|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 03/21/2002 : 09:34:44 [Permalink]
|
I'm going to have to go to Political Discussions Anonymous. "Just one more won't hurt!"  
[quote]
As I said before, decent health-care and education do not appear in TD's list of "needs", and that worries me.[/quote]
You'll just have to trust me when I say this is not an accurate statement. (I wouldn't blame you for misunderstanding me, as I feel I am pretty poor at expressing my ideas clearly).
[edit: Ah, how's this? : Providing basic food, clothing, and shelter should be attempted with little to no qualifications. Everything else needs to be worked out in much greater detail before we start redistributing wealth. Does that help clarify my position?]
The details and specifics of how I personally feel about this would be too cumbersome for this medium. We'd have to define "decent health care" for starters. Some believe tax payer money should pay for boob jobs.
I will say this, though: Food, clothing, and shelter are at the top level. "Decent" health care and education are close, but not on the same level. I would have no problem, for example, with my tax dollars going towards a medical clinic in every city that provided basic health care at no charge (basic health care being pre-defined, of course). Emergency room usage by low income families is a big problem that could be fixed, I believe, in this way. I would have a problem with free boob jobs, however.
Then we'd have to define education. I'm all for teaching everyone how to read and write. I'm not, however, for paying for everyone else's college, nor wiring third world classrooms to the internet at this stage of their development.
I would like nothing better than for every person on the planet to have food, clothing, shelter, Big Macs (if they want them!), sports cars, a television with cable in every room, and everything else their hearts' desire.
How we go about accomplishing this is a different discussion.
In my defense, I have never, nor do I think, that all poor people are lazy and don't want to work. Wouldn't you think poorly of me if I did?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 03/21/2002 09:44:04 |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 09:46:35 [Permalink]
|
If we didn't pay so much to make sure the wealthy got wealthier and the poor got poorer, we could afford to cover all education and health care. (or a great deal more than now)
See "defense department" spending for some details.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 11:36:23 [Permalink]
|
"I'm going to have to go to Political Discussions Anonymous. "Just one more won't hurt!" (TokyoDreamer)
LOL - if we all spent as much time changing the world as we do discussing it, it might already be a better place.
"I would have no problem, for example, with my tax dollars going towards a medical clinic in every city that provided basic health care at no charge (basic health care being pre-defined, of course)."
We already have this in Britain, it's called the National Health Service (NHS), and it works OK. There are problems, but even right-wing governments have found it impossible to do away with it as it is too popular. A recent study of health care conducted under the aegis of the current Labour government (and looking at US models as well) concluded it was still the most cost-effective method of mass-provision health-care.
"I would have a problem with free boob jobs, however."
So would I.
"I would like nothing better than for every person on the planet to have food, clothing, shelter, Big Macs (if they want them!), sports cars, a television with cable in every room, and everything else their hearts' desire.
How we go about accomplishing this is a different discussion."
Indeed it is. Care to start the thread when your Political Discussion Recovery Programme falters?
"In my defense, I have never, nor do I think, that all poor people are lazy and don't want to work. Wouldn't you think poorly of me if I did?"
I never attributed this view to you, as far as I can recall, and from your posts I can't imagine that you would hold this view.
"If we didn't pay so much to make sure the wealthy got wealthier and the poor got poorer, we could afford to cover all education and health care. (or a great deal more than now)
See "defense department" spending for some details." (Gorgo)
Gorgo, I agree. One of the great curses of all our histories is nationalism and the necessary military spending that goes with it. In Europe particularly we have suffered appallingly from this throughout our history.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 11:42:32 [Permalink]
|
Are you guys nuts! That would be first on my list. Free boob jobs for everyone! I may run for office.
[quote]
"I would have a problem with free boob jobs, however."
So would I.
[/quote]
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 12:33:39 [Permalink]
|
OK, Gorgo. I'll have one as well, if they're going free!
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 12:50:45 [Permalink]
|
Now you're talkin'.
[quote]
OK, Gorgo. I'll have one as well, if they're going free!
