rights such as free speech and a fair trial but would deny those rights to Nazis, how are you any better than they are ?
quote:Yes. Not because I believe this would be a good outcome. But to make the point that a negotiated morality wouldn't necessarily resemble morality as we understand it.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
quote:I may be understanding-impaired tonight, or sarcasm impaired. But are you saying the answer to this is "yes"???
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
quote:All you're doing is illustrating Poppers Tolerance Paradox, which Conservatives like to do as if they're pointing out something progressives have never thought of, the daft twats. It's boring, we already know about it. We know that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, which would include things like honour killings. We already know we desire to "enforce" tolerance, because as Popper observed you can't maintain a tolerant society otherwise.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes. Not because I believe this would be a good outcome. But to make the point that a negotiated morality wouldn't necessarily resemble morality as we understand it.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
quote:I may be understanding-impaired tonight, or sarcasm impaired. But are you saying the answer to this is "yes"???
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
It also serves as a point against the ridiculous notion that progressives are nice people who don't want to impose their moral convictions on others.
I do try not to employ sarcasm. This was just a rhetorical question.
quote:Is anyone here arguing against laws that prohibit lying, intimidation, use of force and ultimately killing ? You don't need special anti-Nazi laws to prohibit these things.
Originally posted by hatless:
What makes someone a Nazi or a fascist is not only opinions about racial superiority and inferiority, but their willingness or eagerness to use violence alongside their arguments. They lie, intimidate, use force and ultimately kill on behalf of their opinions...
...We always twist arguments to serve our secret agendas, but there comes a point when one side wishes to exclude the other from the debate, when debate is no longer the appropriate way forwards. When people actually dehumanise others, justify injustice, and sympathise with physical violence then we need to oppose them not just in debate but by rallying support and wider opinion against them.
quote:Just 'cos it's something that many people would consider a right.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've never said anything about a fair trial, not sure why you are bringing that up.
quote:I don't see anything wrong with that if you can formulate that "damage" as an impartial rule that applies equally to everyone regardless of where your sympathies lie.
Basically Nazis have rights as people, but given that they want to use those rights to inflict damage onto other people... ...then those who are the subject of the bile deserve to be protected from them.
quote:Sure. And do you want an example of something that is settled and not worth discussing? Nazism. It's bad. We've discussed why it's bad. It's not worth discussing whether you might be able to make a case for a civilized person being able to hold Nazi beliefs, because you can't.
Originally posted by Russ:
- exclusion from debate - have you never read on these boards a comment that dismisses a point of view as something that's all been settled and isn't worth discussing ?
quote:The difference, of course, is that lilBuddha's opinions of Tories are based on what they do, and on the policies that they support, rather than on what they are. Being a Tory (or a Nazi, or a Communist, or a Socialist) is not in any way comparable to being black, or being gay, or being Jewish.
- dehumanise others - have you read lilBuddha on Tories ?
quote:Umm, yes? But one of them can be. (If you want a clue, it's usually not the Nazi.)
justify injustice - wherever two people are disagreeing about what is just they can't both be right
quote:I think there is a legal line where people are prevented from attacking witnesses if they're defending themselves. I don't know the details but it seems fair enough to me.
Originally posted by Russ:
Just 'cos it's something that many people would consider a right.
But perhaps you think that giving Nazis a fair trial would mean letting them speak in their own defence and someone might feel hurt by that and so it shouldn't be allowed ?
quote:
If you're prepared to make one right conditional on your judgment of harm, why not all rights ?
quote:I don't understand where you are going here.
Rights are what you allow to everyone including your enemies.
I don't see anything wrong with that if you can formulate that "damage" as an impartial rule that applies equally to everyone regardless of where your sympathies lie.
quote:A point that relies on the assumption we could find something we'd want to trade honour killings for because we're so utterly self-centred that we don't give a shit what is happening in community B.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes. Not because I believe this would be a good outcome. But to make the point that a negotiated morality wouldn't necessarily resemble morality as we understand it.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
quote:I may be understanding-impaired tonight, or sarcasm impaired. But are you saying the answer to this is "yes"???
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
quote:Time for a newcomer to put his own two cents on this strawhatted and generalized BS, point by point.
- is "social-progressive" an adequate name for it or is there a better one ?
- what is the connection to Christianity ? Is this a religious point of view ?
As a starting point, my first attempt at describing it was in terms of
[QUOTE]doctrines of
- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)
- gender-bending (anything goes so long as you don't speak in favour of traditional gender roles)
- political correctness (can't believe anyone voted for Trump; free speech as long as you don't say what we don't like)
- anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)
- anti-racism (racism is a huge sin that the whole white race should atone for)
quote:Generalised, certainly.
Originally posted by Clutch:
[QUOTE]
Time for a newcomer to put his own two cents on this strawhatted and generalized BS, point by point...
...As for how this fits with Christianity. It's all down to the Great Commandment for Christ himself; Loving god with all your heart,soul, with all your mind and your strength and loving your neighbour as yourself.
quote:The Paradox says that if you want a land of liberty then you have to enforce a rule against coercion, however paradoxical such enforcement may seem.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
All you're doing is illustrating Poppers Tolerance Paradox...
...We know that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, which would include things like honour killings. We already know we desire to "enforce" tolerance, because as Popper observed you can't maintain a tolerant society otherwise.
quote:It can't win. It's not goal-directed enough for winning to be meaningful. It prizes the journey rather than the destination.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is the social-progressive mindset winning?
quote:Not at all Russ. The poor we will always have with us. We will never achieve universal social justice, but I suppose despite the superficial perceived reverses - Trump, Brexit - the long arc is being trajected, there is utilitarian growth; we're still on the slowly winning journey.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:It can't win. It's not goal-directed enough for winning to be meaningful. It prizes the journey rather than the destination.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is the social-progressive mindset winning?
It's about an attitude to disadvantaged groups, rather than about trying to achieve any particular goal.
The republican wins when the monarchy is overthrown. The pacifist wins when the armed forces are disbanded because there's no more need for them. The evangelists win when all are baptised. The progressive can never win.
Or do you see it differently ?
quote:One of the Just Men of Jewish tradition is said to have arrived in Sodom. Immediately, he realised the wickedness of the place and spent his days in the market place calling them to repentance. At first people enjoyed the novelty of his preaching, but gradually they drifted away and he was left preaching to no-one. One day a small boy said to him: "Why do you bother, you must know by now that no-one is listening to you". The just man responded "my child, at first I thought that I could change them. I now know that it is enough that they are not able to change me".
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:It can't win. It's not goal-directed enough for winning to be meaningful. It prizes the journey rather than the destination.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is the social-progressive mindset winning?
It's about an attitude to disadvantaged groups, rather than about trying to achieve any particular goal.
The republican wins when the monarchy is overthrown. The pacifist wins when the armed forces are disbanded because there's no more need for them. The evangelists win when all are baptised. The progressive can never win.
Or do you see it differently ?
quote:They sound like goals to me.
Originally posted by mousethief:
My goal is that all men and women should be treated equitably, and that society's wealth should be distributed equitably.
Those aren't goals?
quote:That's reasonable. Instead, you could congratulate them on enjoying the vast wealth and benefits derived from the crimes committed in the past by people with the same skin colour as them.
Originally posted by Russ:
....
Personally I hadn't seen blaming my white neighbours for the actions of everyone in past centuries who happened to have the same skin colour as the best way of loving them......
quote:I wonder that you have any idea what I do to realize those goals. Perhaps this is an amazing level of insight. Perhaps it's something worse.
Originally posted by Russ:
But exhibiting a bias towards persons you consider to represent a disadvantaged group doesn't seem of itself to be actively realising those goals.
quote:I don't think the difference in wealth between my poorer neighbours and my richer neighbours has anything to do with crime. And some of us aren't enjoying "vast wealth".
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
you could congratulate them on enjoying the vast wealth and benefits derived from the crimes committed in the past by people with the same skin colour as them.
quote:Russ, by global standards, you, me, and our immediate neighbours live a privileged, comfortable existence because of the vast wealth generated over the last 500 years by racism, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, genocide and unsustainable production and consumption. That is not a "mindset", it is a historical and economic fact.
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't think the difference in wealth between my poorer neighbours and my richer neighbours has anything to do with crime. And some of us aren't enjoying "vast wealth"....
quote:Don't you live in a country where people were still profiting off of slavery until 1996? That seems a bit glib to confine to the dim mists of ancient history.
Originally posted by Russ:
Some of my neighbours may have inherited land that they wouldn't have were it not for a relative being killed in the First World War. That's profiting from past wrongdoing by people in another country.
But I'm not intending to try to make them feel guilty about it.
Your history and your narrative take on it don't seem very applicable to people around here.
quote:not when he followed it by telling of the good Samaritan
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Russ, by global standards, you, me, and our immediate neighbours live a privileged, comfortable existence because of the vast wealth generated over the last 500 years by racism, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, genocide and unsustainable production and consumption. That is not a "mindset", it is a historical and economic fact.
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't think the difference in wealth between my poorer neighbours and my richer neighbours has anything to do with crime. And some of us aren't enjoying "vast wealth"....
It is possible that when Jesus instructed his followers to love their neighbours as themselves, he meant only the people living in the same town
quote:That Ireland & the US are both relatively wealthy countries is a fact as shown by the statistics you quote. The importance that different people attach to different explanations for that fact is very much a matter of mindset.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Russ, by global standards, you, me, and our immediate neighbours live a privileged, comfortable existence because of the vast wealth generated over the last 500 years by racism, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, genocide and unsustainable production and consumption. That is not a "mindset", it is a historical and economic fact.
quote:I think Jesus calls us to extend our good neighbourliness to everyone, not merely those around us.
It is possible that when Jesus instructed his followers to love their neighbours as themselves, he meant only the people living in the same town; is that how you interpret "neighbours"?
quote:WTSF?!*
Originally posted by Russ:
Racism and Magdalene Laundries wouldn't feature on my list of significant factors.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... The importance that different people attach to different explanations for that fact is very much a matter of mindset.
The obvious explanations include:
- natural resources (could Britain have pioneered the Industrial Revolution without coal ?)
- absence of physical barriers to trade
- relative lack of wars and civil strife (nothing destroys wealth like civil war)
- enterprise culture (Hong Kong ?)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Russ, you're fucking hilarious. If that was all it took to create wealth, there would have been no need for Britain - and Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, etc. - to have colonies around the globe. Or are you going to claim that the colonial powers were "civilizing" the world out of the goodness of their hearts and lost money doing it? 'Cause that ain't so. The oldest company in North America is the Hudson's Bay Company. What the hell do you think they were doing in British North America, charity work? Certainly not:quote:The lands were not the King's lands to give. That is theft. That is a crime. That is a profitable crime - HBC has total assets of 7.943 billion CAD and market capitalization of 2.32 billion CAD today.
It took the vision and connections of Prince Rupert, cousin of King Charles II, to acquire the Royal Charter which, in May, 1670 granted the lands of the Hudson Bay watershed to “the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay."
quote:
... Magdalene Laundries wouldn't feature on my list of significant factors.
quote:And I'm coming from the angle that the overwhelming majority of the people in the world do not live in rural Ireland.
...
I'm coming from the angle that in thinking about what being good to our neighbours means, we should start with the people around us whom we meet face to face and know as individuals, and then apply those same behaviours when it comes to our dealings with those further afield.
...
quote:Slavery happened, colonialism happened. These are historical facts.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Rape of Africa and slavery? Never hear of those?
quote:This IS the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries. There is no saying what would have happened if Africa had never been colonised by the European powers; as C S Lewis said, 'Nobody is ever told what would have happened'. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, pre-colonisation, sub-Saharan Africa was very rich indeed, with a large agricultural surplus and a lot of natural resources. No doubt there would have been wars anyway - people are people - and some African societies had slavery. But they would certainly have been richer today. There might even have been fewer wars, because left to their own devices they would probably not have divided their continent up in the same way.
This then becomes, in the progressive mind, the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries and the relative wealth of European ones.
quote:"Happened"? Russ, those things don't just "happen". People did those things because they were profitable. And people still do those things because they continue to be profitable.
Originally posted by Russ:
Slavery happened, colonialism happened. These are historical facts.
quote:Well, that might be because progressives recognize that masses of humanity are still in shitty, exploitative "situations" so that you and I can enjoy our opulent - yes, opulent, by any contemporary or historical standards - lifestyle. It might also be because progressives think humans should accept responsibility for their actions and for each other, instead of pretending that things like slavery just "happen", resulting in people being in "situations".
What's of interest for this thread is how the progressive mindset weaves a narrative around those facts and then uses that narrative as the basis for responding to situations.
quote:In fairness to Russ, Ireland has been more colonised against than colonising. The Great Potato Famine is still something people remember. That said, on Russ' principles the Great Potato Famine was just one of these things that happen and entirely unrelated to the UK's free trade policy.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If that was all it took to create wealth, there would have been no need for Britain - and Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, etc. - to have colonies around the globe.
quote:This is assuming is he Irish, and not of Ulster Scot or English background.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:In fairness to Russ, Ireland has been more colonised against than colonising.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If that was all it took to create wealth, there would have been no need for Britain - and Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, etc. - to have colonies around the globe.
quote:Assuming his family were affected, it isn't uncommon for people to create an artificial disconnect between their own suffering and that of others.
The Great Potato Famine is still something people remember. That said, on Russ' principles the Great Potato Famine was just one of these things that happen and entirely unrelated to the UK's free trade policy.
quote:That is because the numbers involved are of an order of magnitude different. There are no white populations that are identifiably descended from slaves that I can think of. There are lots of black populations that are descended from slaves.
Originally posted by Russ:
For example, the European individuals who historically were enslaved by North African individuals aren't part of the narrative. But the (sub-Saharan) Africans who were enslaved by their fellow Africans, transported by Europeans and sold to Americans are a really important part of the narrative, which becomes about the "rape" of Africa (presumably by Europe ?)
quote:Most of the big cities on the west coast of Britain are there because some people made a lot of money out of the slave triangle and then turned that into philanthropic interventions, capital investments within the rest of Europe, and so on. As for Africa, I think the legacy of slavery and colonialism is only part of the story. Colonialism is the bigger legacy in that the infrastructure it left behind in African countries was predominantly set up to make it easy to extract capital and resources. But I wouldn't say colonialism left an insuperable blight upon Africa. That's down partly to US (and Chinese) support for authoritarian regimes that could be counted on to let capital extract resources and especially down to world financial institutions restricting government spending as part of their loans programs.
This then becomes, in the progressive mind, the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries and the relative wealth of European ones.
quote:Sounds like you're saying that we cannot know, but you're sure anyway...
Originally posted by Jane R:
this IS the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries. There is no saying what would have happened if Africa had never been colonised by the European powers
quote:First Majestic Silver Corp.
Colonial mining began when European techniques of production were introduced into the 'New World' to satisfy the insatiable European demand for metals. Within a matter of years, gold and silver started to flow into the Spanish treasury from Mexican mines. During the next 300 years of Spanish rule, many other minerals were extracted from the ground, such as copper, coal, lead and iron.
The bedrock deposits of the great silver-gold vein system of the Veta Madre at Guanajuato was discovered in the year 1550 and unearthed almost immediately after that El Oro, located near Mexico City one of the leading gold districts, was discovered in 1521, developed to a great extent by 1530, and mined regularly with some interruptions for about 400 years. During this period over 5 million ounces of gold was extracted.
quote:Ok, so I read the one, non-batshit crazy link on that search, AOL.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought this was interesting.
The crime of holding a flag while blonde.
quote:That may also be because African slaves in the New World were encouraged to have children, whereas slaves generally in the Arab world don't seem to have been held in conditions where they might have been able to. Otherwise there would be significant African populations in the Gulf, which there don't seem to be.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is because the numbers involved are of an order of magnitude different. There are no white populations that are identifiably descended from slaves that I can think of. There are lots of black populations that are descended from slaves. ...
quote:I actually linked to one of the articles and it flipped back to my Google search, but I think it is beyond ridiculous for the ACLU to have to apologize for posting a picture of a blonde child.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Ok, so I read the one, non-batshit crazy link on that search, AOL.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought this was interesting.
The crime of holding a flag while blonde.
And the ACLU admit they were wrong. They have been defending white supremacist types and to put a blonde child on their twitter feed is a bit insensitive.
quote:It seems like it's not so much the picture as the way the accompanying text echoes one of the most infamous white supremacist slogans, especially when coupled with the picture. Most other people would get a pass for just not being aware of the fetishistic way white supremacists use the "14 words", but the ACLU doesn't really have that excuse.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I actually linked to one of the articles and it flipped back to my Google search, but I think it is beyond ridiculous for the ACLU to have to apologize for posting a picture of a blonde child.
quote:If you're copying both the rhetoric and the iconography of white supremacists, I'm not sure "everyone" is clear in your message.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought they were echoing it on purpose saying "This is the future the ACLU wants," free speech for everyone.
quote:Messages are not intent alone, but perception as well. THe SCLU does not have a history of capitulating to critics, yet here they did. Why? Because they understood what people were seeing was not what they intended to show. The fauxtrage of the right is just that: false.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought they were echoing it on purpose saying "This is the future the ACLU wants," free speech for everyone. I thought the point the ACLU was making was about the child's shirt slogan. Instead it was seen as the twitter response quoted, "A white kid with a flag?!!!"
quote:I couldn't find that, but I would bet that it is an opinion, not a position of Huffington post.
I did see that the Huff Post has and article saying the ACLU should be banned for "defending Nazi's." hmmm
quote:We're sure that Africa had a lot of natural resources (and people) that were appropriated by the European colonial powers.
Sounds like you're saying that we cannot know, but you're sure anyway...
quote:You're the one who brought up a similarity in phrasing with the white supremacy slogan. I just thought if there is a similarity it might have been in an attempt to turn it around. I think it was probably just a cute picture.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If you're copying both the rhetoric and the iconography of white supremacists, I'm not sure "everyone" is clear in your message.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought they were echoing it on purpose saying "This is the future the ACLU wants," free speech for everyone.
I'm also not sure it was a deliberate effort to copy white supremacist rhetoric, as you seem to. Still, when you're the ACLU you should at least have some awareness of such things, which seems to be why it was pointed out.
quote:I'm not sure that follows. If you're dedicated in principle to the right of others to be hateful and nasty it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be hateful and nasty yourself.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sensitivity to any one group's feelings is contrary to their mission of equal rights for all, even the hateful and nasty.
quote:They didn't buckle under. They don't do that. They recognised their post didn't represent what they wished it to.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm sorry the ACLU buckled under
quote:The division of Africa was of ten thousand kingdoms over ten - order of magnitude - external imperiums. Portuguese, French, Belgian, Dutch, British, German, Italian, Spanish, American and now Chinese. We annihilated African diversity with third rate European 'culture'.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Russ:quote:We're sure that Africa had a lot of natural resources (and people) that were appropriated by the European colonial powers.
Sounds like you're saying that we cannot know, but you're sure anyway...
We're also sure that Africa was divided up according to the convenience of the colonising powers with very little reference to the convenience or ethnic groupings of the people who actually lived there.
We're sure that before the colonial period Africa was self-sufficient in food production.
What we don't and can't know for sure is what the world would look like today if Africa had never been colonised and all the nations who you keep saying have not benefited at all from slavery and/or colonisation had had to fall back on their own resources.
Clear now?
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Jane R:
What we don't and can't know for sure is what the world would look like today if Africa had never been colonised
quote:I haven't said that the colonising countries gained no benefit. (That may perhaps be true in the case of Italy ?)
all the nations who you keep saying have not benefited at all from slavery and/or colonisation
quote:No it doesn't. I cannot read your mind, but your posts seem to indicate a desire to minimise the impact of slavery and the rape of Africa.
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect the evidence shows that
- the colonising countries were richer than any African country before colonialism took place
- the countries most affected by colonialism are not the poorest African countries
- the countries that had the most colonies are not now the richest European countries.
all of which suggest that there are other more important factors.
quote:That's a fair comment. I think we can all recognize that this is a significant issue in the US.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The relative poverty of the African diaspora compared to their compatriots on the other hand is largely down to the legacy of slavery and the attitudes among the white population that stem from it. If your father owned nothing and people won't hire you for jobs then you're not going to get rich.
quote:Lots ? Beyond the US and the Caribbean ?
There are no white populations that are identifiably descended from slaves that I can think of. There are lots of black populations that are descended from slaves.
quote:I think there's an issue around numbers (tying in with Soror Magna's comment about "vast wealth").
the numbers involved are of an order of magnitude different
quote:Did you in all honesty look at the picture of that toddler and think it was hateful and nasty?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure that follows. If you're dedicated in principle to the right of others to be hateful and nasty it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be hateful and nasty yourself.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sensitivity to any one group's feelings is contrary to their mission of equal rights for all, even the hateful and nasty.
quote:As you yourself noted, slave raiding by northern African countries on the southern European coast used to be something that happened. It does not happen any more.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm querying your confident assertion that colonialism is the main reason for the difference in wealth between African countries and European countries.
I suspect the evidence shows that
- the colonising countries were richer than any African country before colonialism took place
- the countries most affected by colonialism are not the poorest African countries
- the countries that had the most colonies are not now the richest European countries.
all of which suggest that there are other more important factors.
quote:There's a significant population in the UK with Caribbean ancestors. Most south American countries have a significant population of African ancestry: Brazil has more people of African ancestry than the US does.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Lots ? Beyond the US and the Caribbean ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There are no white populations that are identifiably descended from slaves that I can think of. There are lots of black populations that are descended from slaves.
quote:Progressives have a doctrine? Well, of course, they have a doctrine. There's a progressive Pope and Magisterium who interpret the progressive Holy Book and the progressive Creed as set out in the progressive ecumenical councils.
If one is focused on individuals, then one individual's problem is not necessarily any more severe or more important depending on the number of other individuals who have the same problem.
If you care for your neighbour as a person, then it's really not important how many other people have the same problem as your neighbour does. What matters is how severely it affects them and what can be done about it.
Do progressives in effect have a doctrine that says problems that lots of people suffer from are important, and problems that only a few suffer from aren't ?
If you want to make a difference to society, doesn't it make sense to concentrate on the big major important problems ?
quote:Do conservatives have a doctrine that says you can only care about one person at a time?
Originally posted by Russ:
... Do progressives in effect have a doctrine that says problems that lots of people suffer from are important, and problems that only a few suffer from aren't ? ...
quote:Actually that was your analysis. Or one of your analyses. You seem to be advancing two arguments. The first is that echoing the rhertoric and iconography of white supremacists is unobjectionable and the second seems to be that if you defend the right of people to be objectionable you're obligated to be objectionable yourself. In addition to being a non-sequitur, the second argument seems to contradict the first.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:Did you in all honesty look at the picture of that toddler and think it was hateful and nasty?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure that follows. If you're dedicated in principle to the right of others to be hateful and nasty it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be hateful and nasty yourself.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sensitivity to any one group's feelings is contrary to their mission of equal rights for all, even the hateful and nasty.
quote:More to the point, they didn't want to be associated with the rhetoric and semiotics of white supremacists, not just because it's offensive to most but because that's not the message they were intending to send. To take a related example, suppose the name of one of your products was a fairly offensive racial slur in the foreign country where you were selling it. You seem to be arguing that the proper response once this is pointed out by your customers is to resist "buckling under" and telling those customers they shouldn't be bothered if their new sofa comes with a side-helping of racial denigration. Most people, including the company in question, take the contrary approach and don't feel obligated to continue deliberately repeating what was initially an accident.
Originally posted by Twilight:
They took it down because a lot of people were offended and they didn't want to offend. That doesn't mean those people were right to be offended.
quote:If you say so.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Nazi's are offended when they see mixed race couples. Other people are offended when they see blond children with flags. I think they are both wrong and the ACLU should not pander to either one.
quote:The progressives view is, as usual, a little more nuanced than the reactionary/conservative one. The progressive view is not to condemn people out of hand simply because they are out of work, disabled or have chosen to leave a warzone to somewhere more peaceful without the expected paperwork. All of these are exactly the kind of people the conservatives, supported by the gutter press, continually to persecute. Sometimes they are few in number, sometimes many.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Do conservatives have a doctrine that says you can only care about one person at a time?
Originally posted by Russ:
... Do progressives in effect have a doctrine that says problems that lots of people suffer from are important, and problems that only a few suffer from aren't ? ...
quote:Wow, progressivism in action !
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is assuming is he Irish, and not of Ulster Scot or English background.
Originally posted by Dafyd In fairness to Russ, Ireland has been more colonised against than colonising.
quote:Is that image supposed to be offensive?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If you say so.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Nazi's are offended when they see mixed race couples. Other people are offended when they see blond children with flags. I think they are both wrong and the ACLU should not pander to either one.
quote:How could it be? It's a blond child with a flag! More to the point, no person or organization should find it problematic to be associated with that image, at least according to Twilight.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Is that image supposed to be offensive?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If you say so.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Nazi's are offended when they see mixed race couples. Other people are offended when they see blond children with flags. I think they are both wrong and the ACLU should not pander to either one.
quote:The sarcasm I perceive in your reply suggests that you do think the image is offensive. But while I'm perfectly familiar with the historical context of the image, it doesn't offend me.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:How could it be? It's a blond child with a flag!
