What if you have a lot of people that do not want to help others live better? Do you have a way to force them or are they free to do what they want?
"As a reformist liberal who follows John Dewey"
Never mind. Troll-Alert.
yours is a worthwhile project.
i read the first book in college. then i was idealistic.
now, especially since the democrats have corrupted public discourse, beginning with the removal of president nixon, the attacks on president carter for his religion, the attacks on president reagan, and the president bushes, and the cover-ups of president clinton's rapes, i've concluded that the majority of their supporters do not want intelligent discourse.
the goal of the democrats has been anti-democratic at least since the rise of fdr. democrats of the 20th and 21st centuries have supported tyrannies around the world-- lenin, stalin, mao, kim, fidel, and most recently, presidential candidate kerry's support of ho chi minh.
michael moore's films are a realistic statement of the current democrat plantation.
rogev:
In a nutshell, the central question is this: how can we rationally institute changes in our society?
Character will always matter. Individual morality will always matter. Courage and talent will always matter. The best you will ever be able to do will be to foster character, and morality, and courage and talent. Given a critical mass of people with those qualities, any system can be made to work after a fashion, and in the absense of those qualities no system can work.
I think the answer cannot be just: individual initiative and hard work. Both of those are necessary, but they are not sufficient. Case in point: people in the third world work as hard or harder than many of us do in the indistrial world, but have much less to show for it. The difference is the social system in which they do their work.
Good example. What makes the third world "third world" is precisely a lack of legal clarity. See Hernando De Soto's work. The key to prosperity is a system that permits individual initiative, and protects individuals from one another. That means clear and predictable laws, clear and predictable property law, and most importantly transparent and honest courts.
The source of poverty is the inverse of the above, lawlessness even when disguised as lawful. Again, we are back to character. Any system can be suborned and undermined by dishonesty. We can argue between socialism and capitalism and various gradations in between but in the end the solution isn't in calibrating the precise mix of freedom and government intervention as much as it is a critical mass of moral people.
When did the Iron Curtain fall? It fell the day the East German leadership ordered the troops to open fire on the people, and the individual soldiers didn't fire. When did the Soviet Union fall? It fell when the troops were sent into Moscow and they didn't fire on the people. It fell in Romania when the troops wouldn't fire on the people. Dictatorships rely on people who will commit murder on command and fall when people refuse to do it. Again, character is everything.
The problem with socialist societies is at some point they all have to resort to force to compel participation.
I prefer a society where if you and your cohorts wish to share you are free to form a commune...or even a corporation...and indulge yourselves to your heart's content.
But if someone...anyone...wants to move to a mountain top and salute a Nazi flag (extreme example disclaimer) and school their kids in National Socialist thought I want them to be free to do it. I absolutely don't agree with their actions, but I absolutely support their freedom to do it.
And that's the thing.
Our existing society does nothing to stop you from forming a Communist commune...or even a city (Santa Monica comes to mind). But a socialist society will have to prevent me from forming a capitalist commune or city because that is the very essence of socialism: central control.
Socialism without the force of government behind it is called capitalism. The People's Republic of China is a good example of where the government backed off and capitalism rose up all on its own. Now the Communist government there is trying to dial back the nascent freedom because free people don't like socialism.
China is headed to a bloody revolution due to the fact that people like being able to own things.
I prefer freedom.
After your first thread with the 450+ responses I would have thought that you would have been smart enough to recognize that people here understand what socialism is, they understand what "social engineering" is. They understand the kind of thinking, the kind of mind-set that would say how does one arrange society so that...
Statements like that are a dead givaway to conservatives that you are a socialist! Have you ever questioned why you think it is "your place" to "arrange society"? The arrogance of what you are suggesting just boggles my mind?
And why? Why do you automatically assume that government is the proper means to bring about the "social engineering" and socialism that you are after?
