What I'm Hoping For

[Liberal]

KaylasDad

Greetings! Welcome back!

FreakFreely

quote:

But you are not entitled to force other men to adopt a behavior that you find morally compelling.

A We already do, all the time. B We have to live next to [each other]. C We have to rely on [each other] and deal with [each other]. And as the population of the world continues to expand we’ll be living closer and closer to [each other]. D [Therefore] we have to decide on what’s good for all of us. We have to find common ground that we can all stand on. We really don’t have any choice. E And I hate to be cliche, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

A — The same argument was used in the various Declarations of Secession by the Confederate states. We have always had slavery; therefore, it is a natural state of affairs.

B — For the record, “each other” is two words.

C — But it is a leap of great magnitude from “dealing with each other” to “forcing my neighbor to be charitable”.

D — Ay, there’s the rub. You see humanity as one large mass, and hope to save it by finding that least common denominator to define basic “needs”. As it happens, needs are quite subjective things. If you don’t believe me, let certain fundamentalist Muslim or Christian clerics tell you what you need. Food won’t be on the list.

E — Do they? The many might have healthy kidneys, but the few who need dialysis might feel their own need outweighs the needs of the many.

quote:

Consider whether a fundamental biblicist should be entitled to what you want to be entitled to, namely, dictating to others what he considers to be moral behavior.

He does. And he should continue to, with the power of his vote.

So if he and his group carry enough political clout, it is okay if they force your children to pray to their God in school? Just so they win the vote?

Is majority rule the basis of your political ethic?

quote:

And who has decided what your necessities are? That’s the real focus here. The alternative is whether you will decide for yourself what your needs are (and seek out charity if necessary) or whether you will let another man decide for you what your needs are (and give you welfare if he believes you merit it).

You misunderstand me. I don’t want a government that says “This is how much you can have.” I want a government that say “This is the minimum you can have. And no matter how tough life is on you, you will always have at least this much.” A safety net.

But that runs headlong into this:

I too think everyone should be able to pursue happiness in their own way. And I said so, in a later post.

They might not include having their property sezied to provide what you specify as a safety net in their list of what makes them happy.

quote:

A communist/capitalist hybrid is possible (though it makes for a weird model), but a socialist/capitalist hybrid is not possible.

I’m not sure why you think that is. Keep in mind that there are many different forms of socialism. Communism itself is a form of socialism. Which one are you thinking of?

Socialism, wherein government owns the means of production, is fundamentally incompatible with captialism, wherein government owns nothing. Communism, wherein property is commonly owned, can be compatible with capitalism so long as shares of ownership are transferable and redeemable (since capitalism is based on volitional consent).

quote:

All holocausts have been brought about by governments (both religious and secular).

Yes, but this was when they were in economic turmoil. Or when fanatics took over. With all the governments linked together, and with a firm balance going, these things wouldn’t happen. There is a herd mentality, but it tends to be localized.

Well, if you believe there will never again be economic turmoil; if you believe there will never again be fanatics; if you believe that the politicians who control a powerful world government will “balance” themselves; then I can see where you might be optimistic.

quote:

Let us not be Nannies to the world.

You call it being a nanny to the world, I call it being a good samaritan. And besides, sometimes the baby needs a bottle. Do you want to be the person who refuses him?

Of course not. That is why I am a very charitable man.

But neither do I want to be the person who forces you to give bottles to whom I say. You make your own moral decisions, and leave me to make mine.

quote:

That can happen only within a context of meaningful freedom, i.e., freedom from coercion and fraud. You cannot expect a man to work together with you if you presume some sort of mystical authority over him, such as to make laws constricting him to your world-view when he is living peacefully and honestly.

I just wish people could work together. I’m not suggesting that we should force them to.

How will your world government come about without forcing compliance? There are way too many Sanguines and Cholerics out there.

[kaylasdad99]

Thanks, Lib. Not that I’ve actually been gone or anything. I’ve just been doing more lurking than posting in the past few months. I’ve read a lot of interesting stuff, too. Like f’rinstance:

As it happens, needs are quite subjective things.

Indeed. And needs aren’t the only things that are subjective. Take the definitions and ramifications of words, for example (of course, I don’t have to tell you this, you being an armchair linguist, and all). Some might quite legitimately argue that the phrase “peaceful and honest” may be an inadequate description for any means used by an individual of grabbing and holding onto as many life-sustaining resources as he can capture.

Just as a f’rinstance :).

Hope things are going well for you and Edlyn, as well as for the young one (sorry, his name is escaping me at the moment).

[FreakFreely]

MGibson sez-

I don’t need someone outside my country coming in and arresting people.

Perhaps not, but there’s plenty of countries that do need it.

Probably. Well that’s comforting.