Is that image supposed to be offensive?
quote:The ACLU used a completely different image where the only similarities with the one you linked were a blond child (of a different gender) and a flag (of a different country). Is that really enough to label it hateful and nasty?
More to the point, no person or organization should find it problematic to be associated with that image, at least according to Twilight.
quote:The ACLU image is neither hateful or nasty, Their post wasn't hateful or nasty.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is that really enough to label it hateful and nasty?
quote:Well, quite. This kind of thing happens all the time. People don't communicate in paragraphs backed up with definitions and appendices - we typically communicate in short hand. And when we're abbreviating some idea down to say "here is the central point I'm making", we don't often pay too much attention to other ideas that could also be contracted to the same statement / image / whatever.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What it was is a poorly chosen image given their recent activities. They recognised this and apologised. Because context. Which doesn't take a rocket surgeon to work out.
quote:That makes no sense at all to me.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you love your neighbour as a person, then you love them as a member of their society. Trying to love them in abstract from their society is loving them in the abstract not as a person.
quote:Groups of people are real. Groups of people that share common experiences, goals, characteristics, challenges, whatever, are real. I think I've mentioned this before in another context: freedom of association means groups of people can get together for a common purpose. (Not freedom to drive people away.)
Originally posted by Russ:
That makes no sense at all to me.
People are real; social classes are an abstraction.
quote:And yet on another thread you were trying to argue that the desire to live in a mono-cultural community was a desire that should we should be respecting even if it led to the inconvenience or suffering the people excluded from the community.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That makes no sense at all to me.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you love your neighbour as a person, then you love them as a member of their society. Trying to love them in abstract from their society is loving them in the abstract not as a person.
People are real; social classes are an abstraction.
quote:They may be an abstraction but abstractions are very useful as an aid to understanding.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That makes no sense at all to me.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you love your neighbour as a person, then you love them as a member of their society. Trying to love them in abstract from their society is loving them in the abstract not as a person.
People are real; social classes are an abstraction.
quote:Yes. But I suggest that you wouldn't want to be treated in the same way as the tar and gravel. And, being a moral person, therefore don't treat others that way.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:They may be an abstraction but abstractions are very useful as an aid to understanding.
Originally posted by Russ:
People are real; social classes are an abstraction.
As an example, consider driving a car from point A to point B by looking at individual pieces of tar, grit and gravel - I bet you can't do it - but if you use a roadmap to the right scale, you will find it easy.
The former is real and obscure while the latter is abstract and clear.
quote:Not sure here whether you're idenifying progressivism with Christianity or simply being sarcastic.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's a progressive Pope and Magisterium who interpret the progressive Holy Book and the progressive Creed as set out in the progressive ecumenical councils.
quote:I was being sarcastic.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Not sure here whether you're idenifying progressivism with Christianity or simply being sarcastic.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's a progressive Pope and Magisterium who interpret the progressive Holy Book and the progressive Creed as set out in the progressive ecumenical councils.
quote:You say this as if this is a problem.
Seems that - please correct me if you think otherwise - progressives have no such reference individual.
quote:In the same way there isn't a formal process whereby particular words come to be seen as rude or ill-mannered.
There is no formal process by which a particular word comes to be seen as politically incorrect.
quote:In so far as there's no authority that could rule any particular idea progressivist or not progressivist; in fact, in so far as there's no court which can rule that a person is or isn't 'progressivist', there can't be any progressivist doctrines or party line. Progressivism isn't any definite mindset or school.
It is a progressive doctrine that progressivism has no doctrines...
quote:"progressives are", "the progressive mindset", etc. are phrases that are rarely followed by any real examination of what being progressive is. They are insults or scare-words that are easy to use and take explanation to debunk so play to the base suppositions of the listener.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I thought that that was the point in having progressive ideas today, that they are not a canon. You could use words like spectrum or cline, so you can't fix them like a photograph, sorry old-fashioned reference to when photos were fixed by chemicals.
In fact, 'mindset' is a nonsensical word.
quote:Perhaps progressives have looked around the world and realized that following books has created a vast amount of misery in said world. Maybe life is complicated and changeable and can't be encompassed in a book. And let's take a moment to reflect on some of the assumptions in Russ' statement: a book implies written language and literacy, for example. If you can't read, how will you know what the book says? You'll have to take someone else's word for what it says, in which case you're not following the book anymore, you're following hearsay. A book doesn't have any authority on its own - it's just a book until someone uses it to justify their own authority.
Originally posted by Russ:
.... Which is why progressive ideas are not held in terms of the outworking of a philosophy written in some book. Such a book would be an authority of sorts. ...
quote:Is this a subtle way of telling us you aren't Catholic? Anyway, the argument is that everything exists because of something else causing it and there wouldn't be anything without a "first cause" i.e. God. Of course, then the obvious question is what caused the first cause. Oh, well, nothing caused God. God just is. Do not worry if you can't get your head around that - it's a nonsensical argument. God is also one of those 'ideas are held by those who believe them as "obviously true"', even though we all know it's turtles all the way down.
....I may have this wrong, but my understanding is that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church it states that the existence of God is deducible without revelation. ... I struggle to get my head around that one. ...
quote:"Politically correct" is a derogatory term used to mean not demeaning or insulting to others, typically used by people who habitually demean or insult others.
Originally posted by Russ:
There is no formal process by which a particular word comes to be seen as politically incorrect..
quote:Russ, you really have missed the point. I never suggested that an abstraction is the same as the object, just that the right abstraction can aid understanding.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes. But I suggest that you wouldn't want to be treated in the same way as the tar and gravel. And, being a moral person, therefore don't treat others that way.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:They may be an abstraction but abstractions are very useful as an aid to understanding.
Originally posted by Russ:
People are real; social classes are an abstraction.
As an example, consider driving a car from point A to point B by looking at individual pieces of tar, grit and gravel - I bet you can't do it - but if you use a roadmap to the right scale, you will find it easy.
The former is real and obscure while the latter is abstract and clear.
quote:So do please enlighten us as to what being progressive is.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"progressives are", "the progressive mindset", etc. are phrases that are rarely followed by any real examination of what being progressive is.
quote:If you think "progressive" is an insult, what more neutral term would you prefer?
They are insults or scare-words...
quote:Books are so 19th-century...
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Perhaps progressives have looked around the world and realized that following books has created a vast amount of misery in said world.
quote:Is it not enough to be fighting for a world where everyone can be free to be who they want to be without bigots and haters persecuting them for it?
Originally posted by Russ:
Step back from the battlefront of the culture wars for long enough to say what it is that you think you're fighting for and why.
quote:Now, now! You're ignoring Russ's stricture that you're supposed to ignore oppression and exploitation. Exactly why you're supposed to do this is unclear, but he seems to feel strongly that opposing those things is out of bounds.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Is it not enough to be fighting for a world where everyone can be free to be who they want to be without bigots and haters persecuting them for it?
Originally posted by Russ:
Step back from the battlefront of the culture wars for long enough to say what it is that you think you're fighting for and why.
quote:Calls for a progressive alliance at the last UK election had in mind the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, and in Scotland also the Scottish National Party. I think you'd struggle to find any formal doctrine held by all those parties. It's hard enough to find a formal doctrine that unites both wings of the Labour Party.
Originally posted by Russ:
So do please enlighten us as to what being progressive is.
quote:No it isn't part of it.
It's clearly more than just a negative attitude to the western cultural tradition, although that's part of it.
quote:There are some ways of loving one's neighbour which require no particular justification to count as loving your neighbour. For instance, not beating up your neighbour because he's married another man. Conservative Christian takes on dead horses are somewhat less straightforward to justify as loving their neighbour.
It isn't loving your neighbour. Because all the conservative Christians think they love their neighbours. It could possibly be a particular way of doing so that distinguishes you from them.
quote:If you exploit one person that's oppression; if you exploit a million people that's a statistic. Russ' position seems to be endorsing Stalin.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're ignoring Russ's stricture that you're supposed to ignore oppression and exploitation. Exactly why you're supposed to do this is unclear, but he seems to feel strongly that opposing those things is out of bounds.
quote:And there have been many, many, many cultures and civilizations throughout human history that got along just fine without written moral or religious texts. And the codex format was invented long before the 19th Century.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Books are so 19th-century...
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Perhaps progressives have looked around the world and realized that following books has created a vast amount of misery in said world.
...and so many of them were written by Dead White Males.
quote:Pretty much what Dafyd said, especially this bit.
Originally posted by Russ:
What's your take on it ?
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's more of a general sense that politics should serve everyone in a society and not merely those who have financial privilege.
quote:I would argue that they don't. You do not love you neighbour when you try to remove their healthcare, when you promote policies which push them towards poverty, etc.
Originally posted by Russ:
It isn't loving your neighbour. Because all the conservative Christians think they love their neighbours.
quote:Cute. But the word is not an insult in itself, just used this way by conservatives.
If you think "progressive" is an insult, what more neutral term would you prefer?
quote:Again this sounds to me like the sort of "motherhood and Apple pie" stuff that everybody believes in, if perhaps in different ways. What makes your way different from anybody else's ?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pretty much what Dafyd said, especially this bit.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's more of a general sense that politics should serve everyone in a society and not merely those who have financial privilege.
quote:Mitt Romney's infamous "47% speech" comes to mind.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Again this sounds to me like the sort of "motherhood and Apple pie" stuff that everybody believes in, if perhaps in different ways. What makes your way different from anybody else's ?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pretty much what Dafyd said, especially this bit.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's more of a general sense that politics should serve everyone in a society and not merely those who have financial privilege.
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ? Which author has written that they believe that ? Which politician has made speeches exhorting us to believe that ?
quote:Yes, lots of people. The Rich, for a start. Do you seriously think the Kochs spend all that money on politicians without expecting to reap the benefit she for themselves?
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ?
quote:Ayn Rand? Milo Yiannopoulos?
Which author has written that they believe that ?
quote:Republicans advocating tax cuts for the wealthy funded by healthcare cuts for the poor springs to mind.
Which politician has made speeches exhorting us to believe that ?
quote:Possibly there are relatively few people who believe that consciously and through their own deliberate fault. On the other hand, there are quite a lot of people who, through negligence or weakness, either through failure to think through the consequences of the policies they advocate do indeed end up supporting policies that serve chiefly the rich. Or there are people who for (spurious imho) moral or economic reasons think they can't accept policies that don't serve chiefly the rich.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Again this sounds to me like the sort of "motherhood and Apple pie" stuff that everybody believes in, if perhaps in different ways. What makes your way different from anybody else's ?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pretty much what Dafyd said, especially this bit.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's more of a general sense that politics should serve everyone in a society and not merely those who have financial privilege.
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ?
quote:Do you have chapter and verse ? For the specific claim that politics should be for the benefit of the rich rather than for everyone ?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ayn Rand? Milo Yiannopoulos?
quote:That speech objected to the idea of a large class of people who draw money out of the public purse while paying nothing in, voting in their own interest for ever-higher government spending. (I think he later said that he'd got the figures wrong).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Mitt Romney's infamous "47% speech" comes to mind.
quote:Other people pointed out that Romney was wrong, or at least incredibly deceptive. (e.g. way more than 53% of Americans pay payroll tax, which is the tax Republicans never seem to remember.) As far as I'm aware Romney shuffled and jived about his intentions but never actually repudiated the statistic. Of course I've not read the "the complete works" of Willard Mitt Romney, so it's possible I've missed something. Can you cite "chapter and verse" of this alleged correction on his part?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That speech objected to the idea of a large class of people who draw money out of the public purse while paying nothing in, voting in their own interest for ever-higher government spending. (I think he later said that he'd got the figures wrong).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Mitt Romney's infamous "47% speech" comes to mind.
quote:It really isn't. A speech promising that, as president, Romney would only serve the interests of the alleged 53% of Americans who pay (income) tax isn't "the mirror image of the idea of rich people using their influence", it is rich people using their influence.
Originally posted by Russ:
It's the mirror image of the idea of rich people using their influence to try to secure ever-lower taxes.
quote:That seems a particularly dishonest bit of framing. The "right-leaning desire for small government" usually includes huge amounts of spending on things like the military, law enforcement, corporate giveaways, etc., after which government isn't really that small anymore. A more realistic way to look at the division is that left-leaners and right-leaners attempt to use the state to advance their agenda, but differ in the particulars.
Originally posted by Russ:
But there will always be tension between the left-leaning desire for big government with high taxes and high spending that looks after everyone, and the right-leaning desire for small government with low taxes and low spending that leaves people free to seek their own good.
quote:Ayn Rand's famous work is Atlas Shrugged where one of the main themes is so-called rational egoism - which is one of the reasons that Republicans love it.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Do you have chapter and verse ? For the specific claim that politics should be for the benefit of the rich rather than for everyone ?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ayn Rand? Milo Yiannopoulos?
Or are you expecting me to read the complete works ?
quote:Sorry. Not quite. A category of '53% of the population' is too large to call it 'rich people'.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... It really isn't. A speech promising that, as president, Romney would only serve the interests of the alleged 53% of Americans who pay (income) tax isn't "the mirror image of the idea of rich people using their influence", it is rich people using their influence. ...
quote:That's true - the rich and powerful have an amazing ability to get a large proportion of people to vote against their own interests and instead to vote in policies which only benefit a tiny minority.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry. Not quite. A category of '53% of the population' is too large to call it 'rich people'.
quote:Well I think these things have long roots and basically go back to Plato and beyond. If you have the idea that there are certain people who are "born to govern", then it isn't many steps until you get an aristocracy and then not many more until you get a plutocracy.
There's a lot that's really, really wrong in the concept that one is entitled overtly to govern in the interests only of only-just-over-half the population, and as against what is virtually-the-other-half - who are demeaned as a nuisance, people who spoil the fun who should go away. That's nasty, and what we have in my country at the moment. But that, Crœsos, is a different charge.
quote:As an additional factor, some people (consciously or semi-consciously) believe that people are rich or poor because they deserve it. And therefore policies that in fact serve the rich are justified on the grounds that they reward 'the deserving' or penalise 'the lazy'.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Or there are people who for (spurious imho) moral or economic reasons think they can't accept policies that don't serve chiefly the rich.
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ?
quote:That doesn't look to me like an argument that politics should be for the benefit of the rich. It looks like an argument that the good society is one where individuals are free to self-actualize, to create and make a living from their creations.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:... one of the main themes is so-called rational egoism - which is one of the reasons that Republicans love it.
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you have chapter and verse ? For the specific claim that politics should be for the benefit of the rich rather than for everyone ?
quote:This.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, lots of people. The Rich, for a start. Do you seriously think the Kochs spend all that money on politicians without expecting to reap the benefit she for themselves?
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ?
quote:Not just our politics. Our very governments are there to serve the rich. The law protects property rights at least as much as personal rights, therefore offering more protection to those who own property than those who do not.
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ? Which author has written that they believe that ? Which politician has made speeches exhorting us to believe that ?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ? ...
quote:I spy, with my little eye, a moving goalpost. Politics currently IS working to the benefit of the rich pretty much everywhere, but it SHOULDN'T.
Originally posted by Russ:
... For the specific claim that politics should be for the benefit of the rich rather than for everyone ?...
quote:Maybe you're not trying very hard or lack imagination. Ayn Rand talked about individualism as a virtue - and it isn't hard to see how that turns out to be the elevation of the rich in the body politic.
Originally posted by Russ:
That doesn't look to me like an argument that politics should be for the benefit of the rich. It looks like an argument that the good society is one where individuals are free to self-actualize, to create and make a living from their creations.
quote:Well, y'know, like all philosophy it helps if (a) you bother to familiarise yourself with the basics of it before commenting on it and (b) you're prepared to think through the direction of it and where it might be going so that (c) you understand how people are today using it to underscore their political philosophy.
So that a poor potter is a more authentic human being then someone who gets a higher income by living on the dole.
The rich as a class do not appear to merit a mention in this summary of Rand's philosophy.
quote:Just read the damn thing already, or if you can't be bothered to do that then get a inkling of the basics by reading the zillions of articles across the internet about it.
Which is why I was asking whether there's a specific work or section of her work which addresses the rich and their role in society. A specific quote which demonstrates that she advocates the specific view which I'm suggesting that nobody holds.
quote:Well there is also this, isn't there. Historically politics has almost always been about exclusion of the majority, with only very recent moves towards inclusion of the needs everyone.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Read John Locke, William Blackstone, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson -- just off the top of my head. They don't come out and say politics, government and the law are there to serve the rich; what they do is explain and defend property rights. Those of us who do not own property know when we are being told we can fuck off and die.
quote:Not at all. The construction "is there to" is a statement of purpose. Which combines with the unstated premise that institutions should serve their purpose, to reach a conclusion about what should be.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ? ...quote:I spy, with my little eye, a moving goalpost.
Originally posted by Russ:
... For the specific claim that politics should be for the benefit of the rich rather than for everyone ?...
quote:Well, the current game is 1% screwing the other 99% out their money. The system we have now is most definitely not serving everybody. What do you think should be done about it?
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Not this horrible notion of a zero-sum game where you win by getting together a coalition of 51% of the people to screw money out of the other 49%. That's not "serving everybody".
quote:I'm puzzled why you think those with existing privilege think that they should help those without. The evidence appears to be that in almost all situations those with power, money and influence want to keep it for themselves.
Originally posted by Russ:
And politics should of course serve everybody - rich, poor, and inbetween. It should be Us - we, the people - getting together to do collectively what we can't do (or can't do nearly so well) individually.
quote:But who actually ever talks about politics being the service of everyone?
Not this horrible notion of a zero-sum game where you win by getting together a coalition of 51% of the people to screw money out of the other 49%. That's not "serving everybody".
quote:Which notion is 'this' horrible notion? Has somebody been advocating anything that can honestly be described that way? I must have missed it.
Originally posted by Russ:
And politics should of course serve everybody - rich, poor, and inbetween. It should be Us - we, the people - getting together to do collectively what we can't do (or can't do nearly so well) individually.
Not this horrible notion of a zero-sum game where you win by getting together a coalition of 51% of the people to screw money out of the other 49%. That's not "serving everybody".
quote:I think you're right. What we're talking about is a philosophy of redress. Of reversing traditional biases (rather than eliminating or transcending them).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think that social progressive politics are those that focus on everyone - instead they're the politics which are trying to redress the inbuilt imbalance in society, which traditionally has given advantage and favour to a few.
quote:I don't think that's part of the social progressive mindset that we're talking about at all.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Russ, do you think it's socially progressive that workers pay three times as much tax as shareholders?
quote:Would would you consider 'eliminating' or 'transcending' those biases to actually consist of? Other than declaring a year zero where we started to pretend they don't exist?
Originally posted by Russ:
I think you're right. What we're talking about is a philosophy of redress. Of reversing traditional biases (rather than eliminating or transcending them).
quote:Perhaps you could explain how you eliminate a traditional bias without reversing it at some point?
Originally posted by Russ:
I think you're right. What we're talking about is a philosophy of redress. Of reversing traditional biases (rather than eliminating or transcending them).
quote:You say that like it's a bad thing?
It's not advocating a desired end-state.
quote:No it isn't.
It's advocating a cultural leaning in the opposite direction from the traditional one.
quote:There's no point in redressing an injustice without addressing the source of the injustice. If injustice is caused by a traditional bias, and if one is serious about redressing injustice, it would be nuts not to make an effort to eliminate the bias; otherwise, you'll just be stuck redressing over and over and over again. Followed by "those people are never happy, race shouldn't matter, women want more rights, everybody is equal now, criminals have all the rights, it's never enough, time to move on, nobody owns slaves today" and so on. Gosh, that sounds familiar ...
Originally posted by Russ:
I think you're right. What we're talking about is a philosophy of redress. Of reversing traditional biases (rather than eliminating or transcending them).
...
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
b) intuitively it seems to me that if I set aside some part of my current wages to provide for an income in retirement, and if I invest that money in the shares of a wealth-generating business (rather than under the mattress or speculating on property prices)
quote:So if I take my wages, and purchase a pile of widgets and sell them at a profit, I shouldn't have to pay tax on my profits because I already paid tax on my income. And then I take those profits and buy more widgets, and shouldn't pay tax because I'm still profiting from my taxed income. And before long I have a massive widget-trading business which shouldn't be taxed because my seed capital was taxed income?
then there's a case for taxng that income from shares more lightly, either to incentivize behaviour that supports the common good, or because I've already had to pay tax on the capital that is generating the income.
quote:It seems to me that you like the idea of having taxes to pay for things as long as you don't actually have to be the one paying and as long as you are the one benefiting.
Originally posted by Russ:
b) intuitively it seems to me that if I set aside some part of my current wages to provide for an income in retirement, and if I invest that money in the shares of a wealth-generating business (rather than under the mattress or speculating on property prices) then there's a case for taxng that income from shares more lightly, either to incentivize behaviour that supports the common good, or because I've already had to pay tax on the capital that is generating the income.
I don't see any clear watershed where "the rich" cease to be people like us but with a bit more money and become greedy bloated plutocrats.
quote:I disagree that this is a clean or easy distinction to make. For example:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I don't think that's part of the social progressive mindset that we're talking about at all.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Russ, do you think it's socially progressive that workers pay three times as much tax as shareholders?
Not only because it's economic rather than social.
quote:Note that there's a conflation of two different things. The first is whether money earned through labor (wages) should be taxed as heavily or more heavily than money earned by already having money (investment). The second is whether income dedicated to certain approved purposes (in this case retirement savings) should receive favorable tax treatment. There's no reason these two questions shouldn't be considered separately. Not all (or even most) income derived from investments is dedicated to retirement savings, nor is all retirement savings derived from investment income.
Originally posted by Russ:
If you meant to ask whether I think it just that workers pay three times as much tax as shareholders, then I'd have to answer that
a) that's a hard question - taxes are a necessary way of paying for government services, so that it is not possible to pronounce definitively on what is a just tax in the absence of information on what services the money is spent on.
But
b) intuitively it seems to me that if I set aside some part of my current wages to provide for an income in retirement, and if I invest that money in the shares of a wealth-generating business (rather than under the mattress or speculating on property prices) then there's a case for taxng that income from shares more lightly, either to incentivize behaviour that supports the common good, or because I've already had to pay tax on the capital that is generating the income.
quote:I did think that in the OP Russ 'suggested' that being anti-capitalist was part of the social-progressive mindset. Being anti-capitalist seems like an economic position to me.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I disagree that this is a clean or easy distinction to make.
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't think that's part of the social progressive mindset that we're talking about at all.
Not only because it's economic rather than social.
quote:I'd agree that believing in an alternative to capitalism is an economic position.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I did think that in the OP Russ 'suggested' that being anti-capitalist was part of the social-progressive mindset. Being anti-capitalist seems like an economic position to me.
quote:I'm pretty sure that the semantics you're looking for is "every change to Western civilization in the 20th and early 21st century that Russ personally disagrees with", though I admit it doesn't seem to exactly roll off the tongue. Still, it would seem to fit your repeated rejection of any descriptives other than the ones offered by you.
Originally posted by Russ:
If you want to suggest a better summary word, or short phrase, feel free. Finding a terminology acceptable to both sides was part of the original aim. However distracted we may get by various tangents.
quote:So a "social progressive" might maintain that beyond paying wages an employer is obligated to keep their workplace "free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm" (language cribbed shamelessly from the U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Act), whereas the opposing view (the anti-social regressive mindset?) might have more sympathy for the United States Radium Corporation than for its dying employees, for example?
Originally posted by Russ:
One of those is a general lack of sympathy with business; . . . a tendency to think that employing someone involves obligations beyond paying a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, & to sympathize always with the employee against the employer.
quote:Are you saying wealth creation isn't good ? Or speculation isn't bad ? Or that you share the sentiment that one is better than the other but that it's difficult to legislate for that ?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think the line between "wealth-generating business" and "price speculation" is as easy to draw as you think.
quote:To the extent that businesses are consumers of government services, they should pay their share of the cost of providing those services, which means some form of taxes and charges.
So if I take my wages, and purchase a pile of widgets and sell them at a profit, I shouldn't have to pay tax on my profits because I already paid tax on my income. And then I take those profits and buy more widgets, and shouldn't pay tax because I'm still profiting from my taxed income. And before long I have a massive widget-trading business which shouldn't be taxed because my seed capital was taxed income?
quote:And you're happy with that ?
You can easily accomplish your desired goal (incentivize retirement savings) with your choice of variation on any one of the many retirement savings plans in existence that allow you to invest pre-tax income and defer the tax until you retire, have your investments grow tax-free within your retirement account, and so on.
quote:It is the dichotomy that is bollocks. Those who mumble on about wealth creators and link it to low tax and low regulation seem to want to suggest that the only thing that it needed in the society is the wealth-creator, that all those who are not, somehow, meeting some arbitrary level of contribution are somehow dead weight and that therefore society should be rewarding them and punishing the poor.
Originally posted by Russ:
Are you saying wealth creation isn't good ? Or speculation isn't bad ? Or that you share the sentiment that one is better than the other but that it's difficult to legislate for that ?
quote:Below you appear to say that you share the sentiment that wealth creation (which is what the employees do) is better than speculation (which is in a large modern business what the employers - the shareowners, investors, etc, do). Does that make you a social-progressive?