I think the answer cannot be just: individual initiative and hard work. Both of those are necessary, but they are not sufficient. Case in point: people in the third world work as hard or harder than many of us do in the indistrial world, but have much less to show for it. The difference is the social system in which they do their work. The answer isn't private property either. To be sure, the system needs incentives to energize the work and creativity any economy needs. That you will own things appeals to self-interest, and self interest is an important factor in human motivation. But we need something more, I think, a sense of wanting to help others live better lives. Hume put it this way: in addition to self-interests we have sympathetic interests in the well-being of others. Those sympathies are limited, but they are a significant force in making people care about others in their community. Well, that's enough for a start. I donm't want this to be a monlogue, but a conversation, and am interested in hearing what you think.
What is your evidence that individual initiative is not sufficient? The Third World? As has already been explained to you, if countries in Africa and South America had good governments, the "individuals" that you seem so eager to control, would be doing just fine.
You have made no argument as to why what we have now is not acceptable. Freedom and self-determination are messy -- you cannot *control* people who are free. And I suspect that that bothers you (I also suspect that you think you "know" what is best for other people and if we would just allow you -- you {and others like you} would be a wonderful, benevolent dictator and create lovely realites for "the people" [who you probably see as too stupid to create their own realites])
Perhaps that can be summed up by recognizing collective identity can act as the catalyst, as long as the rights of the individual are not usurped.
I think our constitution does this; it provides for the common good while recognizing individual rights. It also allows for amendments; it appears the authors accepted the need for change. We have changed it, some for the good and some for the not so good, but the basic document remains untouched.
The constitution defines our collective identity, and with that, we (each of us, collectively) accept a certain responsibility for the group, to greater or lessor degrees.
I recognize I am not the philosopher Popper was, but it works for me.
You might be interested in this letter from Eric Voegelin to Leo Strauss, on Karl Popper:
Leo Strauss: May I ask you to let me know sometime what you think of Mr. Popper. He gave a lecture here, on the task of social philosophy, that was beneath contempt: it was the most washed-out, lifeless positivism trying to whistle in the dark, linked to a complete inability to think "rationally," although it passed itself off as "rationalism"--it was very bad. I cannot imagine reading, and yet it appears to be a professional duty to become familiar with his produtions. Could you say something to me about that--if you wish, I will keep it to myself.
Eric Voegelin: Dear Mr. Strauss, The opportunity to speak a few deeply felt words about Karl Popper to a kindred soul is too golden to endure a long delay. This Popper has been for years, not exactly a stone against which one stumbles, but a troublesome pebble that I must continually nudge from the path, in that he is constantly pushed upon me by people who insist that his work on the "open society and its enemies" is one of the social science masterpieces of our times. This insistence persuaded me to read the work even though I would otherwise not have touched it. You are quite right to say that it is a vocational duty to make ourselves familiar with the ideas of such a work when they lie in our field; I would hold out against this duty the other vocational duty, not to write and to publish such a work. In that Popper violated this elementary vocational duty and stole several hours of my lifetime, which I devoted in fulfilling my vocational duty, I feel completely justified in saying without reservation that this book is impudent, dilettantish crap. Every single sentence is a scandal, but it is still possible to lift out a few main annoyances.
1. The expressions "closed [society]" and "open society" are taken from Bergson's Deux Sources. Without explaining the difficulties that induced Bergson to create these concepts, Popper takes the terms because they sound good to him[he] comments in passing that in Bergson they had a "religious" meaning, but that he will use the concept of the open society closer to Graham Walas's "great society" or that of Walter Lippmann. Perhaps I am oversensitive about such things, but I do not believe that respectable philosophers such as Bergson develop their concepts for the sole purpose that the coffeehouse scum might have something to botch. There also arises the relevant problem: if Bergson's theory of open society is philosphically and historically tenable (which I in fact believe), then Popper's idea of the open society is ideological rubbish . . .
2. The impertinent disregard for the achievements in his particular problem area, which makes itself evident with respect to Bergson, runs through the whole work. When one reads the deliberations on Plato or Hegel, one has the impression that Popper is quite unfamiliar with the literature on the subject--even though he occasionally cites an author. In some cases, as for example Hegel, I would believe that he has never seen a work like Rosenzweig's Hegel and the State. In other cases, where he cites works without appearing to have perceived their contents, another factor is added:
3. Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says. Through this emerge terrible things, as when he translates Hegel's "Germanic world" as "German world" and draws conclusions form this mistranslation regarding Hegel's German nationalist propaganda.