[/quote]
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 13:47:53 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
"Well, if you have convinced yourself that individual humans can be altruistic by nature, no one in this discourse will be able to provide your valid reason." (PhDreamer)
I'm not sure about this one, and it's something I need to read more about. It's a subject that has always bothered me, I have to admit. I do think people are capable of many types of social behaviour, not just naked self-interest. Even under an agressively competitive socio-economic system, co-operation is wide-spread and necessary. Might it be maximised under some other societal arrangements that *promote* co-operation in the same way as this system *promotes* self-interest and competition? It's a question worth asking at least. And in the end, perhaps "enlightened self-interest" might do the trick after all, anyway.[/quote]
If Dawkins (and Camus for that matter) is right, altruism will only take place when the [i]individual[/i] benefits of cooperation are obvious from the outset. This is the task you face: convince the masses that each of them will individually benefit to a greater degree by ensuring that the most individuals survive. You might have a sort of evolutionary diminishing returns at work here.
[quote]You are confusing your goals with your system. And didn't you take TD to task for his bifurcation of needs and wants? Wasn't it you who was arguing that it's difficult to draw the line?"
No, to me the two are inseperable. Means and ends matter. As to needs/wants, TokyoDreamer has a very *clear* definition. I question its relevance to what might be characterised as a "moral" discussion of wealth distribution. He *seems* to be saying that he's happy if "needs" are met for all people, and that anything beyond these are unaffordable luxuries. I believe that peoples' right to demand "wants" to enrich their lives should carry just as much weight as their demand for "needs". As I said before, decent health-care and education do not appear in TD's list of "needs", and that worries me.[/quote]
Specific means and ends might be [i]causally[/i] inseperable but ends can be reached using a variety of means. It's unclear how you intend to reach your goals without implementing pure socialism. And I must say you seem to have made something of an ideological strawman of TD's position. I don't think he has ever mentioned that health care and education are luxuries.
"Honestly, you should try to get used to having your behavior impugned from time to time. Makes things go smoother."
OK, impugn away, I will try not to get offended!
[/quote]
You first.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 19:46:25 [Permalink]
|
What's the deal with the “selfish human nature”. It always comes up as a way of trying to explain all the crap in the world. Okay, what is selfish? I think humans are neither all good or all bad (to use the usual definitions of those words), we're both. If humans were just a bunch of ego-driven individuals, charities would have a hard time. They don't.
We all come equipped with some basic needs, and the means of trying to meet those needs. If anyone disagrees with that, I'd like to hear it. So we do our best to meet our needs, but not necessarily at the expense of others. Like, I don't take the food out of my friends mouth, just because I might still be hungry. I happen to like my friend.
I donate to charities, because one person, namely me, can't do a whole lot to change a catastrophe on the other side of the world. If I was just driven by selfish interests, I wouldn't give a damn.
Then comes politics. I don't have a hamster, but if I did, I think it would do a better job. No, capitalism is not a political system as such, it's an economic one, but when in the history of humans since the neolitic times, were economics and politics separate entities?
Here in Denmark we have about ten different political parties. The more to the right you get, the more they favour am economic system based wholly on “pure” capitalism.
Today there is no pure capitalism. There's never been pure communism/socialism either anywhere.
I think the real discussion is, what kind of society would YOU prefer to live in? What do you see as a necessity for society to actually be able to function. Do the need of the many outweigh the need of the one? What, really, is freedom? Is it political, economical or cultural?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
-Albert Einstein |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2002 : 01:13:10 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
if we all spent as much time changing the world as we do discussing it, it might already be a better place.
[/quote]
Tell that to the damned politicians. Speaking of egos!!!
* * * * * * *
If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several times, does he become disoriented?
|
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2002 : 04:18:26 [Permalink]
|
"If Dawkins (and Camus for that matter) is right, altruism will only take place when the [i]individual[/i] benefits of cooperation are obvious from the outset. This is the task you face: convince the masses that each of them will individually benefit to a greater degree by ensuring that the most individuals survive. You might have a sort of evolutionary diminishing returns at work here." (PhDreamer)
Perhaps. But you're right, for that kind of society to evolve, the majority in it must be convinvced of the need for co-operation on social, political and economic issues. If you don't have that, in my view you will end up with an authoritarian government that professes these values, but in practice denies them (now what does that remind me of?). How do you rate my chances?
And Camus, by the way - what a writer.