Originally posted by Russ:
One of those is a general lack of sympathy with business; a tendency to think profit a dirty word that is synonymous with exploitation; a tendency to think that employing someone involves obligations beyond paying a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, & to sympathize always with the employee against the employer.
quote:There are a lot of falsehoods and non-sequiturs here, so I'm going to try tackling them one at a time.
Originally posted by Russ:
To the extent that businesses are consumers of government services, they should pay their share of the cost of providing those services, which means some form of taxes and charges.
If your taxed seed capital is tied up in shares or savings plans or unit trusts, then it's not obvious to me that it's consuming more government services that need to be paid for then if it's under the mattress...
quote:Oh dear.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
wealth creation (which is what the employees do)
quote:The difficulty, of course, is determining what "fair" is; can it mean something other than the medium-term "going rate" for that particular input ?
I would have thought that the idea that there is such a thing as a fair day's wage for a fair day's work is itself a socially-progressive position. After all, it implies that the business owner has some obligation not to negotiate down the price of labour beyond a fair level.
quote:Some believe that Exploitation of Labour is the primary way for capitalists to make profit.
Originally posted by Russ:
Oh dear.
I thought you understood economics better than that.
quote:Fair isn't becoming a rich bastard on the backs of the poor by using your 'initiative'.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Oh dear.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
wealth creation (which is what the employees do)
I thought you understood economics better than that.
Employees don't create wealth. What creates wealth is the combination of "factors of production". Employees typically supply one of those factors - labour.
Classical economics recognizes two others - land and capital.
But no wealth is created unless someone - an entrepreneur for want of a better term - has the initiative to bring them together and make it happen.
And arguably this can only happen in the context of government action to provide a legal framework, a viable currency etc.
So we could perhaps add two to the classical three factors.
Each of these inputs has to be paid for. Each could, in principle, be compensated by some mix of a fixed rate plus a share of the profits. Subject to the proviso that the shares have to add to 100%.
One model has fixed wages, fixed rent, fixed interest rate and fixed tax rate, with the entrepreneur having no fixed compensation and 100% of the profit. But I see no immediate reason why any of the alternative models should be considered intrinsically just or unjust.
quote:The difficulty, of course, is determining what "fair" is; can it mean something other than the medium-term "going rate" for that particular input ?
I would have thought that the idea that there is such a thing as a fair day's wage for a fair day's work is itself a socially-progressive position. After all, it implies that the business owner has some obligation not to negotiate down the price of labour beyond a fair level.
And no, if social-progressivism is about redress for perceived past injustice, then advocating any model as being a priori fair is not a social-progressive position.
quote:That seems remarkably selective. Labor doesn't "create wealth" because it's just one factor, but an entrepreneur does create wealth despite the fact that, like an employee, they are also not a tract of land. If the objection applies to one it applies to both.
Originally posted by Russ:
Employees don't create wealth.[QB] What creates wealth is the combination of [QB]"factors of production". Employees typically supply one of those factors - labour.
Classical economics recognizes two others - land and capital.
But no wealth is created unless someone - an entrepreneur for want of a better term - has the initiative to bring them together and make it happen.
quote:I believe 'creating wealth' is a recent catchphrase.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I thought you understood economics better than that.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
wealth creation (which is what the employees do)
Employees don't create wealth. What creates wealth is the combination of "factors of production". Employees typically supply one of those factors - labour.
Classical economics recognizes two others - land and capital.
quote:Most neo-classical economists prefer to avoid talk of fairness just to avoid the problem. You however introduced it. 'Fair' clearly means something in non-economic contexts. If you think my example of the bakery doesn't apply the non-economic concept I think you'd better explain why. You'll note that my treatment of the oven covers the role of capital.
quote:The difficulty, of course, is determining what "fair" is; can it mean something other than the medium-term "going rate" for that particular input ?
I would have thought that the idea that there is such a thing as a fair day's wage for a fair day's work is itself a socially-progressive position. After all, it implies that the business owner has some obligation not to negotiate down the price of labour beyond a fair level.
quote:I'm not entirely sure why not. If you split the cake between twelve children and some children get two pieces and some none that's unfair. But apparently you don't think that redressing the injustice by taking one piece of cake from each of the children with two pieces and giving them to the children with none has anything to do with fairness. Why not?
And no, if social-progressivism is about redress for perceived past injustice, then advocating any model as being a priori fair is not a social-progressive position.
quote:You're right; the objection applies to both. The entrepreneur in isolation does not create wealth; his input is only one factor. One of 5, in the system I'm proposing, which recognises the positive role of government.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Labor doesn't "create wealth" because it's just one factor, but an entrepreneur does create wealth despite the fact that, like an employee, they are also not a tract of land. If the objection applies to one it applies to both.
quote:That's not redress. That's having a clear notion of fairness and applying it to today's birthday cake.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you split the cake between twelve children and some children get two pieces and some none that's unfair. But apparently you don't think that redressing the injustice by taking one piece of cake from each of the children with two pieces and giving them to the children with none has anything to do with fairness. Why not?
quote:You are making the assumption that there is no connection between the two sets of children.
Originally posted by Russ:
Even though it's a different set of children at today's party.
quote:Keynesian economics created the most equal society the UK had ever seen, and wages for the lowest paid have barely risen in real terms since it was abandoned. The problem is how you use economics. All recent governments have advocated letting the rich get as rich as possible then begging them for scraps. Economics can equally be used to ensure working people get their fair share of the fruits of their labour.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Economics must the most useless and noxious discipline on the planet. There are real improvements in my life and health thanks to the real sciences; I enjoy beauty and pleasure and wisdom created by the arts; I live in a more just society thanks to the humanities. The only purpose of economics seems to be to find more and more ways to make rich people richer.
quote:Correct, social progressives sympathise with anyone who is being exploited. At best they tolerate capitalists who actually pay proper wages.
Originally posted by Russ:
From the comments so far the problem with that seems to be entirely that social progressives sympathize with labourers in a way that they don't sympathize with landlords and bankers. Not sure about governments...
quote:Hang on - weren't you saying that creating a profitable business was something that created wealth all round? And therefore wasn't a zero-sum game that that requires withholding wages and rent and income from the other parties involved.
Originally posted by Russ:
An entrepreneur who is distinct from the labourers may indeed want to pay minimum wages. And minimum rent and minimum interest on a bank loan to capitalise the business and minimum tax. So as to create a profitable business.
quote:And your justification for thinking that's not a straw man is?
Originally posted by Russ:
Redress is believing in a narrative that at last week's party the older children got more than their fair share of cake. And therefore trying to compensate by giving bigger slices of today's cake to the younger children.
quote:Why not? It would seem to fit both the dictionary and legal definitions of the term.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That's not redress.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you split the cake between twelve children and some children get two pieces and some none that's unfair. But apparently you don't think that redressing the injustice by taking one piece of cake from each of the children with two pieces and giving them to the children with none has anything to do with fairness. Why not?
quote:While there's much in what you say, it says more about different economic models than about entrepreneurs.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There are two activities that someone might be thinking of when they talk about an entrepreneur.
One is the entrepreneur who starts up a new business of a similar kind to businesses that already exist. They see that the demand for bread is outstripping the supply of bread and so they start up a new bakery...
Then there's the Schumpeter-entrepreneur who is genuinely innovating. They set up a temporary monopoly on whatever their innovation is and so get a pay off by exploiting the resulting market failure.
quote:That means that one rather has to specify the economic model one's using before one talks about entrepreneurs. As I said, if you confuse the two you start inventing magical entrepreneur powers that give the possessor special rights and privileges.
Originally posted by Russ:
While there's much in what you say, it says more about different economic models than about entrepreneurs.
quote:As I said, the reward for the risk can be calculated as a strictly finite proportion of the sum risked. (Probably it is less than the sum risked unless the entrepreneur was gambling on a business more likely than not to fail.)
You're right to talk about a risk premium - the entrepreneur usually has to stake his own money on the highly uncertain success of a start-up business that applies his ideas. And his reward has to reflect both the risk and the contribution of those ideas.
quote:Rubbish. The entrepeneur usually stakes other people's money* hence when he becomes inevitably bankrupt, he's not actually thrown onto the street.
Originally posted by Russ:
You're right to talk about a risk premium - the entrepreneur usually has to stake his own money on the highly uncertain success of a start-up business that applies his ideas. And his reward has to reflect both the risk and the contribution of those ideas.
quote:No, I'm not assuming no connection between sets. I'm assuming no identity between sets.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:You are making the assumption that there is no connection between the two sets of children.
Originally posted by Russ:
Even though it's a different set of children at today's party.
quote:WTF has that to do with Chris Stiles's response? A while back you denigrated class as an abstract construct and now you are being as abstract as it is possible to be.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No, I'm not assuming no connection between sets. I'm assuming no identity between sets.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:You are making the assumption that there is no connection between the two sets of children.
Originally posted by Russ:
Even though it's a different set of children at today's party.
In other words that a child has a self, an identity, a personhood, that is more than membership of some class which has a collective past experience.
quote:Nevertheless, the child will be affected by the society in which it exists - which will include all the repercussions of the collective past experiences of that group - including other groups adaptive cultural responses to those experiences.
Originally posted by Russ:
In other words that a child has a self, an identity, a personhood, that is more than membership of some class which has a collective past experience.
quote:This is, of course, a uniquely modern, western viewpoint of individuality. Most people around the world, past and present, do define themselves in terms of family, community, clan, etc. Most people around the world who aren't Russ consider their "membership in some class" an integral part of their "self, identity, personhood". Furthermore, those of us who aren't Russ' default white male cannot escape the reality that no matter how uniquely individual we are, our "membership in some class" does determine how many people treat us. I read resumes from all over the world and many of them list parents' names, home villages, ethnicity and religion. Here's an example of how people who aren't Russ introduce themselves:
Originally posted by Russ:
.. In other words that a child has a self, an identity, a personhood, that is more than membership of some class which has a collective past experience.
quote:Elder Larry Grant (pdf)
Elder Larry Grant is of Musqueam and Chinese ancestry. His hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ name is sʔəyəɬəq, and his Cantonese name is Hong Lai Hing. Born on a hop field as a premature baby in Agassiz, B.C., Elder Grant was raised in Musqueam territory. He is the descendant of qiyəplenəxʷ (Capilano) and xʷəlciməltxʷ, Musqueam warriors who welcomed the first English and Spanish explorers to Musqueam territory. He is also the son of Hong Tim Hing, one of many Chinese market gardeners who farmed within the Musqueam community during the early 20th century.
quote:Or as Tolkien more succinctly put it: "Who are you, alone and nameless?"
Nevertheless, the child will be affected by the society in which it exists - which will include all the repercussions of the collective past experiences of that group - including other groups adaptive cultural responses to those experiences.
quote:What an idiot-filled world we live in. Everywhere multinational corporations constantly intrude into other cultures and social settings, and operate. Though it is much more than idiocy, it is a form of neo-colonialism, entrepreneurial exploitation, forcing of values, extinguishing of individuality. I particularly hold out consumer product companies, retailers who can force indigenous businesses out of business, export of cultural products like films and other media, oil companies. We also have idiocy like technological companies who fund their business via lucrative military contracts which provides for unfair advantage and selling things below cost.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No man is an island.
The entrepreneur who thinks he can operate independent of and outside of his own cultural and social setting is an idiot.
quote:This is the presented view of the west, perhaps. But it is not the real viewpoint in the UK or the US. In the UK, one is surrounded by the expressions of class, it is the essence of comedic expression and behavioural expectations. In the US, it is not as tied to birth, but it still exists.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:This is, of course, a uniquely modern, western viewpoint of individuality.
Originally posted by Russ:
.. In other words that a child has a self, an identity, a personhood, that is more than membership of some class which has a collective past experience.
quote:No magic in it. But I'm sure you recognise that the skills and aptitudes needed to run a successful bakery business or widget-making business are different from the skills needed to be a competent baker or widget-maker. And those inputs should also earn their fair reward.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Russ:
[qb] if you confuse the two you start inventing magical entrepreneur powers that give the possessor special rights and privileges.
quote:I thought all businesses were more likely than not to fail. Failure rate for start-ups is about 80% over a five-year period.
Probably it is less than the sum risked unless the entrepreneur was gambling on a business more likely than not to fail.
quote:Don't see how that's necessarily so. Maybe businesses gain market share over the period when they have a temporary advantage and lose market share when competitors have an advantage.
But there's no suggestion even in Schumpeter that the reward for ideas is an ongoing reward. Any benefit to the new enterprise from innovation lasts only until other enterprises can copy the idea.
quote:Given that you're advocating preferential treatment by the state of bakery owners relative to bakery workers, I think the words "fair" and "special" are doing a lot of unpaid overtime in your post there.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No magic in it. But I'm sure you recognise that the skills and aptitudes needed to run a successful bakery business or widget-making business are different from the skills needed to be a competent baker or widget-maker. And those inputs should also earn their fair reward.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
if you confuse the two you start inventing magical entrepreneur powers that give the possessor special rights and privileges.
No special rights.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:That would seem to be the conclusion we could draw from the paper that was recently (and ineptly) "suppressed" by the U.S. Treasury Department. (The original story ran in the Wall Street Journal, but they've got a paywall so I can't provide a meaningful hyperlink.) If there were really no excess profit in the market we'd expect to see a lot more pass-through of changes in corporate taxation than we actually see. You can argue that it's because the model is wrong or that the market isn't truly "competitive", but that's what we see in reality, as opposed to theory. Which is probably why Mnuchin found the paper so offensive.
Originally posted by Russ:
You reminded me upthread that in conventional economic theory, there is no excess profit in a competitive market. At equilibrium, the operating profit is just sufficient to cover the overhead costs. The business makes just enough to pay the going rate for labour, capital, and land inputs (and tax/rates to government and the risk-related going rate of return to the entrepreneur).
And that this competitive equilibrium is more beneficial to society than the situation where any of these inputs is over-compensated due to monopoly power.
Is that not the standard model ?
Are you saying that this model is wrong ? Or that markets aren't competitive enough ?
quote:There is "special rights" when the baking entrepreneur employs a skilled baker on low wages simply because he has access to capital when he himself has no baking skills and when the baker could easily run the business but never gets the chance to.
Originally posted by Russ:
No magic in it. But I'm sure you recognise that the skills and aptitudes needed to run a successful bakery business or widget-making business are different from the skills needed to be a competent baker or widget-maker. And those inputs should also earn their fair reward.
No special rights.
quote:Actually, I'm the one who's distinguishing the role of the entrepreneur as a separate factor of production from capital.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It also seems somewhat disingenuous to lump together such disparate activities as "run[ning] a . . . business" and holding several shares of Super Giant Amalgamated Corporation.
quote:Awarding all the profit to themselves rather than splitting it among all the employees must certainly count as a special right.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No magic in it. But I'm sure you recognise that the skills and aptitudes needed to run a successful bakery business or widget-making business are different from the skills needed to be a competent baker or widget-maker. And those inputs should also earn their fair reward.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
if you confuse the two you start inventing magical entrepreneur powers that give the possessor special rights and privileges.
No special rights.
quote:In that case the person (or persons) risking their capital is entitled to a return of five times their capital (but no more). Assuming of course that they don't get any pay out while the business is running.
I thought all businesses were more likely than not to fail. Failure rate for start-ups is about 80% over a five-year period.
quote:Hang on, you say you want to distinguish between the input of the entrepreneur and the input of capital. Qua entrepreneur the entrepreneur doesn't risk anything. Only capital is being put at risk here. There's no risk related going rate of return to the entrepreneur if you distinguish the entrepreneur from capital.
The business makes just enough to pay the going rate for labour, capital, and land inputs (and tax/rates to government and the risk-related going rate of return to the entrepreneur).
Are you saying that this model is wrong ? Or that markets aren't competitive enough ?
quote:No, that's just wrong. If the bakers had the capital, they wouldn't need an 'entrepreneur'. They'd hire a business manager and make them their employee.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Actually, I'm the one who's distinguishing the role of the entrepreneur as a separate factor of production from capital.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It also seems somewhat disingenuous to lump together such disparate activities as "run[ning] a . . . business" and holding several shares of Super Giant Amalgamated Corporation.
quote:Not true. The capital for a start-up business would normally come from some form of bank loan. The interest on the loan is the return to capital. The entrepreneur is the one who's put up the collateral on the loan - probably his house. He takes the risk.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Qua entrepreneur the entrepreneur doesn't risk anything. Only capital is being put at risk here. There's no risk related going rate of return to the entrepreneur if you distinguish the entrepreneur from capital.
quote:Oh cry me a fucking river - the entrepreneur stands to lose something he's staked against his gamble. His huge fucking house that he lives in whilst his workers struggle to find rental properties that don't have mould on the walls. His Jaguar whilst his workers can't afford cars. All bought off the labour of his workers.
Originally posted by Russ:
Not true. The capital for a start-up business would normally come from some form of bank loan. The interest on the loan is the return to capital. The entrepreneur is the one who's put up the collateral on the loan - probably his house. He takes the risk.
quote:No he doesn't. Utter crap.
Typically, the money he takes home at the end of each week isn't a fixed salary rate times the number of hours he's put in. And isn't a fixed royalty on the innovation - the better mousetrap that he set up the business to manufacture. What he takes home instead is the profit for that week. Which may be zero. His income stream, his return, carries all the risk.
quote:Yeah, ok whatever.
Until the business is established enough when he can sell shares in it and pay off the bank loan, so as to spread the risk to capital.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Equilibrium may be a state that the market heads towards over the long run (modulo other things such as oligopolies developing). But when you get into a business you do so because the market is not at equilibrium - you don't start a business if all you can do is just about cover the cost of your capital.
Originally posted by Russ:
You reminded me upthread that in conventional economic theory, there is no excess profit in a competitive market. At equilibrium, the operating profit is just sufficient to cover the overhead costs.
quote:This may be the case in the real world. However, it is the case in the economic models that economists and the right/centre use to justify the real world. Where starting a business and not starting a business have an equal payoff according to the dominant model of economics the difference between people who start businesses and people who don't will be based solely on temperament.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Equilibrium may be a state that the market heads towards over the long run (modulo other things such as oligopolies developing). But when you get into a business you do so because the market is not at equilibrium - you don't start a business if all you can do is just about cover the cost of your capital.
Originally posted by Russ:
You reminded me upthread that in conventional economic theory, there is no excess profit in a competitive market. At equilibrium, the operating profit is just sufficient to cover the overhead costs.
quote:Property that can be used as security for a loan is capital. The entrepreneur's role in the little economic model that you were sketching was to produce the ideas.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Not true. The capital for a start-up business would normally come from some form of bank loan. The interest on the loan is the return to capital. The entrepreneur is the one who's put up the collateral on the loan - probably his house. He takes the risk.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's no risk related going rate of return to the entrepreneur if you distinguish the entrepreneur from capital.
quote:Jesus Christ, mr cheesy. "His huge fucking house" and "his Jaguar"? Tell me - is he wearing a top hat and a monocle, too?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Oh cry me a fucking river - the entrepreneur stands to lose something he's staked against his gamble. His huge fucking house that he lives in whilst his workers struggle to find rental properties that don't have mould on the walls. His Jaguar whilst his workers can't afford cars. All bought off the labour of his workers.
Originally posted by Russ:
Not true. The capital for a start-up business would normally come from some form of bank loan. The interest on the loan is the return to capital. The entrepreneur is the one who's put up the collateral on the loan - probably his house. He takes the risk.
quote:This includes
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Jesus Christ, mr cheesy. "His huge fucking house" and "his Jaguar"? Tell me - is he wearing a top hat and a monocle, too?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Oh cry me a fucking river - the entrepreneur stands to lose something he's staked against his gamble. His huge fucking house that he lives in whilst his workers struggle to find rental properties that don't have mould on the walls. His Jaguar whilst his workers can't afford cars. All bought off the labour of his workers.
Originally posted by Russ:
Not true. The capital for a start-up business would normally come from some form of bank loan. The interest on the loan is the return to capital. The entrepreneur is the one who's put up the collateral on the loan - probably his house. He takes the risk.
According to the US Census Bureau the top sources of startup capital in 2012 were:
(Numbers are percentages of respondent firms citing an item as a source of capital.)
- 57% - Personal savings
- 8% - Personal credit card
- 8% - Bank loan
- 6% - Other personal assets
- 3% - Home equity
- 2% - Business credit card
- 25% - No startup capital
quote:The statistics do not tell the complete story. No employees would include businesses such as gran selling her knitting on Etsy and loads of other, single-person businesses.
firms with paid employees and firms with no paid employees.
quote:What these figures show is that while someone (I'm not going to call them an 'entrepreneur') starts up a business selling services/widgets, almost no one whatsoever puts their house on the line.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Jesus Christ, mr cheesy. "His huge fucking house" and "his Jaguar"? Tell me - is he wearing a top hat and a monocle, too?
According to the US Census Bureau the top sources of startup capital in 2012 were:
(Numbers are percentages of respondent firms citing an item as a source of capital.)
- 57% - Personal savings
- 8% - Personal credit card
- 8% - Bank loan
- 6% - Other personal assets
- 3% - Home equity
- 2% - Business credit card
- 25% - No startup capital
quote:It technically goes up as a % of firms for the first employed person, but that is because the no-capital needed drops faster (leaving it at 65%). Only 1/5 of the firms actually employed anyone.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The statistics do not tell the complete story. No employees would include businesses such as gran selling her knitting on Etsy and loads of other, single-person businesses.
My guess would be that the larger enterprise, the lower the personal savings %. [/QB]
quote:These are two slightly different things. It is true that owners and directors of limited liability companies are protected against personal losses. Which means that those who find that they're unsecured creditors against the company that is insolvent (usually suppliers etc) might find it really hard to get anything back and usually have no way to push the liability on to the directors personally. In those situations they might find that they're a long way down the list of importance for those clearing up the affairs and get nothing at all even whilst the directors continue to live in their fancy houses.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What these figures show is that while someone (I'm not going to call them an 'entrepreneur') starts up a business selling services/widgets, almost no one whatsoever puts their house on the line.
Because they'd be fucking idiots to do so. That's why we have the notion of 'limited company', so that when it all goes tits-up, the business owner is only liable to debts up to the level of the assets of the business, not the coat off their back.
quote:Yes, but it's not recompensed by interest or dividends (the usual return to capital) it's recompensed from the entrepreneur's profit.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Property that can be used as security for a loan is capital.
quote:More than that. If two blokes are chatting down the pub, and one of them comes up with a business idea (square wheels, coloured milk, whatever) and the other one goes ahead and starts up a business to produce the square wheels or the coloured milk or whatever, then he's contributed something more than an idea. "Initiative" is the best description I've found so far.
The entrepreneur's role in the little economic model that you were sketching was to produce the ideas.
quote:I think you're right that this is at the heart of the social-progressive belief on this topic.
you were wanting to argue that the employees might fairly be credited with creating only the minimum market rate for their labour. I'm arguing that that is not fair by any intuitive or non-economic definition.
quote:Very few people sell produce from their allotments. First because the lease agreement expressly prohibits it and secondly because there is a prevailing culture of giving away excess produce.
Originally posted by Russ:
Paying the "going rate" for labour (as well as for land and capital) seems in one sense fair. If you were selling to your neighbours surplus veg from your allotment, for example, I think the going rate would be your yardstick of what's a fair price to ask.
quote:There still seems to be a huge, unstated leap between this and your assertion that any income derived this way deserves preferential tax treatment from the state. Why does a man running a bakery deserve a lower tax rate than his assistant who derives his income performing the same tasks? Yes, if the bakery fails the head baker loses his source of income, whereas the assistant baker will . . . also lose his source of income?
Originally posted by Russ:
Typically, the money [an entrepreneur] takes home at the end of each week isn't a fixed salary rate times the number of hours he's put in. And isn't a fixed royalty on the innovation - the better mousetrap that he set up the business to manufacture. What he takes home instead is the profit for that week. Which may be zero. His income stream, his return, carries all the risk.
There seem to be several missing steps of reasoning here.quote:And who exactly would this economic equivalent of "the view from nowhere" be? Someone who is neither employer, nor employed, nor in any way a participant in the economy?
Originally posted by Russ:
I guess I'm trying to contrast someone who has a view as to what a fair price is (and can therefore impartially conclude that this price is too low and that price is too high). With someone who has only a sympathy, a partiality, a prejudice in favour of one particular group and therefore concludes that their return is always too low.
quote:Sounds a bit like a Rawlian veil of ignorance whereby in an ideal world prices would be impartially assessed.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And who exactly would this economic equivalent of "the view from nowhere" be? Someone who is neither employer, nor employed, nor in any way a participant in the economy?
quote:That may be how it is. But you were asking what is fair.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes, but it's not recompensed by interest or dividends (the usual return to capital) it's recompensed from the entrepreneur's profit.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Property that can be used as security for a loan is capital.
quote:You have been rather casting around for what the other bloke contributes. You've said it's initiative, but then you said he should be compensated for the risk and the contribution of his ideas.
quote:More than that. If two blokes are chatting down the pub, and one of them comes up with a business idea (square wheels, coloured milk, whatever) and the other one goes ahead and starts up a business to produce the square wheels or the coloured milk or whatever, then he's contributed something more than an idea. "Initiative" is the best description I've found so far.
