Nope. I live in reality, and I can't tell you how many times my head's been cut off. Someone else, certainly more than one, are doing it.
God? Oh, you mean the one who relies solely on random human evangelists to spread the "Good News", who have, unsurprisingly, convinced only about 1/7 of the world in 2000 years? The one who hasn't spoke…
Nope. I live in reality, and I can't tell you how many times my head's been cut off. Someone else, certainly more than one, are doing it.
God? Oh, you mean the one who relies solely on random human evangelists to spread the "Good News", who have, unsurprisingly, convinced only about 1/7 of the world in 2000 years? The one who hasn't spoken to us since the fourth century CE? The one who nevertheless is regularly hallucinated into existence by believers, where any knowledge of such being is utterly non-transferable to non believers, unlike such things as physical objects, structure of the atom, mental states of humans, etc. etc.? The infinitely merciful one who will torture me, an imperfect and limited human, in perpetuity, simply for coming to the wrong conclusion about the nature of reality?
Thanks, but no thanks -- I think I've heard quite enough.
I'm not promoting belief in all powerful beings that control our lives, not God and not any cabal of humans. You've put it out there you think there is someone calling the shots but is unseen.
There's way too much sustained (i.e. decades of) congruence in wealth concentration and freedom diminution to think it's all part of some entropic process. That's *before* one gets to the direct evidence...
I’m enjoying both sides of your debate: curmudgeon and hip. You are disagreeing but not disagreeable and I find myself agreeing with both of you even though you’re on opposite sides.
How exactly does someone else's wealth control your life? If wealth concentration is an inevitable and invariant process, why are Musk, Bezos and Gates the titans they are - shouldn't that wealth all be in the hands of Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, etc. - you know, the old money.
I can see how we lose freedom due to small minded voters and demogagic politicians. Lots of people want to feel safe, and cared for - some even want to be relieved of making choices. All of those people will give up control of their own lives, willingly.
"If wealth concentration is an inevitable and invariant process, why are Musk, Bezos and Gates the titans they are - shouldn't that wealth all be in the hands of Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, etc. - you know, the old money."
(1) Over time, yes, it dissipates through less-productive heirs. But simultaneously, it is concentrated into the hands of the new highly-productive, who battle not only with (occasionally) the gov and (always) the hoi polloi, but also those less-productive heirs.
(2) At points in time, we had crises with popular outrage, resulting in Progressive era limitation of workweek, elimination of child labor, etc.; the New Deal social programs, highly progressive taxation peaking in the 50s (which was no slouch economy, all through the early 70s)
"Lots of people want to feel safe, and cared for ... All of those people will give up control of their own lives, willingly."
Nonsense.
(1) Safety is the second-lowest rung of Maslow's hierarchy.
(2) No one has anything like a complete view of the world, while knowledge possession is highly skewed, and so no one can give up "willingly" something necessarily unknown about the future.
(3) Meanwhile, heavily skewed nature / nurture (including knowledge) characteristics exist through little to no fault of the unfortunate, and take time to recover from.
My position is, mainly, for robust safety nets; the abolition of $100 millionaires and certainly billionaires (the value of which is only for control of countries and economies, not personal consumption); and the abolition of the inheritance of large fortunes (certainly anything above $10m) if only for their inconsistency with capitalist rewards. If that's granted, fine, you can go wild earning your $99 million.
And of course you fail to address the very first question - how does someone else's wealth control your life?
Funny that you think Musk, et al are "highly productive" and not just objects of good fortune.
You immediately turn around and talk about a level of wealth that is all about CONTROL (country vice individual); yet you can't say how it actuates such control. I am trying to penetrate your dogmatic view and make you elaborate. I'm not interested in arbitrary numbers - I want the mechanism of your oppression.
"[H]ow does someone else's wealth control your life?"
If land (and its characteristics, in use, and re societies) were unlimited, you could, I think, successfully argue that it doesn't. But it IS limited, certainly from 20th century on, and is the foundation of power concentration. Concentration of power is simply unavoidable, due to peoples' unavoidably unequal characteristics.
Concentration of power (including wealth, i.e. as measured via Gini coefficient) results in eventual interference with government, as well as corruption in all venues, and thus results in the crowding out of opportunity. As commerce for and use of certain necessities -- land use, health care, education, etc. -- are controlled, the "outsiders" are accordingly controlled, and in the limiting stages (a la US 4th turnings, if you will) eventually crushed.
Concentration of power has always occurred, in all societies (it doesn't matter ultimately whether feudalist, capitalist, communist, whatever), at all times, so that eventually breakdown and/or popular revolt results. The best that can be hoped for is more conscious and democratic suppression of concentration.
"Funny that you think Musk, et al are 'highly productive' and not just objects of good fortune."