. . . Briefly and in sum: Popper's book is a scandal without extenuating circumstances; in its intellectual attitude it is the typical product of a failed intellectual; spiritually one would have to use expressions like rascally, impertinent, loutish; in terms of technical competence, as a piece in the history of thought, it is dilettantish, and as a result is worthless.
"In a nutshell, the central question is this: how can we rationally institute changes in our society?"
No, the central question is whether we have an obligation to change society. Why should we? On what authority?
PING!
PING
A chance to ask questions...and perhaps get answers.
"Piecemeal social change" sounded fine when totalitarianism was the alternative, but today it has an elitist, Orwellian ring. Government may be a necessity and some regulation of business unavoidable. Nations still do regulate industry and administer various agencies. The focus today is on individual liberty and government non-interference, though, and most of us tend to tune out people who want to use government to run people's lives. We may need them at some point or in some situations, but don't like them hanging around when things are more or less running well by themselves.
"Democratic control" was a plausible slogan in an age of totalitarianisms, but now we experience it as just more bureaucratic interference and red-tape. Consequently, to many people today, Popper looks more like the autocratic, top-down rulers that he was critical of in his own day. It's certainly ironic, but those who believed that he distorted the views of Plato or Hegel will probably smile at his being lumped in with them as ambitious would-be guardian-rulers. More or less the same is true of Dewey, at least where conservatives are concerned: democratic pragmatism isn't so much contrasted with totalitarian thought-control, but seen as another species of modern nihilism.
Right or left, we should all be glad that the totalitarianism isn't an option now, but that does mean that politicians and theorists associated with the struggle against fascism or communism don't seem to be the most relevant to our needs today.
I think a liberal who has seen communist regime after regime fail should think that private ownership and self interest should be foremost in the third world attempting to get out of the hole.
Case in point: people in the third world work as hard or harder than many of us do in the indistrial world, but have much less to show for it.
And arguing that they work as hard is silly on the face of it too, inasmuchas the first world works with tools and equipment that far enhance the work acheivment of an individual. So thats it, move over to a capitalist society and forget about people doing good work for others unless it is of their own free will that they do so. The rest of the article is a subtle appeal for more communist treatment of people but in small bites so that they don't suffer the great losses of communist societies of the past. Wasted thought energy.
The reason beliefs should be treated as revisable is that we are often guessing the way the world is, and need to update our guesses in the light of new information. Markets can be good for this, but not always.
On this we agree one hundred percent.. I also agree with you that :
In efficient markets, price reflects available information. But competition can lead to information being witheld (for the sake of competitive advantage) and there are market failures as well.
But in stating the above, depending on how broadly you choose to define your words, lies the failure of your insight. If you broadly define "competitive advantage" to include advantage to the advancement of personal beliefs and causes, and to the advancement of personal prestige and reputation (regardless of or without personal monetary or material benefit), then we agree. On the other hand, if what primarily comes to mind is the narrow "competitive advantage" as it is usually meant, that of monetary and business position, then your proposal to correct such informational deficiencies fails. As failure to include personal beliefs, causes, prestige and reputation, will lead to false assumptions and subsequent premises. When propagated, such failures feeds into the politics of envy and resentment. Thus:
The assumption of rationality in the markets is an idealization.
Where in fact, all we can ever have rationally speaking, is "markets." Obviously some markets will be closed and private, while other markets will be open and public. A distinction must be made here for clarity. Government markets can be both both public as well as private. An example of a private government market in operation, can be found any time a personnel executive or an employment board decides to hire a new government employee. Obviously the policies on which they operate have been public. But basis for the final decisions are private.
But in the ideal case, for econmies as well as scientifc systems, the end result should reflect all the available information.
In closing I would suggest to you that an open public free market will most always reach closer to rationality than any private government market. You may call this "assumption of rationality... an idealization," but can you provide a better method of arriving at the most complete and accurate information?
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State
7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.