The entrepreneur's role in the little economic model that you were sketching was to produce the ideas.
quote:So you're looking at this from the viewpoint of the business owner who is doing the paying. Rather than looking at the matter impartially, you're operating out of a prejudice and partiality towards the business owner. Which is why you keep changing your mind about whether the business owner is being compensated for initiative, or risk, or ideas; they're all rationalisations for a pre-existing prejudice in the business owner's favour.
Paying the "going rate" for labour (as well as for land and capital) seems in one sense fair. If you were selling to your neighbours surplus veg from your allotment, for example, I think the going rate would be your yardstick of what's a fair price to ask.
And economic theory - such as it is - suggests that in a competitive market, a business that pays less than the going rate for labour will not succeed in attracting the quality of staff it needs, while a business that pays more will lose out in price competition with rival firms.
quote:There's nothing so unclear to you as a notion that runs against your prejudices.
And without a clear notion as to what the right rate should be.
quote:Seems to me that the idea of a 'right rate' is made from the position of someone offering a rate. And therefore is made from a position of partiality. As you admit that you're contrasting a social progressive viewpoint that has a view about what would be fair, with your own viewpoint which comes out of sympathy, partiality and prejudice in favour of the business owner and therefore concludes that any finite share of the profits is too low.
Because the notion of a "right rate" implies that more than this is too high. And saying that wages could conceivably be too high is non-pc, is off-message. Because the doctrine is that workers are the underdogs who deserve more.
quote:Aren't dividends or interest also paid out of profits? I'm not seeing how you make a clear distinction here.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes, but it's not recompensed by interest or dividends (the usual return to capital) it's recompensed from the entrepreneur's profit.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Property that can be used as security for a loan is capital.
quote:I am not an accountant, but I don't think there is a distinction here either - dividends are paid to business owners if the business makes a profit. If someone is being paid whether or not the business makes a profit, that's a salary not a dividend.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Aren't dividends or interest also paid out of profits? I'm not seeing how you make a clear distinction here.
quote:All of the above. The typical entrepreneur contributes so much...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You have been rather casting around for what the other bloke contributes. You've said it's initiative, but then you said he should be compensated for the risk and the contribution of his ideas.
quote:Rubbish. The going rate is observable by non-participants. And not a few statisticians spend their time collecting and analysing such data.
Seems to me that the idea of a 'right rate' is made from the position of someone offering a rate. And therefore is made from a position of partiality.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
No magic in it. But I'm sure you recognise that the skills and aptitudes needed to run a successful bakery business or widget-making business are different from the skills needed to be a competent baker or widget-maker. And those inputs should also earn their fair reward.
quote:Or possibly even a "fair" rate. Seriously, do you not realize we can read your past posts? That one's not even on a different page yet! There doesn't really seem to be a "philosophical basis" to argue that investors deserve a "fair reward" but that labor should be compensated without any assessment of fairness.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Rubbish. The going rate is observable by non-participants. And not a few statisticians spend their time collecting and analysing such data.
Seems to me that the idea of a 'right rate' is made from the position of someone offering a rate. And therefore is made from a position of partiality.
I can only repeat that your problem is that you want to assert that there is a "right rate" or "just rate" for labour that is higher than the going rate. But don't have any philosophical basis on which to do so.
quote:Including labour. But you didn't want to think that the typical entrepreneur contributed labour. You wanted to distinguish the entrepreneur's contribution from any contribution by labour, because you thought that 'muddled things'.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:All of the above. The typical entrepreneur contributes so much...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You have been rather casting around for what the other bloke contributes. You've said it's initiative, but then you said he should be compensated for the risk and the contribution of his ideas.
quote:But you don't seem to have a philosophial basis for saying what the return on collateral or intellectual property should be.
If the collateral were provided by someone else, then they should receive some recompense for that. If the ideas are provided by someone else, then some royalty on intellectual property would be appropriate.
All the contributors deserve some recompense.
quote:You asserted that there was such a thing a fair wage for a fair day's work. Now you're trying to say that there's no such thing.
But I see no justification for the bank, having agreed the terms of the loan, to assert a moral claim to an additional share of any profit. And if that's true for capital, why is not true for land and for labour ?
quote:Not at all.
quote:Rubbish.
Seems to me that the idea of a 'right rate' is made from the position of someone offering a rate. And therefore is made from a position of partiality.
quote:I don't see why you think non-participants can't be partial or prejudiced. You don't think progressives are impartial because they're non-participants.
The going rate is observable by non-participants.
quote:Quite the opposite actually. You wanted to assert that social-progressives wanted employees to earn more than was fair. But ever since I suggested that fairness might be an appropriate share of the proceeds, you're busy disavowing the notion of fairness. You're happy to invoke the concept of fairness when it suits the employer. But not to invoke it when it suits the employee.
I can only repeat that your problem is what you want to assert that there is a "right rate" or "just rate" for labour that is higher than the going rate. But don't have any philosophical basis on which to do so.
quote:Watch the goal posts slide around faster than deck chairs on the Titanic.
Originally posted by Russ:
The going rate is observable by non-participants. And not a few statisticians spend their time collecting and analysing such data.
quote:What I'm suggesting to you is first that we all have some notion of "fairness". That of course we want to see applied to all the contributors to the business.
Originally posted by Croesos
There doesn't really seem to be a "philosophical basis" to argue that investors deserve a "fair reward" but that labor should be compensated without any assessment of fairness.
quote:I thought we'd covered that. The suggestion is not that any person gets preferential treatment. But that a man might reasonably expect to pay less tax on the income that his capital earns than on the income that he earns. Because:
And I'm still waiting for your explanation for why property owners should receive preferential tax treatment from the state relative to laborers.
quote:Sorry, but fair does not necessarily mean "the going rate". What if the vineyard owners collude to set "the going rate"? Would that be fair?
Originally posted by Russ:
... But then when you think about what "fair" means, it means something like "the going rate". ...
quote:Not at all. My limited understanding of economics is that anti-competitive practices make society as a whole worse off.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I expect you're going to tell us that it's fair for the vineyard owners to pay whatever they want and it's terribly unfair for greedy, selfish, ordinary, non-entrepreneurial workers to organise to demand more from the vineyard owners who are brilliant entrepreneurs entitled to make as much money as possible by whatever means possible ...
quote:So if anti-competitive practices have set the going rate, which is on your account fair, you would force them away from the fair going rate to make society better in your view?
Originally posted by Russ:
My limited understanding of economics is that anti-competitive practices make society as a whole worse off.
quote:And therefore you're not partisan yourself. You perceive that you're not partisan, and because you're not partisan you know that your perception must be accurate?
I'm the one deploring the sort of partisan approach that says it's OK if the good guys (our guys) do it and not if the bad guys (their guys) do it.
quote:Am I? Where?
Dafyd is answering the charge of partiality by a counter-accusation that I'm just as partisan as he is.
quote:No. Pretty sure that's not what 'fair' means. That would be a basic confusion of 'is' with 'ought'.
Originally posted by Russ:
But then when you think about what "fair" means, it means something like "the going rate".
quote:The thing is that the business owner is not being paid the going rate though, are they? They're singling themselves out for special treatment.
If you're paid the going rate then you're not being singled out for special treatment (either specially good or specially bad).
quote:To the extent that labour has to "make ends meet", that's an argument for labour to be recompensed by a fixed wage paid promptly, rather than by a share of the proceeds that are uncertain and arise at some later point in time.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
typically labour does have to make ends meet and therefore is under duress...
...
I've repeatedly suggested philosophical bases for the appropriate returns for capital and labour, namely the money loaned multiplied by the risk, and a share of the proceeds.
quote:If your position is that there is a specific anti-competitive practice which is having the effect of depressing wages, then it seems to me that you have a theory and not just a prejudice, a philosophical basis and not just a sympathy.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So if anti-competitive practices have set the going rate, which is on your account fair, you would force them away from the fair going rate to make society better in your view?
quote:What you're saying is that labour has to accept a 'going rate' now, rather than hold out for a fair share later on. Whereas the business owner gets both the 'going rate' and all of the shares.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:To the extent that labour has to "make ends meet", that's an argument for labour to be recompensed by a fixed wage paid promptly, rather than by a share of the proceeds that are uncertain and arise at some later point in time.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
typically labour does have to make ends meet and therefore is under duress...
...
I've repeatedly suggested philosophical bases for the appropriate returns for capital and labour, namely the money loaned multiplied by the risk, and a share of the proceeds.
quote:They're not in a position to choose. The owner of the vineyard, who is in a position to choose, chooses the share of the profit.
The workers in the vineyard want a daily wage rather than a share of the profit realised by selling the wine.
quote:The simple calculation suggested what the premium for risk was. Now you're saying that the premium ought to be higher than the simple calculation? Do the workers not get a premium for risk (given that if the business goes bust they won't get paid)?
As for capital, if you want me to invest my savings in your business, then you have to offer the going rate of return for a safe investment (e.g. bank deposit) plus a premium for risk, rather than the simple calculation you suggest.
quote:That's confused. A theory or philosophy covers general practices; whether any specific practice is or isn't anti-competitive is a matter of pragmatic judgement not of theory or philosophy. Seems to me that you're trying to reserve the word 'philosophy' for political positions you side with rather than argue in any principled fashion.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:If your position is that there is a specific anti-competitive practice which is having the effect of depressing wages, then it seems to me that you have a theory and not just a prejudice, a philosophical basis and not just a sympathy.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So if anti-competitive practices have set the going rate, which is on your account fair, you would force them away from the fair going rate to make society better in your view?
quote:The going rate is the going rate under the present system. If the market isn't competitive there's no such thing as the going rate in a competitive market. The going rate is dependent upon too many variables.
You'd then be using the going rate in a competitive market as your yardstick for asserting that current wages are too low.
quote:I'm saying that in the simplest model, labour gets a fixed wage, capital gets a fixed rate of interest, land gets a fixed rent, government gets a fixed tax (such as business rates) and the business owner draws no fixed return but gets all of the uncertain profit.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What you're saying is that labour has to accept a 'going rate' now, rather than hold out for a fair share later on. Whereas the business owner gets both the 'going rate' and all of the shares.
quote:The business going bust is bad news for everyone. Labour may not get wages for the week/month in which that happens. Land may not get rent for that week/month but will still own the freehold. Government may get no rates for that week/month. And capital will not only not receive interest but may well not get back the amount loaned.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The simple calculation suggested what the premium for risk was. Now you're saying that the premium ought to be higher than the simple calculation? Do the workers not get a premium for risk (given that if the business goes bust they won't get paid)?
quote:The going rate is only fair on the assumption of a competitive market. Nobody thinks that anything and everything a monopolist can get away with is fair.
You haven't answered my question:
So if anti-competitive practices have set the going rate, which is on your account fair, you would force them away from the fair going rate to make society better in your view?
quote:So it's "unfair" if investors receive different returns on different investments? Socialism for the investor class!
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:What I'm suggesting to you is first that we all have some notion of "fairness". That of course we want to see applied to all the contributors to the business.
Originally posted by Croesos
There doesn't really seem to be a "philosophical basis" to argue that investors deserve a "fair reward" but that labor should be compensated without any assessment of fairness.
But then when you think about what "fair" means, it means something like "the going rate". So that if you employ a dozen people to pick grapes in your vineyard, then the expectation is that they all get paid the same (whether that's the same rate per hour or the same rate per tonne of grapes picked) unless there's some good reason why not.
If you're paid the going rate then you're not being singled out for special treatment (either specially good or specially bad).
quote:There seem to be two really big fallacies at work here. The first is that taxation is (or at least should be) proportional to government services "consumed". No tax system I'm aware of functions in this way. Most are proportional to income, both as a general yardstick of fairness and for purely pragmatic reasons.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I thought we'd covered that. The suggestion is not that any person gets preferential treatment. But that a man might reasonably expect to pay less tax on the income that his capital earns than on the income that he earns [through labor]. Because:
And I'm still waiting for your explanation for why property owners should receive preferential tax treatment from the state relative to laborers.
a) the additional government services that he consumes by lending his capital at interest are minor compared with the government services he consumes anyway (with his capital under the mattress). Regulation of the money market being but a tiny fraction of the cost of running a successful State.
quote:Interestingly that "double jeopardy" seems to involve one and only one kind of income. For some reason a worker receiving wages from a company that has already been taxed doesn't count as "double jeopardy". When that worker hires a landscaping company to mow his lawn he's paying for that service out of his after-tax income, but the landscaper still has to pay tax on the money received despite it being already taxed when it was paid to the worker who hired him.
Originally posted by Russ:
b) his capital has been saved from after-tax income, so that to tax what he does with it after that is a form of double jeopardy.
quote:Again, not necessarily. Not all capital is retirement savings, and not all retirement savings are income-generating capital. You're trying to extrapolate from a very specific instance (government should encourage everyone to save for retirement) to a general case which is not at all the same thing (therefore any form of income derived from owning stuff should receive preferential tax treatment, relative to income derived from actually working).
Originally posted by Russ:
c) his capital is his pension fund and that saving and investing in this way is something government should encourage everyone to do.
quote:I'm not sure pointing out that giving coin-flip odds of losing everything is a bad investment constitutes any great insight.
Originally posted by Russ:
Suppose that over a certain period of time the bank could get a 10% return on capital by depositing with another bank. And that over the same period there's a 50% chance of the business going bust and the bank not getting anything back.
quote:Why is the competitiveness of all markets a reasonable default assumption to make? It seems to be the one you're implicitly claiming, but I see no particular reason to assume it to be the case.
Originally posted by Russ:
The going rate is only fair on the assumption of a competitive market. Nobody thinks that anything and everything a monopolist can get away with is fair.
quote:And, of course, a government wishing to encourage saving for retirement can create any number of tax-advantaged retirement plan vehicles to do so. And that way, if it wants to encourage you to save up to a certain level, it can do so.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again, not necessarily. Not all capital is retirement savings, and not all retirement savings are income-generating capital.
quote:Only if your income is high enough to enable you to save.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
a government wishing to encourage saving for retirement can create any number of tax-advantaged retirement plan vehicles to do so. And that way, if it wants to encourage you to save up to a certain level, it can do so.
quote:Russ is conflating two different things, income derived from specific activities (labor vs. investment) and income devoted to specific purposes (current expenses vs. retirement savings). Since I've pointed this out before I can only assume that this rhetorical sleight of hand is deliberate on his part. Russ seems to be arguing that since investment income is sometimes used for retirement, it should receive privileged tax treatment regardless of whether it is actually used for that purpose (e.g. you deserve a favorable tax rate even if you're spending the money you made on credit default swaps on hookers and blow).
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:And, of course, a government wishing to encourage saving for retirement can create any number of tax-advantaged retirement plan vehicles to do so. And that way, if it wants to encourage you to save up to a certain level, it can do so.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again, not necessarily. Not all capital is retirement savings, and not all retirement savings are income-generating capital.
quote:Ironically, prostitution and illicit drugs are notoriously difficult to tax.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
hookers and blow
quote:So far you're following my logic.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:The business going bust is bad news for everyone. Labour may not get wages for the week/month in which that happens. Land may not get rent for that week/month but will still own the freehold. Government may get no rates for that week/month. And capital will not only not receive interest but may well not get back the amount loaned.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The simple calculation suggested what the premium for risk was. Now you're saying that the premium ought to be higher than the simple calculation? Do the workers not get a premium for risk (given that if the business goes bust they won't get paid)?
Suppose that over a certain period of time the bank could get a 10% return on capital by depositing with another bank. And that over the same period there's a 50% chance of the business going bust and the bank not getting anything back.
To get an expected payback of 110% of the principal (i.e. return of the principal and 10% interest) the business has to offer an average payback if it survives of 220% (return of capital plus 120% interest).
quote:So you're advocating a lower level of interest for investors that are more wealthy? And a higher level for less wealthy investors?
And only the largest investors with the deepest pockets will be indifferent between those two outcomes with the same expected return. A small investor - such as someone investing their pension - can be expected to be at least partly risk-averse.
It is the extra - some value above and beyond the 120% - that would be just enough to make a risk-averse investor indifferent between investing in the business and leaving the money safe in a deposit account - that constitutes the premium for risk.
quote:You're eliding a competitive market and an absence of specific anti-compettive practices. There are more ways in which a market can be non-competitive than merely specific anti-competitive practices.
The going rate is only fair on the assumption of a competitive market. Nobody thinks that anything and everything a monopolist can get away with is fair.
Which is why I could be persuaded that any particular going rate under the present system is unfairly high or low. But only if you can point to a specific anti-competitive practice.
quote:And there are certain markets that no rational actor would consider withdrawing from: food, water, housing, medical care ...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... In addition for a market to be genuinely competitive all parties must have the option of withdrawing from the market if the price is too high/low.
As noted, the fact that people typically need jobs more urgently than the employer needs the labour, means that labour does not have the option of withdrawing from the market. Therefore the market is not truly competitive.
quote:In the case of food and water, the effect is mitigated. Most of us given the chance consume more than we need to avoid starvation. So we're able to withdraw from the market for the extra food and water. That means the price for food and water is generally fairly affordable.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:And there are certain markets that no rational actor would consider withdrawing from: food, water, housing, medical care ...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... In addition for a market to be genuinely competitive all parties must have the option of withdrawing from the market if the price is too high/low.
quote:"Free" is a good philosophical starting point, from where you can explore what freedoms you need to remove and why.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Free market is like anarchy: Only the truly crazy want the real thing, but there is benefit in marketing the concept to the ignorant.
quote:I think the logic is that a high-risk business (and what start-up isn't ?) Would have to pay a higher rate of interest in order to attract finance from small investors, yes.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So you're advocating a lower level of interest for investors that are more wealthy? And a higher level for less wealthy investors?
quote:Yes, risk premium applies to labour also. If people with the skills you need can get a job with the local authority at a lower salary but with a high level of job security, you may have to offer a premium to entice them to work for your high-risk start-up company.
if the risk premium applies because some people don't have as deep pockets as others, the risk premium should really apply to labour, who on the simple model don't have any depth in their pockets at all. If they don't earn money they have to dig into their savings/ property / starve. Clearly therefore the risk premium for labour should be even larger than it is for investors.
quote:No, I don't think that's true. If government passes a law saying that everyone has to have exactly one widget, then that makes the demand curve horizontal (or vertical, depending which way you plot it). It doesn't alter the supply curve - businesses can still compete to provide the requisite number of widgets.
In addition for a market to be genuinely competitive all parties must have the option of withdrawing from the market if the price is too high/low.
quote:Your caveat would seem to make your basic proposition of dubious utility, at best. The obvious corollary of your suggestion is that if a market is not competitive, then no transaction can be considered "fair". While I can admire the purity of that statement, it would seem to be an almost useless standard for a lot of economic situations.
Originally posted by Russ:
I think that the difference between us relates to the ethical proposition that an individual is treating another person fairly if they agree to trade at the going rate.
Seems like you disagree with that proposition. Without wishing to commit to any very clear alternative notion of what a fair rate would be.
And thus I'm - rightly or wrongly - suspecting you of being a partisan who would approve any notion provided it confirms your prejudice that recompense for labour should be higher.
I've suggested that the proposition is only conditionally true, with the condition being to do with a competitive market.
Not a free market, because there's no guarantee that an unconstrained market doesn't end up as monopoly.
quote:That's because I don't think there is any such thing as a fair rate, at least not under the present economic arrangements.
Originally posted by Russ:
I think that the difference between us relates to the ethical proposition that an individual is treating another person fairly if they agree to trade at the going rate.
Seems like you disagree with that proposition. Without wishing to commit to any very clear alternative notion of what a fair rate would be.
quote:You do go on about other people's partisan sympathies don't you? A bit like Trump talking about fake news every time he's caught out in a lie?
And thus I'm - rightly or wrongly - suspecting you of being a partisan who would approve any notion provided it confirms your prejudice that recompense for labour should be higher.
quote:That would only be the case in a market with full employment. So you'd think wages and salaries ought to be lower in markets with full employment, because employers wouldn't have to pay the risk premium.
That doesn't mean a higher risk premium than investors, because the worker can get another job more easily than the investor can acquire capital to replace what he has lost.
quote:If you view the business as a collective enterprise creating wealth then that would be fair. It's not how businesses are run in our economic system, which makes the word 'fair' of dubious application. Certainly there's no grounds for arguing that progressives want workers paid more than is fair.
At one point I thought you were putting forward the idea that fairness is paying the entrepreneur a fixed going-rate salary and then dividing the excess profit between all the contributors in some way.
quote:Hang on a moment. I thought you said that the contribution of the entrepreneur was the initiative (which needn't be innovative or create a temporary monopoly) rather than the ideas/innovation. Perhaps you should get your position on entrepreneurs straight before you start ascribing a partisan position to other people?
But you seem to agree that in a competitive market there's no excess profit. Unless it's a temporary-monopoly profit due to innovation. Which is the contribution og the entrepreneur...
quote:Any move to reduce the price of widgets in a competitive market will require a consequent overproduction of widgets which will not sell. (The business that cuts their prices will have to order in more widgets in order to sell them at the reduced price to maintain their profit level; the other businesses won't have cut their widget production accordingly.) This will increase the production cost of each individual widget, making cutting the price of widgets less rewarding than it might initially appear. Each business has to factor in the cost of having unsold widgets on their hands when their competitors also lower prices. Thus, the equilibrium rate will stay above the optimal point by at least the cost of the excess production needed to lower it.
quote:No, I don't think that's true. If government passes a law saying that everyone has to have exactly one widget, then that makes the demand curve horizontal (or vertical, depending which way you plot it). It doesn't alter the supply curve - businesses can still compete to provide the requisite number of widgets.
In addition for a market to be genuinely competitive all parties must have the option of withdrawing from the market if the price is too high/low.
quote:You mean that there isn't a rate that would be fair ? That the whole notion of a man selling his labour is wrong ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't think there is any such thing as a fair rate, at least not under the present economic arrangements.
quote:You could take the view that if two people agree to trade at all then they should stand by that agreement, end of story. That anything you can agree is necessarily therefore a fair price, that there's no such thing as exploitation.
If two people agree to trade at all, then by definition the rate at which they trade is the going rate. And therefore it is meaningless to say it is greater or less than the fair rate.
However, you don't want to say that. You want to use the word 'fair' to claim the moral high ground for your position, although it empties the word of any meaning.
quote:Not so - I'm perfectly prepared to listen to any diagnosis you put forward that explains what anti-competitive practices or natural monopolies exist in particular industries and how these lead to lower wages than would apply in a competitive market. So far that argument seems to amount to "some firms are reporting profits".
But you don't seem to be willing to accept that any features of any existing markets make them any less than competitive.
quote:People who have a prejudice justify that prejudice with the words "it's obvious". If you see an "obvious" specific wrong affecting those you sympathize with and want to put it right, but can't put forward any general principle that applies equally to those you don't sympathize with, it's not very convincing to those who don't share your sympathies.
I'd say most modern progressivists are. That is, we'd share Burke's belief that you have to react to specific wrongs rather than trying to measure them against some predetermined theory of what is and isn't wrong.
quote:Whereas if you view a small business as the creation of an enterprising individual who contracts with others to provide labour, capital & land at agreed prices...
If you view the business as a collective enterprise creating wealth then that would be fair.
quote:So how is that enterprising individual any different from, say, the CEO of a corporation which contracts with others for labour, capital and land at agreed prices and gets a handsome salary and stock options? They're both doing the same work, just at a different scale. Or how about an enterprising individual who buys an existing small business? Is s/he an entrepreneur or not?
Originally posted by Russ:
... Whereas if you view a small business as the creation of an enterprising individual who contracts with others to provide labour, capital & land at agreed prices...
quote:From personal experience, a lot. A CEO isn't in business, a CEO is a tool of a large entity, doesn't risk her or his own money, doesn't take risks which jeopardize family and basic life. Small business people starting out have to put themselves on the line, like take loans out against their home, risk losing everything financial, and they work in terror that it will all be for naught. May I say in definite terms: no-one understands small business until you have to make a payroll and you do it out of your personal funds because people who owe you haven't paid their bills, and you wonder if they ever will. CEOs do not have this. Ever.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So how is that enterprising individual any different from, say, the CEO of a corporation which contracts with others for labour, capital and land at agreed prices and gets a handsome salary and stock options?
quote:This is only true if you compare quantities of money. Nothing is the same when the business is small, you know everyone, and feel responsible for them, to pay them, so their lives can go on normally. One is intensely personal because it has to be, the other, not except if people desire to.
Soror Magna:
They're both doing the same work, just at a different scale.
quote:This person may be the same as a small business person if they buy an existing business and take the personal risks in buying. If someone buys a business and it's just an acquisition for them, with none of the fire created because of the intense stress and risks involved, they start to resemble the large business, where CEOs are hired guns and no-one has a personal stake in it.