"Specific means and ends might be [i]causally[/i] inseperable but ends can be reached using a variety of means. It's unclear how you intend to reach your goals without implementing pure socialism. And I must say you seem to have made something of an ideological strawman of TD's position. I don't think he has ever mentioned that health care and education are luxuries."
I have no problem with pure socialism. If I had to put a label on my beliefs, I might call myself a "libertarian socialist". I always used to joke that if the capitalists don't get me, then sure as hell the Marxists will.
Perhaps I have made a strawman of TD's position. As you can see above, though, he has clarified his view on needs/wants with respect to health-care and education, and I broadly agree with it. My objection to the scheme is that it has been used as a moral (or at least utilitarian) justification for providing an absolute minumum for disadvantaged people, with "wants" being seen as somehow less valid than "needs". Pragmatically, of course we need to satisfy "needs" first otherwise people die, but in my view people have just as much right to demand "wants" to raise their existences above mere brute survival.
"I think the real discussion is, what kind of society would YOU prefer to live in? What do you see as a necessity for society to actually be able to function. Do the need of the many outweigh the need of the one? What, really, is freedom? Is it political, economical or cultural?"
Jeez, ask all the questions at once, why dontcha?!
Now to impugn PhDreamer: with 322 posts under your belt I can see you spend *way* too much time on this board. Do some work, for once ;)
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2002 : 07:23:55 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
"If Dawkins (and Camus for that matter) is right, altruism will only take place when the [i]individual[/i] benefits of cooperation are obvious from the outset. This is the task you face: convince the masses that each of them will individually benefit to a greater degree by ensuring that the most individuals survive. You might have a sort of evolutionary diminishing returns at work here." (PhDreamer)
Perhaps. But you're right, for that kind of society to evolve, the majority in it must be convinvced of the need for co-operation on social, political and economic issues. If you don't have that, in my view you will end up with an authoritarian government that professes these values, but in practice denies them (now what does that remind me of?). How do you rate my chances?[/quote]
I think the problem with trying to convince the masses that cooperation is the answer (reciprocal altruism, if you will) is that the supposedly Marxist governments in recent history have been spectacular failures. I don't think rapid implementation is tenable.
[quote]And Camus, by the way - what a writer.[/quote]
Indeed. It's probably been 7 years since I first read The Fall and I appreciate it more and more as I get older.
[quote]"Specific means and ends might be [i]causally[/i] inseperable but ends can be reached using a variety of means. It's unclear how you intend to reach your goals without implementing pure socialism. And I must say you seem to have made something of an ideological strawman of TD's position. I don't think he has ever mentioned that health care and education are luxuries."
I have no problem with pure socialism. If I had to put a label on my beliefs, I might call myself a "libertarian socialist". I always used to joke that if the capitalists don't get me, then sure as hell the Marxists will.[/quote]
I can envision huge problems with large-scale decision making under public ownership of manufacturing.
[quote]Perhaps I have made a strawman of TD's position. As you can see above, though, he has clarified his view on needs/wants with respect to health-care and education, and I broadly agree with it. My objection to the scheme is that it has been used as a moral (or at least utilitarian) justification for providing an absolute minumum for disadvantaged people, with "wants" being seen as somehow less valid than "needs". Pragmatically, of course we need to satisfy "needs" first otherwise people die, but in my view people have just as much right to demand "wants" to raise their existences above mere brute survival.[/quote]
Exactly why this whole thing makes my head spin. I have no idea how to judge acceptable and unacceptable "wants." I figure you have given this some thought - maybe you could start a thread explaining your model of libertarian socialism?
[quote]Now to impugn PhDreamer: with 322 posts under your belt I can see you spend *way* too much time on this board. Do some work, for once ;)[quote]
They sneak up on you, that's for sure. I'll remember this when you're as 'old' as I am.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2002 : 08:13:42 [Permalink]
|
"I think the problem with trying to convince the masses that cooperation is the answer (reciprocal altruism, if you will) is that the supposedly Marxist governments in recent history have been spectacular failures. I don't think rapid implementation is tenable."
Well, indeed. I remember over the years trying to convince State Marxists that Stalin was an inevitable consequence of Lenin, but they wouldn't have it. Things just "went bad" in Russia in 1923 when Lenin died it seems, but none of them seemed able to explain how *one man* could subvert the democratic workers' paradise that Lenin had supposedly built.