Certainly, both are true. Even if his 'productivity' is half showmanship, manipulation, etc., as I alluded to in my third point about unequal nurture (which includes environments of all types at all stages in life).
Humans have done a very good job, at many times, making life fairer. It's the grease that makes civilization function. There's no reason to abandon that quest, IF is accomplished with an open society acting in good faith. To drop this pursuit is essentially reverting backwards.
Well you are taking a very Lockian view of land. The problem is that was already problematic when he formulated it.
No one suggested that we don't aim to make a better society - that's perfectly consistent with the founding of this country. Part of that is limiting what the govt does. Since the conditions exist outside of the scope of the economy and the govt - your belief in govt solving them is as fruitless as believing God will.
Clarification: When I said "Nonsense" after " 'All of those people will give up control of their own lives, willingly.' ", I did not mean this was false (it often is true), but meant I disagreed with the implication that these people are necessarily guilty of bad behavior.
That's true, it isn't necessarily bad behavior, that depends on how well they understand what they are asking for. If it is in the vain belief that some entity can provide for them - then what is the difference in them asking God to provide, or govt?
If by "vain" you mean "in vain" here, I'd say only that it is universally recognized that Gov exert control over peoples' live and therefore it is rational to appeal to it (or rather, as a practical matter in a democracy of the people, its representatives),. The (Christian?) God, not so much 'universally recognized'.
"God, not so much 'universally recognized'" -- meaning, don't force religiously-based decisions down the throats of non-believers, who are non-participants in that party. Over-the-top support of a certain middle east country that is not S.A. is Exhibit A.
Have you read Gurri's book? You should. Govt is not a metaphysical substitute for God. Govt no more ordains our future than does God. That's a hard truth for people to swallow; much easier to simply shift the expectation of omnipotence from one thing to another.
This obviously would need to involve an international treaty, requiring participation from the currently heavily privileged (no, that's not equivalent to the set of "white people"; please don't confuse me with the woke totalitarians). We should pick up where the FD Roosevelts left off.
Nope. I live in reality, and I can't tell you how many times my head's been cut off. Someone else, certainly more than one, are doing it.
God? Oh, you mean the one who relies solely on random human evangelists to spread the "Good News", who have, unsurprisingly, convinced only about 1/7 of the world in 2000 years? The one who hasn't spoken to us since the fourth century CE? The one who nevertheless is regularly hallucinated into existence by believers, where any knowledge of such being is utterly non-transferable to non believers, unlike such things as physical objects, structure of the atom, mental states of humans, etc. etc.? The infinitely merciful one who will torture me, an imperfect and limited human, in perpetuity, simply for coming to the wrong conclusion about the nature of reality?
Thanks, but no thanks -- I think I've heard quite enough.
I'm not promoting belief in all powerful beings that control our lives, not God and not any cabal of humans. You've put it out there you think there is someone calling the shots but is unseen.
There's way too much sustained (i.e. decades of) congruence in wealth concentration and freedom diminution to think it's all part of some entropic process. That's *before* one gets to the direct evidence...
I’m enjoying both sides of your debate: curmudgeon and hip. You are disagreeing but not disagreeable and I find myself agreeing with both of you even though you’re on opposite sides.
Rather C is one of many good contributors on Matt's site- wise, civil, and smart. I don't say much around here---still learning.
Thank you both, you are most kind.
How exactly does someone else's wealth control your life? If wealth concentration is an inevitable and invariant process, why are Musk, Bezos and Gates the titans they are - shouldn't that wealth all be in the hands of Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, etc. - you know, the old money.
I can see how we lose freedom due to small minded voters and demogagic politicians. Lots of people want to feel safe, and cared for - some even want to be relieved of making choices. All of those people will give up control of their own lives, willingly.
"If wealth concentration is an inevitable and invariant process, why are Musk, Bezos and Gates the titans they are - shouldn't that wealth all be in the hands of Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, etc. - you know, the old money."
(1) Over time, yes, it dissipates through less-productive heirs. But simultaneously, it is concentrated into the hands of the new highly-productive, who battle not only with (occasionally) the gov and (always) the hoi polloi, but also those less-productive heirs.
(2) At points in time, we had crises with popular outrage, resulting in Progressive era limitation of workweek, elimination of child labor, etc.; the New Deal social programs, highly progressive taxation peaking in the 50s (which was no slouch economy, all through the early 70s)
"Lots of people want to feel safe, and cared for ... All of those people will give up control of their own lives, willingly."
Nonsense.
(1) Safety is the second-lowest rung of Maslow's hierarchy.
(2) No one has anything like a complete view of the world, while knowledge possession is highly skewed, and so no one can give up "willingly" something necessarily unknown about the future.
(3) Meanwhile, heavily skewed nature / nurture (including knowledge) characteristics exist through little to no fault of the unfortunate, and take time to recover from.