Soror Magna:
Or how about an enterprising individual who buys an existing small business? Is s/he an entrepreneur or not?
quote:And BTW, it is obvious you haven't any experience with running a small business because your statement at the start of this paragraph demonstrates it. That small businesses incorporate does not not make them similar to large corporations except that the words used are similar. Entirely, utterly different, except perhaps in the minds of those who haven't experience.
Soror Magna:
And BTW, "s/he's risking their own money" is not the correct answer. Neither is "one is a corporation, the other is a person", since corporations are people and small businesses also incorporate.
quote:I mean the question isn't applicable. The going rate is clearly not determined by moral considerations - it is the outcome of a number of self-interested actors pursuing their reasonable self-interest; therefore, you cannot assert than any particular rate is sanctioned by the weight of morality.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You mean that there isn't a rate that would be fair ? That the whole notion of a man selling his labour is wrong ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't think there is any such thing as a fair rate, at least not under the present economic arrangements.
quote:Interesting. How do you think the going rate ever changes? Since you think it's morally wrong to deviate from it?
quote:You could take the view that if two people agree to trade at all then they should stand by that agreement, end of story. That anything you can agree is necessarily therefore a fair price, that there's no such thing as exploitation.
If two people agree to trade at all, then by definition the rate at which they trade is the going rate. And therefore it is meaningless to say it is greater or less than the fair rate.
However, you don't want to say that. You want to use the word 'fair' to claim the moral high ground for your position, although it empties the word of any meaning.
I don't take that view. I think there is such a thing as abuse of monopoly power (local or otherwise ). I see economic theory as giving some sort of equilibrium-based explanation of where prices come from. And see deliberately paying less than that medium-term going rate - because one knows that the particular individual has no other short-term option - as an abusive act. I take it that that's what people mean by "exploitation".
quote:That's circular, isn't it? Because you can only know if something isn't fair if you have experience of it being fair; and you can only have experience of something being fair if it actually happens.
But I'm also suggesting that there is no other source of data on what a "fair price" is other than that experience of a properly-functioning market. (In which, for example you have to pay more for scarce skills than for capabilities that everybody has).
quote:QED
quote:Not so - I'm perfectly prepared to listen to any diagnosis you put forward that explains what anti-competitive practices or natural monopolies exist in particular industries and how these lead to lower wages than would apply in a competitive market.
But you don't seem to be willing to accept that any features of any existing markets make them any less than competitive.
I'm not seeing any evidence for that. So far that argument seems to amount to "some firms are reporting profits".
quote:Are you saying you don't share those sympathies? That there's a class of people with whom you won't sympathise?
quote:People who have a prejudice justify that prejudice with the words "it's obvious". If you see an "obvious" specific wrong affecting those you sympathize with and want to put it right, but can't put forward any general principle that applies equally to those you don't sympathize with, it's not very convincing to those who don't share your sympathies.
I'd say most modern progressivists are. That is, we'd share Burke's belief that you have to react to specific wrongs rather than trying to measure them against some predetermined theory of what is and isn't wrong.
quote:Then you're comparing apples and oranges.
quote:Whereas if you view a small business as the creation of an enterprising individual who contracts with others to provide labour, capital & land at agreed prices...
If you view the business as a collective enterprise creating wealth then that would be fair.
quote:CEO is a title and people with that title can have many different levels of personal investment and risk.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
A CEO isn't in business, a CEO is a tool of a large entity, doesn't risk her or his own money, doesn't take risks which jeopardize family and basic life.
quote:Some small businesses start this way. Some are inherited, some are started using mum and dad's money, some start out as hobbies or side hustles and evolve into a full-time business... There is no one model and, I think, that was Soror Magna's basic idea. Russ appear to be using the mythical interpretation of small business to push views that are more suited to the interestes of large corporations.
Small business people starting out have to put themselves on the line, like take loans out against their home, risk losing everything financial, and they work in terror that it will all be for naught.
quote:I think it more accurate that no one fully understands unless they have lived it. But I will reiterate: this is only one small business experience.
May I say in definite terms: no-one understands small business until you have to make a payroll and you do it out of your personal funds because people who owe you haven't paid their bills, and you wonder if they ever will.
quote:Pretty damn sure this is not true. The majority of CEOs, yes. All of them? Nope.
CEOs do not have this. Ever.
quote:Small business is a category defined by scope. Typically number of employees and £/$ turnover.* Not by risk factor or philosophy.
quote:This person may be the same as a small business person if they buy an existing business and take the personal risks in buying.
Soror Magna:
Or how about an enterprising individual who buys an existing small business? Is s/he an entrepreneur or not?
quote:And this is part of the problem.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We define usually "small business" here as less than 10 employees when we talk about it,
quote:If I hire you I pay you an hourly rate, submit tax on your wages every 2 weeks, pay workers compensation premiums on payroll in case you're injuried, pay out of work insurance premiums, and here Canada pension plan premiums. I also supply the building materials, tools, truck to haul everything to job sites, rent the hoists, lifts and cranes etc used in construction.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So a carpenter who hires himself out to a homeowner is an "entrepreneur" and deserves special treatment from the state, but a carpenter who hires himself out to another carpenter belongs to an inferior class and should have his earnings taxed at a higher rate than the "entrepreneurial" carpenter? That would seem to require a more detailed explanation than any that's been offered so far.
quote:Who said anything like this?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It stereotyping to think business people want and enjoy exploiting others. Offensive to those of us who provide good employment, good wages, take an active interest in the community. I have seen no data which indicates either assholes decide to go into business or business turns people into assholes.
quote:So in your view low pay isn't a moral issue and there's no such thing as exploitation ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I mean the question isn't applicable. The going rate is clearly not determined by moral considerations - it is the outcome of a number of self-interested actors pursuing their reasonable self-interest; therefore, you cannot assert than any particular rate is sanctioned by the weight of morality.
quote:The obvious example is technology. With self-driving cars being prototyped, the prospects for the wage rate of taxi drivers aren't good.
How do you think the going rate ever changes?
quote:It may be prudent to price her bread at a level which doesn't immediately suggest that more competition would be a good idea...
Say there's only one baker in the village. Is the baker obliged to work out whether she's charging more for her bread than she would be able to had the village room for two bakers? How could she possibly work that out?
quote:If people make decisions on sympathy rather than reason, then engaging their sympathies seems logical. Who's going to sympathize with Universal Megacorp ?
But what about large businesses? Why talk about small businesses all the time? It's as if you want to engage people's sympathies. Rather than discussing general principles.
quote:Baloney. It's an attempt to transfer neighbourly sympathies to entities that are most definitely not neighbours and rarely, if ever, behave as neighbours should.
Originally posted by Russ:
... If people make decisions on sympathy rather than reason, then engaging their sympathies seems logical. Who's going to sympathize with Universal Megacorp ?
Considering the case when the employer is your neighbour and the employee is also your neighbour - the human-scale business - is an attenpt to bypass differential sympathies and focus on general principles....
quote:I think inequality is a moral issue. And I think hardship and deprivation are moral issues. I don't fetishise any particular rate of pay as such.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:So in your view low pay isn't a moral issue and there's no such thing as exploitation ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I mean the question isn't applicable. The going rate is clearly not determined by moral considerations - it is the outcome of a number of self-interested actors pursuing their reasonable self-interest; therefore, you cannot assert than any particular rate is sanctioned by the weight of morality.
quote:How do you set the going rate for self-driving cars when there isn't a going rate yet?
quote:The obvious example is technology. With self-driving cars being prototyped, the prospects for the wage rate of taxi drivers aren't good.
How do you think the going rate ever changes?
quote:That would be a prudential reason. But you were saying that there's a moral obligation upon her not to charge more than the going rate, whatever that is.
quote:It may be prudent to price her bread at a level which doesn't immediately suggest that more competition would be a good idea...
Say there's only one baker in the village. Is the baker obliged to work out whether she's charging more for her bread than she would be able to had the village room for two bakers? How could she possibly work that out?
quote:Not for present purposes it isn't.
But I thought your main concern was the wages she pays her employee the assistant baker.
quote:Actually it seems to me that it's because you can point to some reason - his eyesight is bad or he's subject to family pressure - why he's being exploited. You haven't said anything at all about the bakers' assistants in the next village along. Maybe they're being paid more because they're half an hour's train ride closer to the big city.
Theory suggests that if the wages she pays are significantly below the going rate in the bakeries in neighbouring villages, then he's probably not going to stay long - as soon as he hears of a vacancy elsewhere he'll be applying for it.
There may be reasons why that isn't the case. Maybe his eyesight is so bad that he can't drive. Maybe he's her nephew and is under pressure from the family not to let his aunt down.
Seems to me that in that sort of case you can argue that he's being exploited.
Maybe he isn't - maybe there's an understanding that he'll inherit the business when she dies. But whether or not he's being unfairly treated seems to me a meaningful discussion to have. But only because there's a population of assistant bakers in neighbouring villages to act as a point of reference.
quote:That's a big 'if'. You seem to be assuming it as a premise.
quote:If people make decisions on sympathy rather than reason, then engaging their sympathies seems logical. Who's going to sympathize with Universal Megacorp ?
But what about large businesses? Why talk about small businesses all the time? It's as if you want to engage people's sympathies. Rather than discussing general principles.
quote:I take it you mean something like "Am I, in Caprica City, necessarily being exploited if I'm working for longer hours at a lower rate of pay at a higher risk of accident than the norms which apply in rural Ireland ?"
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If your neighbourhood has "general principles" of a minimum wage, hours of work, or health and safety, do those apply outside your neighbourhood?
quote:Maybe there are reasons not directly related to work that an assistant baker doesn't feel like making their spouse quit their job, yank their kids out of the local school, abandon their elderly parents, and pay the expenses associated to moving to a new town where they know no one in order to make that extra dollar an hour. Assuming everyone belongs to species Homo economicus seems to ignore a lot of the ways people really act in favor of a philosophically-derived abstraction.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:It may be prudent to price her bread at a level which doesn't immediately suggest that more competition would be a good idea...
Say there's only one baker in the village. Is the baker obliged to work out whether she's charging more for her bread than she would be able to had the village room for two bakers? How could she possibly work that out?
But I thought your main concern was the wages she pays her employee the assistant baker.
Theory suggests that if the wages she pays are significantly below the going rate in the bakeries in neighbouring villages, then he's probably not going to stay long - as soon as he hears of a vacancy elsewhere he'll be applying for it.
There may be reasons why that isn't the case. Maybe his eyesight is so bad that he can't drive. Maybe he's her nephew and is under pressure from the family not to let his aunt down.
Seems to me that in that sort of case you can argue that he's being exploited.
Maybe he isn't - maybe there's an understanding that he'll inherit the business when she dies. But whether or not he's being unfairly treated seems to me a meaningful discussion to have. But only because there's a population of assistant bakers in neighbouring villages to act as a point of reference.
quote:You, obviously.
Originally posted by Russ:
If people make decisions on sympathy rather than reason, then engaging their sympathies seems logical. Who's going to sympathize with Universal Megacorp ?
quote:To take Russ' suggested example, the real (i.e. inflation adjusted) wages of American truck drivers have been declining for years. There are no self-driving trucks yet, nor is America outsourcing its truck driving needs to cheaper foreign truck drivers. It does seem to be closely correlated to declines in unionization of American truck drivers, but that doesn't really sort well with the Homo economicus model of utility maximization.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:How do you set the going rate for self-driving cars when there isn't a going rate yet?
quote:Originally posted by Russ:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How do you think the going rate ever changes?
The obvious example is technology. With self-driving cars being prototyped, the prospects for the wage rate of taxi drivers aren't good.
But how does it change in general? Technology can't be the only answer.
quote:For whatever reason a lot of these arguments seem to end up sounding a lot like antebellum Southerners defending their Peculiar Institution, much of which boiled down to "Why don't you Yankees mind your own business?"
Originally posted by Russ:
I take it you mean something like "Am I, in Caprica City, necessarily being exploited if I'm working for longer hours at a lower rate of pay at a higher risk of accident than the norms which apply in rural Ireland ?"
And my answer is No. Your community has no obligation to abide by my community's standards, and vice versa.
I'm suggesting that it follows from that that whilst an individual worker in your community (or mine) may be exploited, it's meaningless to suggest that all of them are. Because there's no objective standard against which the norm in a community can be unfavourably compared.
quote:That leads to some counterintuitive results. It's also at odds with your position that monopolies are definitely wrong.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm suggesting that it follows from that that whilst an individual worker in your community (or mine) may be exploited, it's meaningless to suggest that all of them are. Because there's no objective standard against which the norm in a community can be unfavourably compared.
quote:I think there objective standards. There absolutely are.
Originally posted by Russ:
I take it you mean something like "Am I, in Caprica City, necessarily being exploited if I'm working for longer hours at a lower rate of pay at a higher risk of accident than the norms which apply in rural Ireland ?"
And my answer is No. Your community has no obligation to abide by my community's standards, and vice versa.
quote:Well, you assumed that was what I meant. It's equally possible that I meant, "How can my family's Laundromat business compete with the Magdalen Laundries when we have to pay rent, wages, taxes, benefits and pension contributions but they don't?"
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I take it you mean something like "Am I, in Caprica City, necessarily being exploited if I'm working for longer hours at a lower rate of pay at a higher risk of accident than the norms which apply in rural Ireland ?"
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If your neighbourhood has "general principles" of a minimum wage, hours of work, or health and safety, do those apply outside your neighbourhood?
And my answer is No. Your community has no obligation to abide by my community's standards, and vice versa....
quote:Nowhere have I said anything about a 50% threshold. Rather my thesis is that the going rate in a competitive market is the only benchmark. Regardless of percentages.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Suppose forty nine per cent of the workforce are subject to travel restrictions and fifty one per cent are not. The forty nine per cent are exploited and the fifty one aren't. Now the government at the behest of one of the employers passes travel restrictions on another two per cent of the workforce. Now not only are the forty nine per cent not being exploited any more, but the remaining forty nine per cent who are free have suddenly started to exploit their employers.
quote:No, a local monopoly is still a local monopoly when it's the workers doing it instead of the employers.
If the workers' union has negotiated pension rights that make it hard for the employers to invest because they have to set aside money for the pensions, then there's no way for Russ to say that's too burdensome on the employers.
quote:I think that exploitation and abuse of monopoly power are more or less the same thing. Now a non-profit-maximising monopolist may choose not to pay less or charge more than the competitive-market rate. But don't hold your breath...
As regards monopolies: Russ thinks that monopolies are wrong.
quote:In the case where monopoly exists, the competitive-market rate is not observable but it is definable. And data on production costs and market response to price rises can be collected to allow economists to estimate where that equilibrium would be.
He thinks there is an objective standard: namely the price that would obtain under a situation of free competition. But that objective standard is purely notional. It doesn't exist in any way, because what exists is the monopoly. So presumably if it still counts as an objective standard (despite not existing), then it's perfectly possible for there to be an objective standard in the case of the workforce - thus allowing us to say that an entire workforce is being exploited.
quote:So where there is no competitive market there is no benchmark.
Originally posted by Russ:
Rather my thesis is that the going rate in a competitive market is the only benchmark.
quote:Only if there's a competitive market in the same community. Otherwise, you have no benchmark apparently.
No, a local monopoly is still a local monopoly when it's the workers doing it instead of the employers.
quote:Either the going rate in a competitive market is your benchmark and abuse of monopoly power takes you away from that benchmark and is therefore exploitation, or else abuse of monopoly power is exploitation and you don't need to invoke a benchmark going rate.
I think that exploitation and abuse of monopoly power are more or less the same thing.
quote:I don't share your confidence in the ability of economists to accurately estimate where prices would be under differing economic constraints. Even if economics were an exact science, the number of variables upon which the demand and supply depend is so high, and so many of them might be affected by the monopoly, that talk of an calculable standard in the absence of the monopoly is wishful thinking.
In the case where monopoly exists, the competitive-market rate is not observable but it is definable. And data on production costs and market response to price rises can be collected to allow economists to estimate where that equilibrium would be.
Your undefined "objective standard" seems like an exercise in wish-fulfillment. The amount I'd like to be paid is...
quote:You seem to have drifted quite a long way from your initial thesis that there is such a thing as a definable "social-progressive mindset" "that is hostile to Traditional Christianity".
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm suggesting that it follows from that that whilst an individual worker in your community (or mine) may be exploited, it's meaningless to suggest that all of them are. Because there's no objective standard against which the norm in a community can be unfavourably compared.
quote:It's been brought up before in this thread.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And I had to bring up Magdalen laundries ...
quote:I've drifted, yes, into arguing economics with Dafyd.
Originally posted by Eliab:
You seem to have drifted quite a long way from your initial thesis that there is such a thing as a definable "social-progressive mindset" "that is hostile to Traditional Christianity".
quote:I wouldn't claim that anyone who disagrees with me on economics (competitive market rather than free market) or relativism is necessarily a social progressive - not convinced that my economic ideas and Dafyd's necessarily map very well to traditional and progressive.
You now seem to be arguing against a "mindset" which is broad enough to include (at least) a range of political and economic views from the Centre-Right to the Far-Left, and which might well be hostile to your own blend of free-market cultural relativism, but is not so hostile to Traditional Christianity that that it excludes mainstream adherents of several Christian traditions.
quote:If you think any clear conclusion about what social progressivism is has been reached, please do say what it is.
Even if you convince me that your views on economics and exploitation are right, you seem to have pretty comprehensively lost the argument that the opposition to your position is motivated by definable, anti-Christian and socially progressive principles, which can usefully be grouped together as a defined "mindset".
quote:Did Jesus think of people in terms of classes, and restrict his love to those classes he defined as oppressed ?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like Jesus you mean?
quote:The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free...
Originally posted by Russ:
Did Jesus think of people in terms of classes, and restrict his love to those classes he defined as oppressed ?
quote:I just thought I'd pick up on this because it interested me.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There seem to be two really big fallacies at work here. The first is that taxation is (or at least should be) proportional to government services "consumed". No tax system I'm aware of functions in this way. Most are proportional to income, both as a general yardstick of fairness and for purely pragmatic reasons.
quote:Rather than being another person who quotes the Bible at you, I suggest you go and read the parable of the lost sheep if you're troubled by the notion that God might not behave towards everyone equally.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Did Jesus think of people in terms of classes, and restrict his love to those classes he defined as oppressed ?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like Jesus you mean?
quote:I disagree.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I take it you mean something like "Am I, in Caprica City, necessarily being exploited if I'm working for longer hours at a lower rate of pay at a higher risk of accident than the norms which apply in rural Ireland ?"
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If your neighbourhood has "general principles" of a minimum wage, hours of work, or health and safety, do those apply outside your neighbourhood?
And my answer is No. Your community has no obligation to abide by my community's standards, and vice versa.
quote:Blogger Fred Clark examined this recently.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry if I've bored you with this before; but I'm convinced there are two gospels.
One for the poor, the dispossessed, the helpless, the weak, the oppressed. That's the gospel of unconditional love and acceptance and welcome.
There's another for the self-righteous, the religious, the wealthy, the self-satisfied, the ones looking for exceptions in the gospels. That's the gospel of "give all your stuff away, stop being such a total shit".
quote:Italics from the original, bolding added by me. At any rate, while it may be theologically convenient to claim Jesus made no distinction between the rich and the poor, the Biblical account does not support this assertion.
Because here’s the thing we evangelical types aren’t allowed or accustomed to notice: Most of the time in the actual Bible, the poor are already saved. All of them. They just are.
That’s a given. It’s rarely stated outright because, throughout the actual Bible, it goes without saying. It is simply assumed — over and over again. The starkest example of this might be Jesus’ parable of the rich man (sometimes called “Dives”) and the beggar Lazarus. How and why is Lazarus “saved” in that story? He just is. Salvation belongs to him because nothing else does. The only drama in that story involves Dives and his wealthy relatives. Can they be saved, too? Yes — because they need to be. No such need is attributed to Lazarus.
But surely Lazarus — like all people — is a sinner. And surely that means he needs to be saved from his sins? Probably so. But if his Jubilee and salvation also involves the forgiveness of his sins, then it doesn’t occur in that story due to his confession and repentance. It is granted to him and attributed to him because he is a beggar. That’s how Jubilee works. It makes demands from creditors and extends grace to debtors — whether or not they seek it or even know it.
Or consider the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, in which the nations and the people of the nations are judged based on how they respond to the hungry, the naked, the sick and the imprisoned. Some of these folks are “saved” and some are not, but there’s a whole other category unaddressed in this judgment — the hungry, naked, sick and imprisoned themselves. They seem exempt from the summons to stand before the throne. There’s no sense questioning whether they meet the standard of this judgment because they are the standard. Their “salvation” is never in question. The only question is who from among the rest of us will be joining them. (And the answer, in that parable, is those who have already joined them.)
quote:Good answer. You've summed up the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity. Bias to the poor. Bias to the ethnic minority. Bias to the pervert (ie. the person with minority sexual desires).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think God has a preferential option for the poor and doesn't really give much of a shit about the rich
quote:How the hell did you get anything about perversity from what cheesy wrote? Let's not put words in other people's mouths if we can avoid it. That, at least, is NOT what Christianity is all about.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Good answer. You've summed up the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity. Bias to the poor. Bias to the ethnic minority. Bias to the pervert (ie. the person with minority sexual desires).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think God has a preferential option for the poor and doesn't really give much of a shit about the rich
quote:Nope. That isn't what the word heresy has ever been taken to mean.
Originally posted by Russ:
And if it's a slanted interpretation, a view that takes one theme, one strand of the tapestry, and upholds it against the whole, then isn't there a word for that ?
Heresy ?
quote:So what word would you use ?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Nope. That isn't what the word heresy has ever been taken to mean.
Originally posted by Russ:
And if it's a slanted interpretation, a view that takes one theme, one strand of the tapestry, and upholds it against the whole, then isn't there a word for that ?
Heresy ?
quote:I'd call the phrase “preferential option for the poor” Catholic social teaching - given that it originated from the Jesuit Father Pedro Arrupe, and was picked and developed up by most (if not all) Popes over the last 30 years. If you want to argue that this is wrong, then you're arguing with them not me.
Originally posted by Russ:
So what word would you use ?
quote:Can we presume, then, you would prefer Christianity to dehumanize and enslave people of other races, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and murder people who don't do sex properly?
Originally posted by Russ:
Good answer. You've summed up the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity. Bias to the poor. Bias to the ethnic minority. Bias to the pervert (ie. the person with minority sexual desires).
Is this really what Christianity is about ?
...
quote:No. You can presume that I think bias is a bad thing. That there's some connection between justice and impartiality.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Can we presume, then, you would prefer Christianity to dehumanize and enslave people of other races, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and murder people who don't do sex properly?
quote:Some connection. Not an indefeasible connection. For example Blackstone's ratio says that the justice system should be biased in favour of the accused party.
Originally posted by Russ:
You can presume that I think bias is a bad thing. That there's some connection between justice and impartiality.
quote:Your views on formal equality have been extensively canvassed. We spent months discussing them in Dead Horses. You convinced no-one, largely because a rigid adherence to formal equality completely ignores outcomes.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No. You can presume that I think bias is a bad thing. That there's some connection between justice and impartiality.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Can we presume, then, you would prefer Christianity to dehumanize and enslave people of other races, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and murder people who don't do sex properly?
quote:In Mark chapter 2, Jesus likens himself to a doctor. Nobody thinks that a doctor is morally obliged to devote equal attention to the healthy and the sick. That is not what impartiality means.
Originally posted by orfeo:
a rigid adherence to formal equality completely ignores outcomes.
I've already referred you to the parable of the workers in the vineyard. I'll refer you to it again. And to the parable of the Prodigal Son. Again. And of the lost coin, and the lost sheep.
I really do not think you can read those stories and believe that Jesus was a big fan of impartiality of the kind you seem to advocate.
quote:My main point is that he doesn't say what YOU would have him say. Certainly not to the point where you are justified in describing the views of other Christians as heresy.
Originally posted by Russ:
Jesus does not say what you would have him say.
quote:No. Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
it seems to me that although you sympathise with Goliath over David you will impartially and without bias ban them both from using slings.
quote:You see any attempt to raise up the poor and disadvantaged to the same level as you as disbenefiting yourself.
Originally posted by Russ:
Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.
quote:No, it isn't. It's your attempt to characterise the position that you're arguing against.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No. Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
it seems to me that although you sympathise with Goliath over David you will impartially and without bias ban them both from using slings.
quote:You seem to have mis-interpreted Russ' position, Soror Magna. He doesn't prefer racism, slavery, greed, and lynching. He has simply has no objection to (or approval of) such things, and believes that the real injustice is having an opinion one way or the other about whether such practices are just.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No. You can presume that I think bias is a bad thing. That there's some connection between justice and impartiality.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Can we presume, then, you would prefer Christianity to dehumanize and enslave people of other races, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and murder people who don't do sex properly?
quote:One person on this thread actually takes the position that a doctor devoting an unequal amount of time to the sick over the healthy is guilty of a pro-sick bias, and that such a bias is something to be avoided. I've quoted him above. Maybe you should address your objections to him.
Originally posted by Russ:
In Mark chapter 2, Jesus likens himself to a doctor. Nobody thinks that a doctor is morally obliged to devote equal attention to the healthy and the sick. That is not what impartiality means.
quote:God sympathises with the poor - because nobody else does. If you don't like that idea, you don't like God. As simple as.