Probably is the most assurance you’re ever gonna get in this world.

The cold war wasn’t a hot war. And you can bet if a foreign invasion was coming nuclear attack would be seriously considered.

The reason it never became a hot war is because nobody wanted a nuclear holocaust. That and the Russians were bluffing.

Libertarian sez-

But it is a leap of great magnitude from “dealing with each other” to “forcing my neighbor to be charitable”.

It’s not charity when you’re helping yourself. Less poverty means less crime.

You see humanity as one large mass,

Because that’s what it is. In fact, isn’t that the definition of humanity?

and hope to save it by finding that least common denominator to define basic “needs”. As it happens, needs are quite subjective things.

True. But there are some needs that most of us can agree on. For instance, food, shelter, and clothing. We can also agree that if you can work, a job is necessary. We can agree that people with children need more food than people without. And so on.

The many might have healthy kidneys, but the few who need dialysis might feel their own need outweighs the needs of the many.

They would be wrong.

Is majority rule the basis of your political ethic?

Basically, yes.

They might not include having their property sezied to provide what you specify as a safety net in their list of what makes them happy.

And I’m unhappy that a part of my taxes goes to roadwork, even though I don’t drive. I’m unhappy that a large chunk of my taxes are going to a military that I don’t agree with. These are facts of life. And people did vote for these things in an indirect fashion.

Socialism, wherein government owns the means of production, is fundamentally incompatible with captialism, wherein government owns nothing.

Not quite true. Socialism is workers in control of the means of production. It also implies that workers have control over the state. So, in a capitalist/socialist hybrid, workers would have partial control over their workplace. And would have more control over the state than the companies do.

Well, if you believe there will never again be economic turmoil;

Of course there will be. But with a government, it would be more spread out and therefore do less damage. At least, to my way of thinking.

if you believe there will never again be fanatics;

Of course there’ll be fanatics. That’s inevitable. But in a wide forum with lots of people involved, they tend to balance each other out. For instance, in our country, we have David Duke and Louis Farrakhan(sp?) but so far, our government has turned to genocide.

if you believe that the politicians who control a powerful world government will “balance” themselves;

No, they won’t balance themselves. We’ll do it for them with the power of our vote. I believe in democracy, I believe it works.

then I can see where you might be optimistic.

What’s wrong with that?

How will your world government come about without forcing compliance? There are way too many Sanguines and Cholerics out there.

We already have the UN, I just want it to be more powerful. It’ll take time. But slowly, we’ll ease into it.

In conclusion, we’re both speaking in different languages here. You’re talking about people’s rights and freedoms. I’m talking about humanitarianism and people’s needs. These are both perfectly valid arguments. But in the end, there has to be some compromise.

Oh yeah, and thanks for the spell-checking. God knows my point is moot if it’s spelled wrong. Yeesh.

[Liberal]

FreakFreely

You’re talking about people’s rights and freedoms. I’m talking about humanitarianism and people’s needs. These are both perfectly valid arguments. But in the end, there has to be some compromise.

It is impossible to meet someone’s needs unless you give them the freedom to decide for themselves what those needs are. Nor can you meet the needs of humanity by denying the needs of people. Robbing Peter and paying Paul does not net any gain. There can be no compromise. Politicians (whether in religion or government) will continue to usurp rights and amass power and wealth to themselves so long as the human species exists.

Majoritarianism is the latest darling of politicians. Even the totalitarianists have come 'round to realizing its potential. It is so very easy to rule with the consensus of a majority mob that has the mean logic skills of a Jerry Springer guest. Votes are easy to procure. Just look at all the people who vote for “the lesser of two evils”.

“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler

[Derleth]

Freak, you are an interesting beast. You have the social ethics of a true State Socialist (safety net, below a certain point nobody falls, government mandates what ‘needs’ are, etc.) yet you still like Pure Democracy (majority rules all, all problems can be solved by putting everything to referendum and going with majority rule, etc.) There is a thread running through those two theories: They can only work on a small scale because of the inherent inefficiency of such a large-scale government. Any government that’s that large would lose papers as a matter of course, lose files as a matter of course, misfile and mishandle things as a matter of course, and have to tolerate a certain level of corruption as a matter of course. Those are observations from every large government ever. Thing is, on a global level, those kind of inefficiencies are magnified to a global level. Imagine trying to keep track of nearly a billion welfare recipients. The US Government has problems with a few thousand. Imagine trying to count the votes of nearly ten billion people. We have problems counting that many people. We really don’t know the exact population right now. The best we can do is guess based on the latest counts, which will always be inaccurate to a certain amount. Hell, we can’t even do a truly accurate census in the USA alone. We can’t have a world government as powerful as you’d want it to be because it would be as inefficient as all get-out.