As to rapid implementation, you could well be right. Any "revolution" or similar insurrectionary movement would most likely be crushed by most Western states. Ironically, it might be the US where it succeeded, as it's citizenry is the best armed in the world!
"I can envision huge problems with large-scale decision making under public ownership of manufacturing."
And yet when we cede decision making to others we spend most of our time griping about it! Sure, it would definitely take a pretty sophisticated form of direct-democracy to surmount this problem, but I believe California has experimented with this?
The idea that a citizen could participate in the decision-making process as more than just a "pregnant-chad" has many atractions for me, however.
"Exactly why this whole thing makes my head spin. I have no idea how to judge acceptable and unacceptable "wants." I figure you have given this some thought - maybe you could start a thread explaining your model of libertarian socialism?"
I would have to marshall my thoughts for that one and probably do some re-reading. A project for the Summer perhaps. There's some pretty well-informed and bright people on here and I wouldn't want to make a complete arse of myself. but it could make an interesting thread, sure.
(Later) Actually, being realistic, it would have to be a discussion article, and I'm not sure Skeptic Friends takes that kind of thing.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968.
Edited by - NottyImp on 03/22/2002 09:51:30 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2002 : 00:39:05 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
in my view people have just as much right to demand "wants" to raise their existences above mere brute survival.
[/quote]
Nothing personal Notty but one can WANT whatever they want doesn't mean they have a right to get it. Who is to say your wants are more important than mine? And who's going to say who else gets what they want other than the individual himself working for it. You just can't have everything you want without paying for it.
But if you are passing out wants as well as needs, I'd like a maid to clean up my place, some more flowers to plant in the back yard, a horse, even though my house is not zoned for one, and while you're at it, a water fountian in the front yard would look nice.
Let me know when you are ready to send all that I'll give you my address, while I think of a few more 'wants'.
* * * * * * *
If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several times, does he become disoriented?
|
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2002 : 02:16:11 [Permalink]
|
"Nothing personal Notty but one can WANT whatever they want doesn't mean they have a right to get it. Who is to say your wants are more important than mine? And who's going to say who else gets what they want other than the individual himself working for it. You just can't have everything you want without paying for it." (Snake)
You're looking at it from an individualistic perspective. What I'm talking about is a much more from a communitarian perspective.
That means that what gets produced, and made available, isn't decided by *you* alone, but by you and the rest of your community. Sometimes this might be at a local level, sometimes at a regional or national level. Sometimes even at an international level. And of course material constraints would impose limits as well.
You're right, you can't have everything you want *now* and you wouldn't be able to *then*, either. But it is my contention that under a system that ensured a more equal distribution of wealth many *more* people would get what they wanted, even if this wasn't the whole shebang. Probably middle-income/working-class Western people wouldn't notice a whole lot of difference.
Bear in mind also that we're talking here about a major shift in thinking about how and why the world is run from the individual upwards. People would produce for the commonwealth, not for themselves (even if motivated by self-interest, assuming they were convinced it was in their interest to do so), and this would change their attitudes. I'm not saying that their wouldn't be "unreasonable" demands of "wants", but co-operation in my experience engenders a moderate approach to things on everyone's part.
"But if you are passing out wants as well as needs, I'd like a maid to clean up my place, some more flowers to plant in the back yard, a horse, even though my house is not zoned for one, and while you're at it, a water fountian in the front yard would look nice."
LOL Talk to your community first. I'll have a word with mine, and although I can't guarentee anything, I think the flowers are a definite possibility. Oh, and would you settle for a communal horse?
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2002 : 09:33:16 [Permalink]
|
I put forward Bill Gates, George Soros, and Ted Turner as philanthropic capitalists for your consideration.
It is also easier to be altruistic when your belly is full. The advertising world that attempts to convince people that they don't have enough is partly to blame for a lack of altruism as it implies that if we aren't eating double big mac's, with supersize fries and a biggie drink, while we go through the drive through in our brand new car, wearing the latest fashions, on our way to the trendy gym, we are incomplete.
A false sense of being under threat is pervaded, and so people are less likely to share.
My thoughts, my 2 cents.
It seems to me that I remember every fuckin thing I know. (Tragically Hip) |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