Originally posted by Russ:
No. Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.
quote:Riiiight. So somehow you think that God is "for" those who are naturally are brainier, have better life prospects, won in the genetic lottery of life, were born in the right country, the right century, the right social class. And that somehow he's going to look at some poor, bedraggled refugee who left his war-torn country, travelled across half the world in the back of a lorry, ended up in a camp where nobody loved him and so eventually took his own life because it was all frankly a pile of shite and had no hope of any improvement.
It's the s-p people who would be passing laws to make Goliath fight with one arm tied behind his back. Because they look at his material advantages - muscles, armour, big expensive sword...
quote:The way Russ usually does, through selective semantics. By defining perversity as having "minority sexual desires" Russ is interestingly defining anyone who doesn't have premarital sex (something only a minority actually do) as "perverts". Hence according to Russ "the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity" unduly favors abstaining from sex before marriage, while opponents of "the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity" are either supportive of premarital sex or indifferent to the practice.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:How the hell did you get anything about perversity from what cheesy wrote?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Good answer. You've summed up the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity. Bias to the poor. Bias to the ethnic minority. Bias to the pervert (ie. the person with minority sexual desires).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think God has a preferential option for the poor and doesn't really give much of a shit about the rich
quote:You seem to have forgotten that everything in our world is a resource from God. Regardless of who happens to have planted their flag or stuck their name on it temporarily.
Originally posted by Russ:
....The good outcome that we want - the healing of the sick, the return of the lost sheep - is to be accomplished through the extra resources of God, not by loading the dice against the rest of the flock.
....
quote:Not generally considered heretics.
How can I make you realize the misery of the poor? How can I make you understand that your wealth comes from their weeping?
Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D.
Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours but theirs.
John Chrysostom, 347-407 AD
You are not making a gift of your possession to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his.
Ambrose of Milan, 340-397.
Instead of the tithes which the law commanded, the Lord said to divide everything we have with the poor. And he said to love not only our neighbors but also our enemies, and to be givers and sharers not only with the good but also to be liberal givers toward those who take away our possessions.
Irenaeus, 130-200 AD
quote:I really can't get my head around the above. If that's not a typo and is an accurate reflection of Russ' views then I'm afraid I've no idea what he is on about.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The way Russ usually does, through selective semantics. By defining perversity as having "minority sexual desires" Russ is interestingly defining anyone who doesn't have premarital sex (something only a minority actually do) as "perverts". Hence according to Russ "the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity" unduly favors abstaining from sex before marriage, while opponents of "the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity" are either supportive of premarital sex or indifferent to the practice.
quote:Surely everyone understands that the shepherd is leaving the 99 sheep in the parable to the mercy of wolves and other life mishaps to look for the single lost sheep.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
You seem to have forgotten that everything in our world is a resource from God. Regardless of who happens to have planted their flag or stuck their name on it temporarily.
quote:Flashbacks from The Name of the Rose ... Jesus on the Cross touching the purse at his waist ....
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...
I'm puzzled why we're even having this discussion - it seems to be as plain as the lines on my hand.
quote:Are you not familiar with the "Prayer of Jabez" crowd?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose I'm just showing my ignorance. It never occurred to me that anyone could read the bible, and in particular the NT, and come away thinking anything other than "this is a God who is pro-poor and anti-powerful".
quote:Indeed, it's one of the most consistent threads in a collection of texts where inconsistency is the rule.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose I'm just showing my ignorance. It never occurred to me that anyone could read the bible, and in particular the NT, and come away thinking anything other than "this is a God who is pro-poor and anti-powerful".
quote:I'm not overly familiar, no. I thought that the gist of these things was that God was still on the side of the poor but that the Christian was the poor person whom the Lord loved (rather than any other poor person) and that elevation to material wealth was a reward for being the Christian. The difference between me and them is about who "the poor" are to whom God is biased.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you not familiar with the "Prayer of Jabez" crowd?
quote:It partakes of some elements of Christianity - e.g. concern for the poor and outcast - and rejects others - e.g. patriarchal, property-oriented rules about sex. Can we have Mousethief coolers now?
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Three questions:
- can we describe this mindset - its characteristics and doctrines - in language that is acceptable to both those who hold this point of view and those who oppose it ?
- is "social-progressive" an adequate name for it or is there a better one ?
- what is the connection to Christianity ? Is this a religious point of view ? ...
quote:mr cheesy, meet the Prosperity Gospel.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've never heard of a Christianity that didn't say that God was biased towards the poor.
quote:Yes. The difference I'm trying to illustrate (obv unclearly) is between believing that there is God has no bias between rich and poor and that God blesses people to make them rich.
Originally posted by mousethief:
mr cheesy, meet the Prosperity Gospel.
quote:The believer in the prosperity gospel believes that the words in the bible speaking of "the poor" are directed at them. Not that the bible somehow doesn't speak about a bias towards the poor.
The prosperity theology teaching of positive confession stems from its proponents' view of scripture. The Bible is seen as a faith contract between God and believers; God is understood to be faithful and just, so believers must fulfill their end of the contract to receive God's promises. This leads to a belief in positive confession, the doctrine that believers may claim whatever they desire from God, simply by speaking it. Prosperity theology teaches that the Bible has promised prosperity for believers, so positive confession means that believers are speaking in faith what God has already spoken about them. Positive confession is practiced to bring about what is already believed in; faith itself is a confession, and speaking it brings it into reality
quote:Often, ironically, from the same Christians that accuse wicked progressive liberals like me of not taking the Bible seriously. I can only assume they don't actually read the thing.
Originally posted by orfeo:
As best as I can make out, there is a strand of American Christianity that is pretty sold on the idea that being poor is people's own fault and a sign of moral failure. And that such failure ought not be rewarded.
quote:That is my understanding as well.
Originally posted by orfeo:
As best as I can make out, there is a strand of American Christianity that is pretty sold on the idea that being poor is people's own fault and a sign of moral failure. And that such failure ought not be rewarded.
quote:That's not what I'm hearing here.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
social-progressives do not see themselves as wanting to change the rules solely on the basis of whom they sympathise and don't sympathise with.
quote:You can argue both at once if you aren't equating "bestowing sympathy" with "being biased". It is possible to do that, rationally, if the sympathised-with can be distinguished from others by greater need or desert.
Originally posted by Russ:
If you look back at the various pro-s-p responses, how many are saying
"You're right that bias is a bad thing but that's not what social progressivism is"
and how many are saying
"we're biased and proud of it"
??
Either you argue that you're right to bestow sympathy as you do, and right to let that sympathy determine your view. Or you argue that's not what you're doing at all. You can't use both defences at once.
quote:I'd have thought it is pretty obvious to most people that one can indeed say both things at once.
Originally posted by Russ:
Either you argue that you're right to bestow sympathy as you do, and right to let that sympathy determine your view. Or you argue that's not what you're doing at all. You can't use both defences at once.
quote:I keep coming back to this in my head. I can't let go of it.
Originally posted by Russ:
The point of the parable of the workers in the vineyard is that in being generous to the latecomers the owner is not being unfair to those who have worked all day. He is entitled to be generous, even capricious, with his own money.
quote:Technically true unless you're using a speech reader.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That's not what I'm hearing here.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
social-progressives do not see themselves as wanting to change the rules solely on the basis of whom they sympathise and don't sympathise with.
quote:I believe you are the only person who has used either of those phrases. If you think they're accurate paraphrases of what other people are saying you might be better off quoting or linking to the posts you're thinking of.
If you look back at the various pro-s-p responses, how many are saying
"You're right that bias is a bad thing but that's not what social progressivism is"
and how many are saying
"we're biased and proud of it"
??
quote:The first sentence there contains one more step than necessary. You can have views determining sympathies or sympathies determining views: you've got both.
Either you argue that you're right to bestow sympathy as you do, and right to let that sympathy determine your view. Or you argue that's not what you're doing at all. You can't use both defences at once.
quote:I suspect we'd all agree that Christianity involves concern for the poor and outcast. What I'm trying to suggest to you is that there is more than one form that that concern can take.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It partakes of some elements of Christianity - e.g. concern for the poor and outcast - and rejects others
quote:Bullshit. I'm not envious of the rich because I am the rich.
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect we'd all agree that Christianity involves concern for the poor and outcast. What I'm trying to suggest to you is that there is more than one form that that concern can take.
And the form that involves screwing the rich comes out of the envy in the human heart and not out of the text of the gospel.
quote:Jesus wanted to redistribute his wealth. How is that somehow different to what I've been saying?
Jesus saw the rich young man who claimed to have kept all the commandments, and loved him. Jesus told him to give away all he had, not because the riches were ill-gotten, or wrong in principle, but because that individual's attachment to his wealth and the social position it brought him was keeping him from the closer relationship with God that his loving Father desired.
quote:You just seem to be blithely ignoring the actual text of the NT. Haven't you heard that "from everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."?
God loves us all. He wants an end to "us and them" type conflict.
quote:Do you accept that the same impulse could also have been behind the initial acquisition of wealth in the first place?
Originally posted by Russ:
And the form that involves screwing the rich comes out of the envy in the human heart
quote:Interesting. When it comes to behaviour that involves screwing people of minority races you tell us that it doesn't necessarily come out of racism.
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect we'd all agree that Christianity involves concern for the poor and outcast. What I'm trying to suggest to you is that there is more than one form that that concern can take.
And the form that involves screwing the rich comes out of the envy in the human heart and not out of the text of the gospel.
quote:There is a difference between explaining away a text that seems to support the contrary position, and finding a text that actually supports your position. The above is the former.
Jesus told him to give away all he had, not because the riches were ill-gotten, or wrong in principle, but because that individual's attachment to his wealth and the social position it brought him was keeping him from the closer relationship with God that his loving Father desired.
quote:Of course. It's human nature to compare ourselves with others. Can't we all identify with those who've worked all day ? Just like we have sympathy for the Prodigal Son's hard-working elder brother.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously, do you not normally subscribe to notions like "the same work for the same pay"? Do you not consider it unfair that someone who hasn't worked gets as much money as someone who has?
quote:So how do you explain the statements of the Church Fathers on the rich and the poor? In case you missed them:
Originally posted by Russ:
... And the form that involves screwing the rich comes out of the envy in the human heart and not out of the text of the gospel. ...
quote:How do you interpret any of those statements to mean "rich people should keep their stuff"? They're also pretty clear that the onus is on the rich to share willingly, not on the poor to be happy with their lot ...
How can I make you realize the misery of the poor? How can I make you understand that your wealth comes from their weeping?
Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D.
Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours but theirs.
John Chrysostom, 347-407 AD
You are not making a gift of your possession to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his.
Ambrose of Milan, 340-397.
Instead of the tithes which the law commanded, the Lord said to divide everything we have with the poor. And he said to love not only our neighbors but also our enemies, and to be givers and sharers not only with the good but also to be liberal givers toward those who take away our possessions.
Irenaeus, 130-200 AD
quote:So your Good News is Hakuna Matata.
Originally posted by Russ:
... The sooner you're reconciled to people being undeservedly richer or paid a higher rate or promoted faster than you are, the happier you'll be.
quote:Another interpretation is that the vineyard owner wanted everyone to get a living wage for the day.
I suspect where we differ is that you want to see this parable as being about eliminating differentials and paying everyone the same. When it clearly isn't.
quote:All Things Bright and Beautiful
3.
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.
quote:Good news! I'm going to take away your envy for the rich and everything is going to be just fine!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't recognise what you describe as being Christianity. How is it good news for the poor - "stay poor and be happy about it"? Where is the freedom for captives? Where is the release of the oppressed? You are calling them to revel in their captivity, to acquiesce in their oppression.
quote:It seemed from the start that the thread had a kind of exculpatory purpose.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is so ridiculous. Russ is clearly playing games with us.
quote:Yeah, if only someone had made that observation before. Multiple times. On more than one thread....
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is so ridiculous. Russ is clearly playing games with us.
quote:"Willingly" being a fairly key word. There's no inherent hypocrisy in believing both that the rich should share their wealth and that they shouldn't be forced to do so.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
They're also pretty clear that the onus is on the rich to share willingly, not on the poor to be happy with their lot ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
.
quote:I don't know, I'm not sure this is more than a semantic difference. I suspect if you put it to a Deliveroo worker that he'd be getting £40 for 8 days of work and at the end of the day he found out that someone got £40 for 1 hour of work, he'd be angry.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As for the workers in the vineyard, one thing that strikes me about this discussion is that the owner still gives those who had worked all day their full due, rather than reducing their wage in order to finance the extra wages of those who worked less. At the end of the day nobody has less than they started off with, it's just that some have the same and others have far more. Earthly models of equality/equity/justice/whatever tend to involve some people getting considerably less than they start off with.
quote:Doesn't stop (some) Christians from justifying screwing the poor though.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, the vineyard owner also has the not inconsiderable problem of working out how on earth to convince anyone to work all day for him tomorrow when they know they'll get paid the same amount if they only turn up for the last hour. But I guess that's why it's generally considered to be a parable about salvation rather than economics
quote:Indeed; the argument is rather that that model didn't work - and indeed gave rise in Victorian times to the conditions in which desire for radical change - revolutionary change even - could grow.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"Willingly" being a fairly key word. There's no inherent hypocrisy in believing both that the rich should share their wealth and that they shouldn't be forced to do so.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
They're also pretty clear that the onus is on the rich to share willingly, not on the poor to be happy with their lot ...
quote:The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor. Not setting out to favour anybody. No special pleading.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can't help noticing that for all your talk of being fair and unbiased (as if they were the same thing) this model rather favours the rich. Which the gospel never, ever does.
I don't recognise what you describe as being Christianity. How is it good news for the poor - "stay poor and be happy about it"?
quote:I suggest that perhaps you are blind to your own special pleading. Firstly, you are ignoring the rather thorny questions around the initial acquisition of wealth. Secondly, the one theocratic society that is set forth in the Bible bears no resemblance to the winner take all society you suggest should prevail - and in fact the secular judgement that comes upon this society is said to be caused specifically because they adopted a more zero sum approach.
Originally posted by Russ:
The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor. Not setting out to favour anybody. No special pleading.
quote:No special pleading? So somehow you've inverted the biblical idea of "from those who have been given more, more will be expected" and how have it as "from those who have more, only as much will be expected as from those who have the least".
Originally posted by Russ:
The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor. Not setting out to favour anybody. No special pleading.
quote:I put it to you that you know nothing about the bible. Which is constantly talking about protection of the weak, poor and the orphan. It is absolutely material.
I put it to you that the good news for the poor that we read of in the Bible is nothing to do with increased disposable income or reducing costs of living. It's not material. It's that they/we are equally children of a loving Father, equal in dignity, equally accepted, equally important to God.
quote:Heaven on earth
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the poor in spirit. The meek shall inherit the earth. You know the words as well as I do.
That was good news to those who lived in a society where poverty was seen as a mark of divine disfavour. I'm sorry if it seems like Old News to our post-Christian society...
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect we'd all agree that Christianity involves concern for the poor and outcast.
quote:So all that jazz about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, tending the sick, and visiting the imprisoned is a bunch of passé, not really Christian stuff. The important thing is to be "concerned" about the poor and outcast. Concern costs nothing and, more importantly in your estimation, does not provide any tangible "benefit".
Originally posted by Russ:
I put it to you that the good news for the poor that we read of in the Bible is nothing to do with increased disposable income or reducing costs of living. It's not material.
quote:
For I was hungry and you gave me an expression of deep concern, I was thirsty and you gave me a lecture on the importance of proper hydration, I was a stranger and you explained the laws against loitering, I needed clothes and you gave me fashion tips, I was sick and you chided me on unhealthy lifestyle choices, I was in prison and you explained how the legal system is perfectly impartial.’
quote:And I'm sorry if I return to a point I've made before but are you saying that the *Pope* is "post-Christian"?!?
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm sorry if it seems like Old News to our post-Christian society...
quote:
Anatole France: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
quote:Here's the bottom line. Basically people who worship Ayn Rand.
Originally posted by orfeo:
To whom there is no such thing as society.
quote:You're free to turn your back, of course. But it remains that the Good News is about the resurrection and not about the distribution of wealth or economic systems.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pie in the sky when you die, and an economic system that fails the weakest. You can put it to me if you like but I'm not interested in it.
quote:Your money you can direct to the welfare of anyone you choose, without waiting for anyone to enact policies.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm thoroughly in favour of policies that take some money off me in order to direct it to the welfare of people who have far fewer financial resources than I do.
quote:If you miss out on your duty to others, especially when is blessed with money compare to others on God's earth, one is neglecting stewardship to a dangerous degree.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You're free to turn your back, of course. But it remains that the Good News is about the resurrection and not about the distribution of wealth or economic systems.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pie in the sky when you die, and an economic system that fails the weakest. You can put it to me if you like but I'm not interested in it.
Yes, one of the fruits of the Spirit is generosity. But what happens to a Christian's money is a relatively unimportant consequence of their relationship with God. If you really think that the money is what's important then you've missed the point of it all.
quote:It's about the Kingdom of God. A place where people aren't oppressed, powerless and beholden to the rich. A Kingdom which starts now, amongst us.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You're free to turn your back, of course. But it remains that the Good News is about the resurrection and not about the distribution of wealth or economic systems.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pie in the sky when you die, and an economic system that fails the weakest. You can put it to me if you like but I'm not interested in it.
quote:No, it's actually very important, because in this world how we behave economically has by far the biggest impact on others, the more so the wealthier we are, which is why so much responsibility is placed on the wealthy, because what they do with their wealth has a big impact on others. Hence camels and eyes of needles.
Yes, one of the fruits of the Spirit is generosity. But what happens to a Christian's money is a relatively unimportant consequence of their relationship with God. If you really think that the money is what's important then you've missed the point of it all.
quote:And Thatcher, who I blame for much that stinks about attitudes in the UK
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Here's the bottom line. Basically people who worship Ayn Rand.
Originally posted by orfeo:
To whom there is no such thing as society.
quote:Absolutely, on the basis that they too benefit (usually equally disproportionately) from living somewhere with a rule of law and a functioning state.
Originally posted by Russ:
Be honest - the policies are about taking money off other people.
quote:I don't know the source, but the phrase
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Your spiritualised gospel is toothless
It changes nothing, fails to bring in the Kingdom of God. [/QB]
quote:Part of that functioning state requires the money/labour of the not rich.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Absolutely, on the basis that they too benefit (usually equally disproportionately) from living somewhere with a rule of law and a functioning state.
Originally posted by Russ:
Be honest - the policies are about taking money off other people.
quote:I find that a very telling phrase. If the version of the gospel that I learned has been spiritualised, that means the gospel wasn't spiritual in the first place.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Your spiritualised gospel is toothless
quote:I have no expectation of ever in my life owning a new car. And my wife and I have had one holiday in the last ten years, kindly paid for by family.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am rich. I own two houses and a large new car, I go on at least four foreign holidays a year.
quote:?
Give all your stuff away, stop being such a total shit
quote:It's social. It's about relationship. It's about establishing the Kingdom of God, where the standards of the world, the racing to the top to be the richest and most powerful, are turned on their heads.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I find that a very telling phrase. If the version of the gospel that I learned has been spiritualised, that means the gospel wasn't spiritual in the first place.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Your spiritualised gospel is toothless
What is that you think the original gospel was ? Economic ? Political ?
You believe in Jesus the economic commentator ?
quote:Jesus said exactly the same.
Originally posted by Russ:
What do you think of Mr Cheesy's comment (top of p9) that the gospel message for the wealthy is
quote:
Give all your stuff away, stop being such a total shit
quote:Don't fucking tell to me "be honest".
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Your money you can direct to the welfare of anyone you choose, without waiting for anyone to enact policies.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm thoroughly in favour of policies that take some money off me in order to direct it to the welfare of people who have far fewer financial resources than I do.
Be honest - the policies are about taking money off other people.
quote:Not "above them".
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The first, of course, is the call implicit in it to feed the hungry, visit the lonely and sick, welcoming the stranger etc...
...All of which seems utterly incompatible with Russ' ideas of the poor simply accepting that there will be richer, more powerful people above them.
quote:A caricature.
Originally posted by Russ:
Accepting the existence of those richer or happier or more talented people, treating them as we would have those who are poorer, sadder or less talented treat us, without envy, without demonising, without writing them off as "total shits", is part of the way we're supposed to live.
quote:In form, his use of scare quotes is legitimate. However, in substance, it is as much a fail as the rest of his posts on this thread.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:A caricature.
Originally posted by Russ:
Accepting the existence of those richer or happier or more talented people, treating them as we would have those who are poorer, sadder or less talented treat us, without envy, without demonising, without writing them off as "total shits", is part of the way we're supposed to live.
When you put something in quotes, who are you quoting? As far as I can see, no-one in this thread.
quote:Well, last night, as I was walking home, I'm quite sure that the two kids settling in for the night on the sidewalk thought I was a shit. As did the guy with the swollen and scabrous foot at Mac's. And since I walked by all of them with money and food in my bag, I don't think I can tell them they're wrong.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Jesus said exactly the same.
Originally posted by Russ:
What do you think of Mr Cheesy's comment (top of p9) that the gospel message for the wealthy is
quote:
Give all your stuff away, stop being such a total shit
I can’t do it, any more than the rich man He said it to could. I give a lot to charity, probably more than 10%, but that’s not enough - and I know it.
quote:That is truly the most bizarre version of the Golden Rule I've ever seen: Treat those who have more gold the way you would like people with less gold to treat you.
Originally posted by Russ:
... Accepting the existence of those richer or happier or more talented people, treating them as we would have those who are poorer, sadder or less talented treat us, without envy, without demonising, without writing them off as "total shits", is part of the way we're supposed to live. ...
quote:The Gospel is for this world as well as the next. And you're still ignoring the words of the Church Fathers. Nor have you examined the motives which drive people to take more and more from those who have less and less. Your argument is rooted in the unspoken assertion that greed is ok but envy is not.
...
Karl thinks I've spiritualised the gospel; I think it was always meant to be spiritual and he's politicised it.
quote:He's kind-of, sort-of quoting stroke misquoting me.
Originally posted by orfeo:
A caricature.
When you put something in quotes, who are you quoting? As far as I can see, no-one in this thread.
quote:It seems ok to me, so long as the corollary also applies: treat those who have less gold the way you would like those with more gold to treat you.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That is truly the most bizarre version of the Golden Rule I've ever seen: Treat those who have more gold the way you would like people with less gold to treat you.
quote:The problem is that it ignores how wealth is generated.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It seems ok to me, so long as the corollary also applies: treat those who have less gold the way you would like those with more gold to treat you.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That is truly the most bizarre version of the Golden Rule I've ever seen: Treat those who have more gold the way you would like people with less gold to treat you.
quote:All that is true. But on the other hand, I have been presented with several points in my career so far where I could make a choice - to work hard, or work less hard, with the "work hard" option attached to promotions, more money, and so on. I haven't always chosen that option.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nor is wealth any kind of measure of how hard you've worked or "earned" it.
[..]
I don't think I work that hard. I just happen to have a brain that is good at certain things that are sought after.
quote:-- is one students (usually male, white, poorly-informed, and very young) often want to posit.
Originally posted by Russ:
The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor. Not setting out to favour anybody. No special pleading.
quote:Some lazy people make a whole lot of money doing basically nothing. A whole load of others works long hours for very little.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
All that is true. But on the other hand, I have been presented with several points in my career so far where I could make a choice - to work hard, or work less hard, with the "work hard" option attached to promotions, more money, and so on. I haven't always chosen that option.
But I don't begrudge the person a bit like me who did make that choice the extra money he makes...
quote:I started this thread about an observed cluster of social attitudes, but it seems to keep drifting back to economics.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem is that it ignores how wealth is generated.
"Oh people, just be happy and nice" does nothing to redress social inequities and nicely ignores that the wealthy are rich from the exploitation of the poor.
quote:Oh, my Christianity goes well beyond that. Giving goes only so far. We must challenge the economic and political structures that put people in situations where giving is required. Presumably you're one of those Do. Helder Camara was referring to when he made his famous quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I started this thread about an observed cluster of social attitudes, but it seems to keep drifting back to economics.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem is that it ignores how wealth is generated.
"Oh people, just be happy and nice" does nothing to redress social inequities and nicely ignores that the wealthy are rich from the exploitation of the poor.
I'm glad you have an interest in how wealth is generated. Far too many progressives are only interested in distribution. And you know that countries which prioritise distribution over generation tend to be poor countries...
I've argued above that exploitation exists - as abuse of monopoly power.
But your identification of wealth with exploitation seems to me obviously false. Not all disparities in wealth result from exploitation.
The tradition of the Christianity I was taught is the tithe; that 10% of one's income should go to relieve the suffering of the sick and the extremely poor.
If you have political aims that go beyond relieving that suffering, it is your right to desire those aims, and to devote your own resources (money, time, effort) to that cause.
But you're kidding yourself if you think that those aims are Christianity.
quote:I want our tithes to be spent on basic food and housing for those who cannot earn the money to pay for these things for themselves. Doesn't everyone ?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
Sincere question:
Is there any reason that anyone anywhere *shouldn't* have enough of basic food and housing?