My position is, mainly, for robust safety nets; the abolition of $100 millionaires and certainly billionaires (the value of which is only for control of countries and economies, not personal consumption); and the abolition of the inheritance of large fortunes (certainly anything above $10m) if only for their inconsistency with capitalist rewards. If that's granted, fine, you can go wild earning your $99 million.
And of course you fail to address the very first question - how does someone else's wealth control your life?
Funny that you think Musk, et al are "highly productive" and not just objects of good fortune.
You immediately turn around and talk about a level of wealth that is all about CONTROL (country vice individual); yet you can't say how it actuates such control. I am trying to penetrate your dogmatic view and make you elaborate. I'm not interested in arbitrary numbers - I want the mechanism of your oppression.
"[H]ow does someone else's wealth control your life?"
If land (and its characteristics, in use, and re societies) were unlimited, you could, I think, successfully argue that it doesn't. But it IS limited, certainly from 20th century on, and is the foundation of power concentration. Concentration of power is simply unavoidable, due to peoples' unavoidably unequal characteristics.
Concentration of power (including wealth, i.e. as measured via Gini coefficient) results in eventual interference with government, as well as corruption in all venues, and thus results in the crowding out of opportunity. As commerce for and use of certain necessities -- land use, health care, education, etc. -- are controlled, the "outsiders" are accordingly controlled, and in the limiting stages (a la US 4th turnings, if you will) eventually crushed.
Concentration of power has always occurred, in all societies (it doesn't matter ultimately whether feudalist, capitalist, communist, whatever), at all times, so that eventually breakdown and/or popular revolt results. The best that can be hoped for is more conscious and democratic suppression of concentration.
"Funny that you think Musk, et al are 'highly productive' and not just objects of good fortune."
Certainly, both are true. Even if his 'productivity' is half showmanship, manipulation, etc., as I alluded to in my third point about unequal nurture (which includes environments of all types at all stages in life).
So this is not at all simply a feature of capitalism but of the nature of life itself - I think that is what you are saying.
If someone ever told you life is fair, they lied to you.
Humans have done a very good job, at many times, making life fairer. It's the grease that makes civilization function. There's no reason to abandon that quest, IF is accomplished with an open society acting in good faith. To drop this pursuit is essentially reverting backwards.
Well you are taking a very Lockian view of land. The problem is that was already problematic when he formulated it.
No one suggested that we don't aim to make a better society - that's perfectly consistent with the founding of this country. Part of that is limiting what the govt does. Since the conditions exist outside of the scope of the economy and the govt - your belief in govt solving them is as fruitless as believing God will.
I don't "believe" Government will solve them, that is, I don't "have faith" in it. God and Gov are an apple and an orange.
In a democracy, the government is *us*, and we'd better start understanding it, believing it, and acting like it, once again.
I'm not abandoning capitalist, I want to remove the indefensible features of unfettered capitalism. Both Adam Smith and Marx tell truths.
There is an important distinction between Smith and Marx - the former was a product of the Enlightenment and the latter was a product of Romanticism.
Both were wrong about the Labor Theory of Value too.
By "land is limited", I mean more precisely "all land use is, and arguably by necessity, controlled". There's no frontier to escape to.
Clarification: When I said "Nonsense" after " 'All of those people will give up control of their own lives, willingly.' ", I did not mean this was false (it often is true), but meant I disagreed with the implication that these people are necessarily guilty of bad behavior.
That's true, it isn't necessarily bad behavior, that depends on how well they understand what they are asking for. If it is in the vain belief that some entity can provide for them - then what is the difference in them asking God to provide, or govt?
If by "vain" you mean "in vain" here, I'd say only that it is universally recognized that Gov exert control over peoples' live and therefore it is rational to appeal to it (or rather, as a practical matter in a democracy of the people, its representatives),. The (Christian?) God, not so much 'universally recognized'.
"God, not so much 'universally recognized'" -- meaning, don't force religiously-based decisions down the throats of non-believers, who are non-participants in that party. Over-the-top support of a certain middle east country that is not S.A. is Exhibit A.
Have you read Gurri's book? You should. Govt is not a metaphysical substitute for God. Govt no more ordains our future than does God. That's a hard truth for people to swallow; much easier to simply shift the expectation of omnipotence from one thing to another.
No, I haven't But what you described I understand already. Please see my just-previous comment.
(If you're getting as lost in the thread as I am:)
I don't "believe" Government will solve them, that is, I don't "have faith" in it. God and Gov are an apple and an orange.
In a democracy, the government is *us*, and we'd better start understanding it, believing it, and acting like it, once again.
This obviously would need to involve an international treaty, requiring participation from the currently heavily privileged (no, that's not equivalent to the set of "white people"; please don't confuse me with the woke totalitarians). We should pick up where the FD Roosevelts left off.
(strike "congruence in")