(Putting aside questions about who would pay for it, and how it might be done.)
Thx.
quote:They aren't. Because it costs more than they are willing to spend (and 'we' collectively are willing to pay).
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't know why governments are quite so bad at spending the money. How can they spend so many billions on welfare without achieving this obvious aim ?
quote:Norway and Sweden are quite wealthy countries per capita.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm glad you have an interest in how wealth is generated. Far too many progressives are only interested in distribution. And you know that countries which prioritise distribution over generation tend to be poor countries...
quote:I pointed out that your argument that exploitation was limited to monopoly power was self-contradictory.
I've argued above that exploitation exists - as abuse of monopoly power.
quote:Are there any obvious counterexamples?
But your identification of wealth with exploitation seems to me obviously false. Not all disparities in wealth result from exploitation.
quote:Here in the UK we've only had people sleeping rough and starving under governments pursuing economic policies similar to those that you're advocating. In the Thatcher-Major years there were lots of people sleeping rough. Under Blair and Brown they vanished. Under Cameron they came back.
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't know why governments are quite so bad at spending the money. How can they spend so many billions on welfare without achieving this obvious aim ? Why are there people sleeping rough and people starving ? In "first world" countries ?
quote:Or, under some models of socialism, if they just don't feel like working for it.
Originally posted by Russ:
About why anyone would work to feed their family and keep a roof over their head if they could get all that provided for them if they just exaggerate their difficulties a little...
quote:Under our current model of capitalism, there are many people who literally have not done a single day's labour and are still as rich as Croesus.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Or, under some models of socialism, if they just don't feel like working for it.
Originally posted by Russ:
About why anyone would work to feed their family and keep a roof over their head if they could get all that provided for them if they just exaggerate their difficulties a little...
quote:Economics is part of your platform in the OP, it is a handy example of social inequities and Social-Regressives (aka Conservatives) tend to use economics as their measuring stick.
Originally posted by Russ:
I started this thread about an observed cluster of social attitudes, but it seems to keep drifting back to economics.
quote:Far to many Social-Regressives are interested in this as well. In ending it, of course.
I'm glad you have an interest in how wealth is generated. Far too many progressives are only interested in distribution.
quote:By definition, they must.Wealth is not an absolute, it is relative. Without the poor, there can be no rich. So, unless you believe people are willingly poor so that others may be rich, wealth needs exploitation. That is why I put the word indirect in my earlier post. You can find individuals, and some fields of endeavour, that do not require direct exploitation; but they live in, and are beholden to, a system that exists on it.
But your identification of wealth with exploitation seems to me obviously false. Not all disparities in wealth result from exploitation.
quote:Only an idiot could honestly read Jesus' words and find this sufficient action. The collective we (aka government) has far more power to enact relief and reduce poverty.
The tradition of the Christianity I was taught is the tithe; that 10% of one's income should go to relieve the suffering of the sick and the extremely poor.
quote:Yeah, if they were, Jesus would have spoken quite often on the poor. Oh, wait...
But you're kidding yourself if you think that those aims are Christianity.
quote:Possibly because nobody is saying that I should give a significant proportion of my income to the rich ones if I don't want to be called a total shit.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Under our current model of capitalism, there are many people who literally have not done a single day's labour and are still as rich as Croesus.
And yet you seem to resent the ones at subsistence level far more.
quote:Perhaps 2 Thessalonians 3 v7-10 gives one such reason:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
:Is there any reason that anyone anywhere *shouldn't* have enough of basic food and housing?
quote:
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
quote:Also Luke:
5:1 Come now, you rich! Weep and cry aloud 1 over the miseries that are coming on you. 5:2 Your riches have rotted and your clothing has become moth-eaten. 5:3 Your gold and silver have rusted and their rust will be a witness against you. It will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have hoarded treasure! 5:4 Look, the pay you have held back from the workers who mowed your fields cries out against you, and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. 5:5 You have lived indulgently and luxuriously on the earth. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 5:6 You have condemned and murdered the righteous person, although he does not resist you.
quote:
6:24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort 84 already.
6:25 “Woe to you who are well satisfied with food now, for you will be hungry.
“Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
6:26 “Woe to you when all people speak well of you, for their ancestors did the same things to the false prophets.
quote:Except, of course, that far more of your income goes to the rich ones in terms of tax relief and subsidies than to the poor ones.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Possibly because nobody is saying that I should give a significant proportion of my income to the rich ones if I don't want to be called a total shit.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Under our current model of capitalism, there are many people who literally have not done a single day's labour and are still as rich as Croesus.
And yet you seem to resent the ones at subsistence level far more.
quote:Russ is positing a desiccated version of Christianity that recalls some of the DH arguments about marriage: companionship, love, support, etc. are secondary characteristics of (and thus non-essential to) marriage; what makes a marriage is shoving a penis into a vagina.
Originally posted by Russ:
...
The tradition of the Christianity I was taught is the tithe; that 10% of one's income should go to relieve the suffering of the sick and the extremely poor.
If you have political aims that go beyond relieving that suffering, it is your right to desire those aims, and to devote your own resources (money, time, effort) to that cause.
But you're kidding yourself if you think that those aims are Christianity.
quote:Nice proof-text. Look, we feed children who can't work. We feed our elders who can't work. We feed the sick when they can't work. A person's ability to work can change. A person's need for food is pretty constant.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Perhaps 2 Thessalonians 3 v7-10 gives one such reason:
quote:
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
quote:And let's not forget the number of times that Jesus talked about fulfilling the laws of the OT, not just following them. He even said the rules of the OT were created for hard-hearted people.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The odd thing is that I thought everyone agreed that one of the major themes of the NT was that the tithe wasn't enough. It is bizarre to hear anyone claim that it is.
quote:"Not because we do not have the right to such help" = "We have the right to such help".
... We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. ...
quote:Citation needed.
Originally posted by Russ:
... And you know that countries which prioritise distribution over generation tend to be poor countries...
quote:Part of the reason is because it's much harder to do than simplistic media and its consumers would have you believe.
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't know why governments are quite so bad at spending the money.
quote:There are some who seem to think that Jesus' teaching on poverty started and ended with "You will always have the poor among you".
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, if they were, Jesus would have spoken quite often on the poor. Oh, wait...
quote:Is this really the case? Are not poor countries characterised by low taxes poor public provision and great inequality? They exhibit minimal concern for the indigent and are dominated by indifferent, kleptocratic and rapacious elites; and are societies in which access to health and education are highly restrictive and unequal. Welfare-oriented states tend to be rich countries with high taxes providing equal access to health and education, the foundations on which prosperous societies with a high level of equality are secured by providing an educated work force. I note that within the USA that poor services are a characteristic of the poorest states, whereas rich states with higher taxes tend to have more generous public provision, more opportunities for more people, and a higher demand for goods and services, the sine qua non of the mass consumption on which capitalist production relies. Successful capitalism needs a high level of consumer equality.
And you know that countries which prioritise distribution over generation tend to be poor countries…
quote:It's kind of amazing how you can write that first part, and then further down the same post completely forget about it.
Originally posted by Russ:
One is that people aren't farm animals. You can't lock them in a shed and feed them a balanced diet and say "job done".
...
One is about the lack of a clear boundary between the needy and the non-needy. About why anyone would work to feed their family and keep a roof over their head if they could get all that provided for them if they just exaggerate their difficulties a little...
quote:Only poor people. It's another invocation of the well-known difference between poor people and rich people, namely that poor people are motivated by taking away their money and rich people are motivated by letting them have more money.
Originally posted by orfeo:
People work because having meaning and fulfilment is a significant part of the human experience, Russ. They're not farm animals who just need food and shelter. You said it yourself. And then a few paragraphs later you reduce people to those 2 things.
quote:The question was "Is there any reason that anyone anywhere *shouldn't* have enough of basic food and housing?" Proof text or not, the Bible passage I quoted gives a reason.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Nice proof-text.
quote:I disagree. Most people work because it's the only way to earn enough money to enable them to do the things that give their life meaning and fulfilment. Nobody on their deathbed says "I wish I'd spent more time at work".
Originally posted by orfeo:
People work because having meaning and fulfilment is a significant part of the human experience
quote:I will. Pretty certain most of my colleagues will, too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I disagree. Most people work because it's the only way to earn enough money to enable them to do the things that give their life meaning and fulfilment. Nobody on their deathbed says "I wish I'd spent more time at work".
Originally posted by orfeo:
People work because having meaning and fulfilment is a significant part of the human experience
quote:There's always one
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I will. Pretty certain most of my colleagues will, too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Nobody on their deathbed says "I wish I'd spent more time at work".
.quote:Thought they mightn't utter that sentence on their deathbed, there are a number of people for who there careers are their life, even outside of entertainment. Some of them love their jobs, but some have no other motive force.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:There's always one
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I will. Pretty certain most of my colleagues will, too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Nobody on their deathbed says "I wish I'd spent more time at work".
I suppose there are a lot of professional sportspeople, actors, musicians and so forth who would say it as well. But apart from the lucky few who happened to be good enough at doing something fun to earn a living from it, my comment stands.
quote:I do appreciate the sentiment, but I think it says more about the nature of modern labour than it does about the labourer.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There's always one
I suppose there are a lot of professional sportspeople, actors, musicians and so forth who would say it as well. But apart from the lucky few who happened to be good enough at doing something fun to earn a living from it, my comment stands.
I can't imagine anyone getting meaning and fulfilment out of pushing numbers around spreadsheets all day. I know I don't.
quote:I'm not convinced that the average historical farmer, miner, miller, factory worker, labourer, butcher, baker or candlestick maker would have felt particularly different.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I do appreciate the sentiment, but I think it says more about the nature of modern labour than it does about the labourer.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There's always one
I suppose there are a lot of professional sportspeople, actors, musicians and so forth who would say it as well. But apart from the lucky few who happened to be good enough at doing something fun to earn a living from it, my comment stands.
I can't imagine anyone getting meaning and fulfilment out of pushing numbers around spreadsheets all day. I know I don't.
quote:I know farmers (one of whom does her own butchering) and bakers and millers and cheese makers and those who craft for a living, and actually you're wrong.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not convinced that the average historical farmer, miner, miller, factory worker, labourer, butcher, baker or candlestick maker would have felt particularly different.
quote:And I've known factory workers who took pride in a product well made, working as part of a team and such. And many who hated the whole thing.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Factory workers I'll concede. There's very little craft in an assembly line.
quote:Even if what you say is true, I'm not sure your conclusion follows. I can see a lot of people regretting an extended period of unemployment eating up their house, their kids' college fund, their ability to live with any kind of dignity in old age, etc. Your claim sounds like the pitch of a fairly inept corporate hatchet-man laying off a bunch of fifty-something industrial workers he knows will probably never get a comparably paid job. "Nothing you've done working here has mattered, and you should be thanking me for freeing up your time!"
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I disagree. Most people work because it's the only way to earn enough money to enable them to do the things that give their life meaning and fulfilment. Nobody on their deathbed says "I wish I'd spent more time at work".
quote:This thread is more about those who seem to think that Jesus' teaching started and ended with His words about the rich and the poor.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
There are some who seem to think that Jesus' teaching on poverty started and ended with "You will always have the poor among you".
quote:I've said nothing against welfare recipients.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Marvin there is ample evidence that psychologically people need to do things. Not sit around being Russ' caricature of a welfare recipient who just wants to lounge around all day and watch TV. People WANT to contribute.
quote:A universal morality is not the same thing as a level playing field.
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:This mythical level playing field blatantly ignores reality.
Originally posted by Russ:
The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor.
quote:Do that and they'll stop your benefits as you're meant to spend your time looking for work.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I've said nothing against welfare recipients.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Marvin there is ample evidence that psychologically people need to do things. Not sit around being Russ' caricature of a welfare recipient who just wants to lounge around all day and watch TV. People WANT to contribute.
I merely suggested that one of the reasons why it's a bit more complicated is the issue of what happens at the boundary.
I agree that many people do want to contribute something. But I struggle to imagine anyone wanting to work a 40-hour week for the same money that they could get for doing nothing.
I for one would be tempted to channel my urge to contribute into non-economic activities. Maybe doing a bit of gardening for someone who'd appreciate it.
quote:Nobody has said that. Quite the reverse. It is you who are trying to explain away these words by claiming that the gospel is only about the spiritual hereafter.
Originally posted by Russ:
This thread is more about those who seem to think that Jesus' teaching started and ended with His words about the rich and the poor.
quote:And if you want to object to words spoken by Catholic theologians and endorsed by successive Popes, never mind the actual words written in scripture, then it is hard to take your criticisms of others seriously when you claim that they're heretics and unChristian.
If you see Jesus as authoritative when His words can be taken as supportive of your socialist ideas but not in anything else that He said, then your claim to be a Christian seems to me on shaky ground...
quote:Bollocks. Go back and read what people actually wrote.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:This thread is more about those who seem to think that Jesus' teaching started and ended with His words about the rich and the poor.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
There are some who seem to think that Jesus' teaching on poverty started and ended with "You will always have the poor among you".
If you see Jesus as authoritative when His words can be taken as supportive of your socialist ideas but not in anything else that He said, then your claim to be a Christian seems to me on shaky ground...
quote:It's even worse than this, isn't it. The employers who pay poverty wages can do so because (a) the minimum wage is set below the amount anyone needs to earn to live on (b) so the government tops this up and (c) is now using various nefarious ways to avoid giving the working poor the top-ups that they need to live on.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do that and they'll stop your benefits as you're meant to spend your time looking for work.
That someone can work 40 hours a week and have barely subsistence income is part of the problem. This is exactly what I mean by challenging the systems which keep people poor, which seems a better solution than threatening them with starvation and destitution if they don't take whatever slave wages they're offered.
quote:But this doesn't work in real life either - people who murder are often treated differently, depending on the amount of provocation, whether the act is in self-defence and also the nature of the murderer: those people who cannot control themselves are often detained in secure hospitals with treatment, rather than going to prison. (Not withstanding that we are poor at not recognising mental health issues incarcerating those people in prisons too.)
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:A universal morality is not the same thing as a level playing field.
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:This mythical level playing field blatantly ignores reality.
Originally posted by Russ:
The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor.
Obeying the commandment not to murder may be harder for me than for you. Maybe I have a worse temper, a disposition with less self-control. Maybe you're a particularly annoying person. That doesn't make it OK for me to defenestrate you if I feel like it.
Right and wrong do not depend on whether you sympathize with someone. That's corruption.
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
quote:Russ, I find your image of common rules on a sloping field, where presumably there is no turning round at half-time, has little to commend it. Not only does it lack a basic notion of fairness, but has nothing to commend it to the team kicking upfield. The team playing up the slope are likely to stop playing or, if they are more numerous, to call a meeting to change the rules. A credible ethical system needs to command general acceptance, otherwise it will lack credibility and invite the adoption of another code commanding a greater general approbation.
A universal morality is not the same thing as a level playing field.
quote:The problem is that you cannot separate “the framework of moral rights and duties” from the individuals who set them and the interests they represent, together with the means of their enforcement. It is a difficulty which goes back to Plato and his Philosopher Kings. What constitutes impartiality in relations between male and female, black and white, employer and employee, is not obvious across time and space. The history of the US Supreme Court, both in the manner of its composition and renewal and its judgements, is replete with examples of the partiality surrounding the definition of even natural rights and duties. It’s not that the winners are more virtuous it’s just that they are able to set the angle of the slope and make sure they are playing down it.
The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor.
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
quote:As opposed to those who think that Jesus' teaching skips his words about the rich and the poor?
Originally posted by Russ:
This thread is more about those who seem to think that Jesus' teaching started and ended with His words about the rich and the poor.
If you see Jesus as authoritative when His words can be taken as supportive of your socialist ideas but not in anything else that He said, then your claim to be a Christian seems to me on shaky ground...
quote:Excuse me, but you clearly have. You've suggested that there are people who exaggerate their difficulties in order to fall on the welfare side of the line.
Originally posted by Russ:
I've said nothing against welfare recipients.
quote:It's easy to say that when the people with whom you sympathise are playing down the slope.
Originally posted by Russ:
Right and wrong do not depend on whether you sympathize with someone. That's corruption.
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
quote:I feel that merely because doing a bit of gardening for someone who'd appreciate is non-economic doesn't mean it's not an urge to contribute.
Originally posted by Russ:
I for one would be tempted to channel my urge to contribute into non-economic activities. Maybe doing a bit of gardening for someone who'd appreciate it.
quote:Performing a service without charge is not non-economic, it's just that it's free to the consumer. There is a great deal of such activity in the community, of which child-rearing and housework are very significant. As I'm sure you would want to point out, Russ, nothing is for free.
I for one would be tempted to channel my urge to contribute into non-economic activities. Maybe doing a bit of gardening for someone who'd appreciate it.
quote:Russ' conception of how rules work stops at the point where rules are applied. There is no feedback loop to consider the question of whether the rules should be changed if they are not producing desirable outcomes. The rules are immutable. If the rules are favouring one group of players over another, this is not a problem with the rules that needs to be addressed but an innate feature of the game.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:It's easy to say that when the people with whom you sympathise are playing down the slope.
Originally posted by Russ:
Right and wrong do not depend on whether you sympathize with someone. That's corruption.
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
One might think that one of the rules of the game is that the playing field shall be as close to level as practicable. If someone accuses those who assert that rule of sympathising with the people playing up the slope the suspicion arises that they don't make the accusation of sympathising out of impartial concern.
quote:I'm not sure this is true. We'd often talk about "free" things actually being camouflage for something else - the whole phenomena of "if you're not paying for it, you are the product."*
Originally posted by Kwesi:
As I'm sure you would want to point out, Russ, nothing is for free.
quote:For reference, in the past Russ has claimed racial discrimination is an acceptable "incline" and that the rules of Apartheid fall within the requirement that the rules be the same for everyone.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
quote:The argument would be that what you are purchasing is a sense of community. There is, however, a cost to your neighbour in giving you vegetables rather than selling them; and there is also the question as to whether the allotment land could be more financially profitable to the owners (local authority?) by being sold or rented for office development, or employed more usefully by building a school or clinic on it. Furthermore, your time and those of your community members on the allotment comes at a cost of any paid employment in which you might otherwise be engaged. Similar criteria might be applied to your cultural group. Might a greater sense of community be created by a more efficient use of the resources involved? If so, then your enjoyment comes at a cost not only to others but, perhaps, also yourselves.
But there are genuinely things which are free. There absolutely are.
Here are two things:
I spend quite a lot of time in my allotment. Quite often my neighbours (who are better at growing things than I am) give me vegetables. I usually don't have much to give back in return - but the "trade" isn't about that. These people value community, they like growing vegetables, they have more than they can eat and they sometimes give the excess away. The only thing they're looking for in return is the development of an ongoing vegetable growing community.
Another example is the Welsh language club I attend. We give a small amount of change every week to pay for the room (I know, so it isn't free - and yet it is clear that others would subsidise anyone who really couldn't afford it) and we chat and practice speaking in the language.
Nobody makes anything from it. Nobody's job depends on it. The point is not "economic", once again the purpose is to build community.
Both are examples of things that have value and are free.
quote:You might want to go back and read your OP ...
Originally posted by Russ:
This thread is more about those who seem to think that Jesus' teaching started and ended with His words about the rich and the poor.
quote:Again, that's not what you said you wanted to discuss in your OP... You said we were discussing whether social-progressive ideas were "anti-Christian" .... we told you, some are, some aren't ... now you want to discuss whether progressives are cafeteria Christians ...
If you see Jesus as authoritative when His words can be taken as supportive of your socialist ideas but not in anything else that He said, then your claim to be a Christian seems to me on shaky ground...
quote:Possibly, but that's a daft idea.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The argument would be that what you are purchasing is a sense of community.
quote:No there isn't. As I've said before, there is a legal requirement upon allotment tenants not to sell produce.
There is, however, a cost to your neighbour in giving you vegetables rather than selling them;
quote:Again, this is only partly true. Many allotments are statutory provision. If the landowner was to sell the land, then the local authority has a statutory requirement to provide suitable land elsewhere.
and there is also the question as to whether the allotment land could be more financially profitable to the owners (local authority?) by being sold or rented for office development, or employed more usefully by building a school or clinic on it.
quote:That's an odd thing for you to say given that you know nothing about me nor about other who tend vegetables in my allotment.
Furthermore, your time and those of your community members on the allotment comes at a cost of any paid employment in which you might otherwise be engaged.
quote:This is utter bunk. Nobody spends all their time at work. Some choose to spend their time watching television, or reading books in the library, others choose to attend a welsh conversation group.
Similar criteria might be applied to your cultural group. Might a greater sense of community be created by a more efficient use of the resources involved? If so, then your enjoyment comes at a cost not only to others but, perhaps, also yourselves.
quote:I just don't think that you're addressing anything substantial other than insisting that things can only be understood from your philosophical and economic position; whereas I simply do not accept that there are no activities which cannot be considered a transaction. I disagree with this language.
What I was more concerned about, however, was to point out that economic goods should not be confined to matters which involved financial transactions, nor that acts for which no charges are made should be undervalued, free domestic labour is an extremely critical element in the economy of most societies, and to point out that ‘life is more than meat, and the body more than raiment.’ One might suggest that a contented and fulfilled life cannot be measured solely by the amount of money an individual earns, but also that the sense of community gained by working on an allotment, of participating in a cultural group, of performing charitable acts, of going to church (even), and enjoying the company of family are of inestimable value. Indeed, it might be suggested it is the ability to realise these non-material benefits that is the object of economic activity.
quote:Is there anyone who claims that socialist Jesus is AOK, and non-socialist Jesus is persona non grata? Well, there may be, but I haven't met many, or in fact, any.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:You might want to go back and read your OP ...
Originally posted by Russ:
This thread is more about those who seem to think that Jesus' teaching started and ended with His words about the rich and the poor.
quote:Again, that's not what you said you wanted to discuss in your OP... You said we were discussing whether social-progressive ideas were "anti-Christian" .... we told you, some are, some aren't ... now you want to discuss whether progressives are cafeteria Christians ...
If you see Jesus as authoritative when His words can be taken as supportive of your socialist ideas but not in anything else that He said, then your claim to be a Christian seems to me on shaky ground...
quote:OK, your friend gives you some vegetables for free, but that doesn’t make the gift costless, a free lunch, because there is the cost of renting the land on which they are grown, the cost of seeds, the cost of fertiliser, and the cost of labour involved in their production. Isn’t the point of gifts that they are free to the recipient but not to the giver, one of the most notable being that of the woman who poured nard over Jesus (Mark 14: 3)?
Kwesi: There is, however, a cost to your neighbour in giving you vegetables rather than selling them;
mr cheesy: No there isn't. As I've said before, there is a legal requirement upon allotment tenants not to sell produce.
quote:You have a point: the Welsh language group does not seem to take up much resource so the costs are minimal. My wider point is that activities that are not normally considered in economic terms are not costless, and it is worth asking the question as to whether the cultural or communal benefits could be better achieved for more people if resources were differently employed.
Kwesi: Similar criteria might be applied to your cultural group. Might a greater sense of community be created by a more efficient use of the resources involved? If so, then your enjoyment comes at a cost not only to others but, perhaps, also yourselves.
mr cheesy: This is utter bunk. Nobody spends all their time at work. Some choose to spend their time watching television, or reading books in the library, others choose to attend a welsh conversation group.
quote:Friend, give up with this train of thought: you are wrong. The produce is excess, therefore there is no "cost" to the allotment holder. In fact it is wastage that otherwise would be thrown away.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
OK, your friend gives you some vegetables for free, but that doesn’t make the gift costless, a free lunch, because there is the cost of renting the land on which they are grown, the cost of seeds, the cost of fertiliser, and the cost of labour involved in their production. Isn’t the point of gifts that they are free to the recipient but not to the giver, one of the most notable being that of the woman who poured nard over Jesus (Mark 14: 3)?
quote:And my point is that there are a bunch of activities which cannot be measured in this way and that it is nonsense to claim that they can only possibly be considered to have a value if they're a transaction or considered to have a cost. That's just a screwy way of thinking.
You have a point: the Welsh language group does not seem to take up much resource so the costs are minimal. My wider point is that activities that are not normally considered in economic terms are not costless, and it is worth asking the question as to whether the cultural or communal benefits could be better achieved for more people if resources were differently employed.
quote:Again, this is nonsense. How are you determining the "value" of the land as an allotment versus the "value" of it as a block of flats?
For example there might be a number of possible uses for a piece of land, particularly if it’s in an urban area. The question then is how is that land best deployed. If the decision is that the choice be restricted to community development, then there may be a number of options: site for a clinic, a school, a library, a community centre, a park, playing fields etc and, of course, an allotment. Allotments tend to benefit a rather small number of people, who are often resistant to proposals to lessen the size of existing plots to bring more people in. Consequently, while the benefits of allotments are great to those privileged to rent them, it might be at the cost of a greater community gain were the land put to another use.
quote:Yes, exactly.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Russ' conception of how rules work stops at the point where rules are applied. There is no feedback loop to consider the question of whether the rules should be changed if they are not producing desirable outcomes. The rules are immutable. If the rules are favouring one group of players over another, this is not a problem with the rules that needs to be addressed but an innate feature of the game.
Originally posted by Russ:
Right and wrong do not depend on whether you sympathize with someone. That's corruption.
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
quote:Russ, I do wish you'd stop bringing up murder as an example of God's -- or anybody's --
Originally posted by Russ:
What do you call someone who wants to suspend the rule against murder because it isn't producing the outcome they desire ?
Christians believe that God set the rules of morality. That people cannot change them because they'd prefer a different outcome.
And that - to the extent that some people are "favoured" thereby - it is not unjust to those who find keeping those rules an uphill struggle. Because God will judge us on our effort (and our contrition when we fail), rather than on our success as such.
quote:The fact that you got THAT out of what I wrote beggars belief.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes, exactly.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Russ' conception of how rules work stops at the point where rules are applied. There is no feedback loop to consider the question of whether the rules should be changed if they are not producing desirable outcomes. The rules are immutable. If the rules are favouring one group of players over another, this is not a problem with the rules that needs to be addressed but an innate feature of the game.
Originally posted by Russ:
Right and wrong do not depend on whether you sympathize with someone. That's corruption.
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
What do you call someone who wants to suspend the rule against murder because it isn't producing the outcome they desire ?
Christians believe that God set the rules of morality. That people cannot change them because they'd prefer a different outcome.
And that - to the extent that some people are "favoured" thereby - it is not unjust to those who find keeping those rules an uphill struggle. Because God will judge us on our effort (and our contrition when we fail), rather than on our success as such.
quote:Well, I'm not thinking of tithes. That's a "how". Just whether there's any reason *anyone* shouldn't have basic food and housing.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I want our tithes to be spent on basic food and housing for those who cannot earn the money to pay for these things for themselves. Doesn't everyone ?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
Sincere question:
Is there any reason that anyone anywhere *shouldn't* have enough of basic food and housing?
(Putting aside questions about who would pay for it, and how it might be done.)
Thx.
quote:Yes--though I'll stipulate that basic and emergency medical care are in the "basic needs" parameters.
(Alongside curing the sick, but park that aspect for now - you're asking about meeting basic needs).
quote:To me, on this topic, you tend to come across as dry and disinterested in the effects on human beings. That may *not* be what you really think/feel.
I do not desire that anyone should involuntarily lack these basic necessities. If you think that's what I'm arguing for, then either you're reading it wrong or I'm saying it wrong. Or both...
quote:--Rich corporations avoid/evade paying taxes as much as they possibly can. Which means that the gov't budget doesn't get the money it should have, which means that money and programs for the needy are basically Band-aids, and not fixes.
I don't know why governments are quite so bad at spending the money. How can they spend so many billions on welfare without achieving this obvious aim ? Why are there people sleeping rough and people starving ? In "first world" countries ?
quote:I'm not saying treat them like livestock. Just that everyone needs basic food and housing, so everyone should have it. (In a culturally-appropriate way.)
Others here will no doubt be able to answer that better than I can. But I can see a number of directions that such an answer might take.
One is that people aren't farm animals. You can't lock them in a shed and feed them a balanced diet and say "job done". People have to be treated as people, with dignity; they have to be allowed to walk out of whatever arrangements are made for them, unless they've done something to deserve incarceration.
quote:And that is difficult. People often assume that one or the other will turn out ok, if the poor will just work a bit harder on their lives.
One is the competing needs of the poor in one's own country and the poorer overseas.
quote:Pride in their work? Not wanting to sit around at home all day? Wanting to see people outside their household?
One is about the lack of a clear boundary between the needy and the non-needy. About why anyone would work to feed their family and keep a roof over their head if they could get all that provided for them if they just exaggerate their difficulties a little...
quote:Hmmm. I'm not sure how you mean that. We have a massive, long-running, affordable housing crisis here in SF. There've been efforts to make developers of apartment complexes include some affordable units, but that's a drop in the bucket.
And one is about things like building regulations and planning permission and the best being the enemy of the good.
quote:Yes, the issues should be solvable. It's very difficult to find a solution that most people agree on, and will continue to agree on, and that will actually work. ISTM that the solution usually gets damaged, ruined, or taken away--usually due to someone wanting to get their hands on the money/resources set aside for the solution.
I don't know the answers. I don't know whether you'd consider any of those as a valid reason for someone being homeless or hungry. My sense is that they're not; that those issues ought to be solvable.
Does that answer your question ?
quote:mr Cheesy, I thought you might throw at me something about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing! Thanks for sparing me that. In point of fact, though not a possessor, I rather like allotments, they defy the urban concrete, promote pottering around in a money-grubbing culture, foster human interaction mostly of a positive kind among the tenants, as you demonstrate, and provide places of welcome refuge. I hope they survive the greed of the developer, and other socially beneficial claims on the space - social variety is worth defending as much as diversity in the plant and animal kingdom.
And my point is that there are a bunch of activities which cannot be measured in this way and that it is nonsense to claim that they can only possibly be considered to have a value if they're a transaction or considered to have a cost. That's just a screwy way of thinking.
quote:How bad are they? Respecting countries that might be referred to as welfare states, I think they do pretty well. You only have to compare them with the condition of the poor in the third world, or, indeed, the social condition of their own societies before welfare reforms were introduced. It’s not the minuscule percentage who are sleeping rough that measure the success of welfare states, but the percentage who have access to health, education, housing and pensions. The billions spent on public goods have achieved their aims pretty well. Problems are largely a function of the need to spend billions more to keep up with improvements in medicines, surgical techniques and the expansion of higher education, and to address the consequences of their own success: the increasing number of elderly.
I don't know why governments are quite so bad at spending the money. How can they spend so many billions on welfare without achieving this obvious aim ? Why are there people sleeping rough and people starving ? In "first world" countries ?
quote:I entirely agree that (most) people need/want to do things in order to give their lives meaning. The problem is that for an awful lot of the things people would like to be doing it's very hard to find someone willing to pay for them to be done.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Marvin there is ample evidence that psychologically people need to do things. Not sit around being Russ' caricature of a welfare recipient who just wants to lounge around all day and watch TV. People WANT to contribute.
quote:Because ultimately, someone has to pay for all the stuff we need to keep us alive. If too many people decide to make non-economic contributions to society then there won't be enough tax income to pay for doctors, teachers, police, firemen, binmen, welfare checks (and people to administer them), roads, medicines, etc.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Why should the only contributions that count be economic?
quote:There are two schools of thought regarding these sort of technological innovations.
After all it appears people are taking seriously the idea that driverless cars will soon be making the economic contributions on behalf of certain sectors. Why should we have to find other ways of making economic contributions if those sectors are making economic contributions for us?
quote:Surely, you are not arguing that people like " doctors, teachers, police, firemen, binmen, welfare checks (and people to administer them), roads, medicines, etc" are not making an economic contribution to society? Because most of them are paid through taxation doesn't make them non-economic.
Dafyd: Why should the only contributions that count be economic?
Martin: Because ultimately, someone has to pay for all the stuff we need to keep us alive. If too many people decide to make non-economic contributions to society then there won't be enough tax income to pay for doctors, teachers, police, firemen, binmen, welfare checks (and people to administer them), roads, medicines, etc.
Society needs a sustainable level of economic activity in order to survive. It follows that society needs as many people as possible to be making economic contributions rather than non-economic ones.
quote:Which is why we need to tax the robots. Literally, that's what we do, and we provide everyone with a UBI.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are two schools of thought regarding these sort of technological innovations.
1- That ultimately, they will lead to everyone being free to do the things they find fulfilling, and the robots will provide all our food, power, etc. virtually free of charge.
2- That the robots will indeed be able to provide food, power, etc. virtually free of charge to the people who own them, but that the rest of us will be left unable to buy them due to there being no more jobs for us to do in order to earn money. Essentially, the elites will live lives of luxury on the back of automated labour while the rest of us never get a look in.
quote:Minister for Defence.
Originally posted by Russ:
What do you call someone who wants to suspend the rule against murder because it isn't producing the outcome they desire ?
quote:Christians believe that the rules of morality were made for humanity, rather than humanity for the rules of morality.
Christians believe that God set the rules of morality. That people cannot change them because they'd prefer a different outcome.
quote:If the robots are making those economic contributions then society doesn't need as many people as possible to make them.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Society needs a sustainable level of economic activity in order to survive. It follows that society needs as many people as possible to be making economic contributions rather than non-economic ones.
quote:I think 2 is certainly more likely if we keep on thinking that we need as many people as possible to make economic contributions and that therefore people who aren't making economic contributions are burdens on those who are, irrespective of what the robots are doing.
There are two schools of thought regarding these sort of technological innovations.
1- That ultimately, they will lead to everyone being free to do the things they find fulfilling, and the robots will provide all our food, power, etc. virtually free of charge.
2- That the robots will indeed be able to provide food, power, etc. virtually free of charge to the people who own them, but that the rest of us will be left unable to buy them due to there being no more jobs for us to do in order to earn money.
Personally, I think 2 is much more likely.
quote:No, I'm saying that without as many people as possible making an economic contribution to the government via taxes there won't be enough money to pay for all those people/things.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Surely, you are not arguing that people like " doctors, teachers, police, firemen, binmen, welfare checks (and people to administer them), roads, medicines, etc" are not making an economic contribution to society? Because most of them are paid through taxation doesn't make them non-economic.
quote:On what basis? They won't be getting paid, so income tax and NI won't apply.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why we need to tax the robots.
quote:We could tax profit made by businesses (in whatever form) that are using robots at a rate that covers the following:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:On what basis? They won't be getting paid, so income tax and NI won't apply.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why we need to tax the robots.
quote:The robots won't be getting paid, therefore they won't be contributing taxes to the government. So where is the money to fund health, welfare, transport, security, etc. going to come from?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:If the robots are making those economic contributions then society doesn't need as many people as possible to make them.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Society needs a sustainable level of economic activity in order to survive. It follows that society needs as many people as possible to be making economic contributions rather than non-economic ones.
quote:The only way 2 can be avoided is if we completely ditch the concept of ownership and allow everything the robots create, mine or grow to be available to anyone who wants it. A post-scarcity economy, basically. Although even then, the people who own the raw materials would be able to dominate the economy.
I think 2 is certainly more likely if we keep on thinking that we need as many people as possible to make economic contributions and that therefore people who aren't making economic contributions are burdens on those who are, irrespective of what the robots are doing.
quote:I'd have thought the first part of this is fairly straightforward. The robots will be like any other part of hardware in a business - they have a cost to keep running. But they don't have additional costs that would be associated with employees.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The robots won't be getting paid, therefore they won't be contributing taxes to the government. So where is the money to fund health, welfare, transport, security, etc. going to come from?
quote:On the basis that we'll go the way of working horses in 20th century Britain.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:On what basis? They won't be getting paid, so income tax and NI won't apply.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why we need to tax the robots.
quote:Don't be silly. They need people to buy things. So increased poverty, not complete redundancy, is the future.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:On the basis that we'll go the way of working horses in 20th century Britain.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:On what basis? They won't be getting paid, so income tax and NI won't apply.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why we need to tax the robots.
quote:Yes, I rather think we will. Whether alternative means of earning an income spring up to replace those we will lose to automation remains an open question, especially if we ever get to the point where robots can do any conceivable job far more efficiently and cheaply than humans. A few artisans will continue to make a living by selling "human-made" items as novelties or luxuries, of course (as they do now with many products that are already largely machine-made) - and there will always be a market for professional sports, entertainers, singers, comedians, etc. - but the rest of us will be shit out of luck.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
On the basis that we'll go the way of working horses in 20th century Britain.
quote:This is true. But it is unlikely to be true in the future. The growth potential isn't there as it was in the past. For one, people went from one unskilled/semi-skilled labour to a different unskilled/semi-skilled labour. There isn't a new unskilled/semi-skilled task around the corner. The new semi-skilled/skilled tasks need fewer people by a significant factor more than in the past and many of the semi-skilled/skilled positions have the requirement (though not always need) of a degree.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
People used to make ribbons by hand. The jobs were lost when machines did the job. The jobs changed and money was made (for the individual and the taxman) in new and different ways.
quote:They won't need us. They don't need us now. They don't need us to buy things - most of the people we're talking about are already so rich that if no one bought anything ever again, their bank balances wouldn't so much as quiver. The rich already live in a post-scarcity society.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Don't be silly. They need people to buy things. So increased poverty, not complete redundancy, is the future.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:On the basis that we'll go the way of working horses in 20th century Britain.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:On what basis? They won't be getting paid, so income tax and NI won't apply.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why we need to tax the robots.
quote:Their wealth is tied to the economy and the economy needs drivers. Purchasing is the main basic unit of economy that feeds the rest.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:They won't need us. They don't need us now. They don't need us to buy things - most of the people we're talking about are already so rich that if no one bought anything ever again, their bank balances wouldn't so much as quiver. The rich already live in a post-scarcity society.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Don't be silly. They need people to buy things. So increased poverty, not complete redundancy, is the future.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:On the basis that we'll go the way of working horses in 20th century Britain.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:On what basis? They won't be getting paid, so income tax and NI won't apply.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why we need to tax the robots.
(obligatory 'wake up sheeple!')
quote:Why can't the robots guard the rich?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. In this future, there will be exactly two kinds of jobs.
Guarding the rich. Programming robots.
quote:For that matter, once self-replicating machines have been created the robots could program themselves as well.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Why can't the robots guard the rich?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. In this future, there will be exactly two kinds of jobs.
Guarding the rich. Programming robots.
quote:I think you are viewing an intermediate state, whereas Doc Tor is viewing an end state. It's true that the current economy as well as the march of technology is based on mass consumer demand driving profits and then driving down prices, but in a robotic future (with labour substitution, and batch size of one thanks to 3d printing and other bespoke manufacturing techniques) this need not necessarily be the case forever.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Following on from recent posts the question that intrigues me is how an economic system in which the demand for labour has been greatly reduced is going to sustain the high level of consumer demand necessary for the maintenance of a system of mass consumption. How are the owners (private and public) going to solve that one?
quote:Indeed
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There comes a point where shouting "I made you! I own you!" will only get you so far. Even if you are stinking rich.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Exactly. I use murder as an example in the hope that we can all agree that murder is wrong. And that this moral duty binds everyone. Common ground.
Originally posted by Ohher:
I do wish you'd stop bringing up murder as an example of God's - or anybody's - morality. Nobody here is arguing that some people should be able to get away with murder while others should be punished for it
quote:My point was not that maintaining an incline is good, but that the question of inclination is separate from the rules of the game.
Which commandment, or other Christian moral teaching, should we be turning to to confirm that your "inclined playing field" (however achieved) is fine with God, and that it's further fine with God that humanity should be careful to maintain that incline?
quote:All crimes are committed in the past. Vengeance be damned; justice demands crimes not go unaddressed.
Originally posted by Russ:
There is no commandment to do down those who have mistreated others in the past. Vengeance for past injustice is not yours to take.
quote:It is a dodge. What we speak of when referencing the sins of the past is addressing their consequences which exist still.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:All crimes are committed in the past. Vengeance be damned; justice demands crimes not go unaddressed.
Originally posted by Russ:
There is no commandment to do down those who have mistreated others in the past. Vengeance for past injustice is not yours to take.
quote:Actually, your point seems to be to evade the question I'm asking.
Originally posted by Russ:
My point was not that maintaining an incline is good, but that the question of inclination is separate from the rules of the game.
<SNIP>
Vengeance for past injustice is not yours to take.
quote:The Bible that everybody else refers to uses the word, 'love God' and 'love your neighbour'.
Originally posted by Russ:
I reference the same Bible as everybody else. Wherein Jesus, talking about the greatest commandment, says (loosely paraphrased) first look to God - do His will (i.e. what is morally right) and don't put other considerations in front of that. And second treat your neighbour as yourself - don't do others down.
quote:I think you're underestimating the opportunities for personal service contracts.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. In this future, there will be exactly two kinds of jobs.
Guarding the rich. Programming robots.
That's it.
The 'economy' is what we, the little people, need. The rich increasingly don't. Their wealth is becoming divorced from actual things, as they already have more than they can spend in a lifetime. They might keep some of us around, as pets - much like horses - but otherwise, their robot servants and labourers will do everything that's required.
The best we can hope for in such a scenario is a quick death.
quote:What about the assassination of a tyrant?
Exactly. I use murder as an example in the hope that we can all agree that murder is wrong. And that this moral duty binds everyone. Common ground.
quote:Actually they do change the incline all time, making it more and more in their favour! No wonder Christ promised that his yoke is easy and its burden light.
And apparently, you also regard it as wrong for the powerful, who may be able to change the incline, to make any effort to do so. They, too, should simply accept things as they are.
quote:How interesting. You seem to believe in a warped understanding of Kant's Categorical imperative - where moral actions are universal - but without Kant's sense of personal autonomy - his famous concept that one should only be bound by laws of one's own creation.
Originally posted by Russ:
I have no hotline to God. I reference the same Bible as everybody else. Wherein Jesus, talking about the greatest commandment, says (loosely paraphrased) first look to God - do His will (i.e. what is morally right) and don't put other considerations in front of that. And second treat your neighbour as yourself - don't do others down.
quote:Kant doesn't share Russ' view that the universality of moral laws is independent of personal circumstance. Kant wouldn't argue that 'rich people are obliged to assist those who are worse off' is personal as it seems Russ does.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You seem to believe in a warped understanding of Kant's Categorical imperative - where moral actions are universal - but without Kant's sense of personal autonomy - his famous concept that one should only be bound by laws of one's own creation.
quote:I admit, I find Kant difficult. I just can't get from the idea that (a) lying is always bad so that's a moral law which means
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Kant doesn't share Russ' view that the universality of moral laws is independent of personal circumstance. Kant wouldn't argue that 'rich people are obliged to assist those who are worse off' is personal as it seems Russ does.
quote:I know even less about Heidegger and nothing about Schmitt.
I've just come across Russ' idea that redistribution is not universal but personal in a different context. Apparently the idea originates with the right-wing political philosopher Carl Schmitt. I say right-wing political philosopher, but Schmitt's claim to fame is that he's the second-most important philosopher to be literally a card-carrying Nazi. With Heidegger it's still an open question as to whether or not the philosophy and the Nazism had anything to do with each other. Whereas Schmitt was a right-wing political philosopher who thought democracy was a threat to liberty, by which he meant property rights, that a strong state needs to have enemies to defeat, etc, where the connection to Nazism is obvious.
quote:You don't need billions of people for that - a few million on a reservation somewhere will do.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think you're underestimating the opportunities for personal service contracts.
quote:The bible can clearly be read as a call to redistribute some of one's own wealth to the poor.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...theology which suggests that the bible in general, and the New Testament in particular, cannot be honestly read as a call to redistribution...
quote:Wait, so are you basically one of those people who assumes that "Black Lives Matter" is intended to imply that white lives don't?
Originally posted by Russ:
It's the idea that those groups that one sympathizes with as being in some way disadvantaged have greater moral rights or fewer moral duties than others.
quote:Rant away. It's one way to avoid the reality that whether or not one can enjoy or exercise one's rights, or fulfill one's duties and responsibilities, fully and freely, DOES depend on one's individual privileges and disadvantages.
Originally posted by Russ:
...
The particular mindset I'm ranting about on this thread is not quite the same thing. It's the idea that those groups that one sympathizes with as being in some way disadvantaged have greater moral rights or fewer moral duties than others....
quote:Yeah. Socialism is further along the trajectory than mere charity.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:The bible can clearly be read as a call to redistribute some of one's own wealth to the poor.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...theology which suggests that the bible in general, and the New Testament in particular, cannot be honestly read as a call to redistribution...
In the extreme case - St Francis comes to mind - to embrace poverty and redistribute all one's wealth to the poor.
I don't see that it can honestly be read as a call to redistribute other people's wealth to the poor.
But that's just socialism.
The particular mindset I'm ranting about on this thread is not quite the same thing. It's the idea that those groups that one sympathizes with as being in some way disadvantaged have greater moral rights or fewer moral duties than others.
Wherever you think the balance lies between the right to free speech and the duty not to offend people, or between the rights of buyers and the rights of sellers, if you draw that balance in a different place according to whether the people involved are or are not members of groups you sympathize with, then you're a corrupt judge. You have violated the principle which Wikipedia refers to as "moral universalism" (reference in the article on Kant that was linked to earlier).
I don't think such "moral particularism" is biblical, but feel free to try to make the case...
Note that I'm not saying that the sympathy is bad of itself. I'm saying that you should allow those you don't sympathize with the same moral rights as those you do.
quote:Does the word 'ranting' amount to an admission that you're not paying attention to what anyone else says? That this idea you associate with 'the social-progressive mindset' may not be associated with 'the social-progressive mindset' in reality?
Originally posted by Russ:
The particular mindset I'm ranting about on this thread is not quite the same thing. It's the idea that those groups that one sympathizes with as being in some way disadvantaged have greater moral rights or fewer moral duties than others.
quote:Sounds right to me. And there's no legal or moral requirement for the polling station to be exactly the same distance from everybody's house. Doesn't have to be equally easy, only reasonably possible.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
if a citizen who uses a walker can't get up the stairs to the polling station, they've been denied the right to vote solely because they can't walk. In order for that person to exercise the right to vote, accommodations must be made - accessible stations, absentee voting, whatever. That's not 'greater moral rights', that's still the same right - the right to vote.
quote:You're not making sense. I've argued for a universal right of all people to not have to sell what they don't want to sell (and would tend to argue similarly that people shouldn't have to buy what they don't want to buy.)
you've consistently argued that some people's rights matter more than others. You've argued that a shopkeeper's right to be racist matters more than the right of employees and customers to not be discriminated against because of race ... which is exactly what you claim you're ranting against ... some people having "greater" rights than others ...
quote:Might as well drink from it as the camel can't take the strain
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I'm going to need a long, tall drink to go with all that straw.
quote:I can scarcely, believe, after all this time, that Russ is still conflating "what you sell" with "who you sell it to", but here we have it again ladies and gentlemen.
Originally posted by Russ:
I've argued for a universal right of all people to not have to sell what they don't want to sell (and would tend to argue similarly that people shouldn't have to buy what they don't want to buy.)
Race doesn't enter into it.
Imagine there were 4 European countries with different laws about retailing.
In country A, vendors have absolute discretion as to whom they choose to sell or not sell.
In country B, the vendor has no choice - if something is advertised for sale at a price, the vendor is obliged to sell it to anyone who pays the price.
In country C, you can't refuse to sell to a white person, but you can refuse to sell to a black person.
In country D, you can't refuse to sell to a black person but you can refuse to sell to a white person.
As a moral universalist, I believe that C and D are morally wrong, for the same reason - that people should have equal rights. But that A and B have different customs which are equally valid.
quote:O.M.G.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The prospective purchaser magically converts the ingredients into gay flour, gay eggs, gay sugar etc.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
white flour, egg whites, white sugar...White cakes are for white people? Is this why I prefer chocolate cakes? Damn, my taste-buds are racist... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Yes, and bakeries are forced to have chocolate cakes for sale, by these nasty laws that don't give them the freedom to not sell chocolate cakes.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:O.M.G.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The prospective purchaser magically converts the ingredients into gay flour, gay eggs, gay sugar etc.
quote:Russ, might you not be forced to the conclusion:
I've argued for a universal right of all people to not have to sell what they don't want to sell.
Imagine there were 4 European countries with different laws about retailing.
In country A, vendors have absolute discretion as to whom they choose to sell or not sell.
In country B, the vendor has no choice - if something is advertised for sale at a price, the vendor is obliged to sell it to anyone who pays the price.
In country C, you can't refuse to sell to a white person, but you can refuse to sell to a black person.
In country D, you can't refuse to sell to a black person but you can refuse to sell to a white person.
As a moral universalist, I believe that C and D are morally wrong, for the same reason - that people should have equal rights. But that A and B have different customs which are equally valid.
quote:Amen.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
You are only posing a logical dilemma because your basic assumptions are incompatible and must, therefore, be faulty.
quote:Chocolate cake sounds good to me. With strong black coffee...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
O.M.G.
quote:Oh for heaven's sake, Russ, the point is that you keep claiming OTHERS want shops to be forced to sell things.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Chocolate cake sounds good to me. With strong black coffee...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
O.M.G.
That doesn't mean I want every shop in town compelled by law to sell these. Though it's a pleasant daydream...
quote:First, it's telling how often those making this kind of argument don't (or can't) distinguish between things (what's being bought or sold) and people (who is doing the buying and selling).
Originally posted by Russ:
You're not making sense. I've argued for a universal right of all people to not have to sell what they don't want to sell (and would tend to argue similarly that people shouldn't have to buy what they don't want to buy.)
Race doesn't enter into it.
Imagine there were 4 European countries with different laws about retailing.
In country A, vendors have absolute discretion as to whom they choose to sell or not sell.
In country B, the vendor has no choice - if something is advertised for sale at a price, the vendor is obliged to sell it to anyone who pays the price.
In country C, you can't refuse to sell to a white person, but you can refuse to sell to a black person.
In country D, you can't refuse to sell to a black person but you can refuse to sell to a white person.