First, I don't know why you keep referring to 'free' markets, rather than markets. — Streetlight

A free market has no price controls. The oldest version of controlled markets is where priests set prices (in quantities of cacao nuts in South America). There were harsh penalties for trading without permission.

In a free market prices are set by the operation of the market itself.

I'm not sure why you think 'money and banking' is a target here — Streetlight

What we think of as capitalism developed hand in glove with money and banking. Separating them would be a leap in the dark.

But part of the reason I've emphasized that capitalism takes root at level of production rather than exchange, — Streetlight

So the Bronze Age economy was not capitalist. It was clearly socialist. It's interesting to contemplate why it failed after centuries of robust contribution to culture.

More importantly: why, having failed, it never came back.

First, what is a market? A market is, first and foremost, a site of what might be called impersonal exchange. It is ‘impersonal’ insofar that those who participate do not, for the most part, have any pre-existing obligations, bonds, or relations to one another. — Streetlight

One of the ancestors of free markets was an aspect of the Bronze Age palace economy. People brought their wheat and other goods to the palace. Priests would then take a cut for the palace and distribute the rest to the people.

The late Bronze Age was similar to our world in that there were a handful of powerful states which controlled the known world. Free markets appeared around the time this international complex began to disintegrate. They may have been a response to collapse.

So free markets don't necessarily require states. However a free market can be a brutal and dangerous environment. Prior to the advent of money, every possible way to cheat and rob were explored in free markets.

Money, as far as we know was invented one time in Lydia. It eventually revolutionized human life by becoming the prime abstraction. It facilitated trade by eliminating one of the ways people cheated. Everywhere money went, societies lurched out of stagnation into progress. Strictly speaking, you don't need a state to mark gold ingots that all weigh exactly the same, but state backing increases confidence.

Now that abstraction is seeping into every aspect of human life with the prime abstraction: value, the next leap in human capacity comes from banks which provide the technology of virtual value. Since the Italians perfected the art, we've been living beyond our means. We basically discovered how to walk into our dreams.

This is one of the things I wish I could get across to some leftists. Money and banking, which are both products of a laissez-faire environment, aren't just objects in our world that we can extricate ourselves from by wearing red bandanas. Those things are literally part of who and what we are. They're part of the way we think and see the world.

Finally what does financialization have to do with this? We often hear about the rise of financialization, and the predominance of ‘speculation’ and debt, but what does this have to do with the above? Well, one answer is that the above model of capitalism based on markets is, in a word, failing. — Streetlight

Failing how, though? I've been pondering this for a while, and I still don't quite understand other than it has to do with the 1970s.

The outcome was the emergence of a new elite, new opportunities, new horizons, new dangers.

Wars often stroke extreme nationalism. — Olivier5

I imagine this invasion has created hatred for Russia that will persist in Ukraine for the next 50 years at least.

My reply is, firstly that it's collective intent that brings money into existence, not belief; secondly that any efficacy resulting from such a god would be reducible to that group intent, as for money — Banno

Intention would appear to be an abstraction. Group intent definitely is. So you've got gods and money "reducing' to abstractions.

Abstractions don't reduce.

What [ ] is called amorality is a thing that does not exist. If you are willing to submit to any norm, you have, nolens volens, to submit to the norm of denying all morality, and this is not amoral but immoral. — Ortega - Revolt of the Masses, p. 189

I get what he's saying. Plus judgement of some kind is at the core of any action.

On the other hand, amorality is a lens through which we can see the world. We use that lens in anthropology and psychology. In those endeavors we aren't judging, but rather trying to understand.

You won't know until you try. — Harry Hindu

You'd have to define "suffering."

Does suffering require a sense of self? If it's just the firing of nociceptors, then earth worms can suffer.

What if we were to point to "capable of suffering" vs "not capable of suffering" as the distinction? — Harry Hindu

That will also be a quagmire.

the preemie baby outside the womb still requires care to survive, how is that any different than the care they receive inside the womb? — Harry Hindu

Are you arguing that abortion is always wrong?

What do you mean, "live outside the womb"? — Harry Hindu

I think a 24 week infant has about a 7% chance of survival even with high tech care. At 20 weeks, there's really no chance.

Check the work of Julian Young, Brian Lieter, Thomas Hurka.If l get the opportunity , l will collect a list of all scholars with reference, past and present who share the same interpretation of Nietzsche as me — Wittgenstein

He does register a lot of disgust at what appears to him to be life-rejecting behavior and practice, but ultimately he's not offering a prescription for our world. Nietzsche makes it pretty clear that our world is the threshold of a new one which we would have trouble imagining.

You'd have to take his words out of context and extrapolate your own interpretation from there to get the OP.

So you're attacking a strawman.

the more reason 3rd Tri abortions are the most important kind to protect. — Streetlight

True. It's always going to be rare, though.

Third trimester abortion is rare and usually done for medical reasons, either a problem with the mother or the baby.

Yea, that's not going to happen.
— frank
Back in the day, folks said the same about Abolition ... and desegregation ... and mixed-raced marriage ... Actuarial inevitability, sir. — 180 Proof

They also said it about pigs flying.

Prenatal homicide (e.g. health of the mother, severe / unviable birth defects, poverty, etc), ain't infanticide. Ergo no unwanted / unloved newborns. Each woman knows best. Actuarial progress over retrograde conservatism. — 180 Proof

Third trimester is too late. Get over it.

My 30+ years old position is, I suppose, the "extremist" one (as the old post exerpted shows): abortion on demand – as an inalienable Human Right – even in the third trimester. — 180 Proof

Yea, that's not going to happen. Third trimester is a baby.

And that is why your posts are of so little value. Look at the name of the thread. — Banno

:lol: OK. Forge ahead with your stuff there.

The point being it is read this way. See the OP. — Banno

It doesn't look like there was any reading of Nietzsche involved in the OP. I have no idea why his name was mentioned.

Getting one country to change it's course in security policy after 200 years of a successful policy that made it to avoid WW1 and WW2, and another one basically the time it has been independent, one surely has had to make some radical decisions. And Putin has made them. — ssu

Why didn't Finland join earlier? They just didn't think there was any need?

and yet time and again it is read as encourage the aristocratic nonsense of the OP. Time and again this is how it is read. Your view looks like special pleading. — Banno

Name a Nietzsche scholar who reads it this way.

It's funny that one of your favorite phrases is "bootlicker."

:lol:

Fine, then let's go back to the question you're trying to avoid:
Are you a person? How do you know?
— Harry Hindu
If you can't explain why you are a person then what is wrong with aborting you? I'm not interested in bringing morality into it. I just want to know what traits a thing possesses that would qualify it as a person. — Harry Hindu

I'm not trying to avoid the question. I just don't know exactly when a clump of cells actually turns into a person. I know it will, given the right conditions. It happened to me.

What we do is declare that some time before the 20th week when the AC membrane in the lungs is too thick to function, the thingy is not a person. Somewhere around 25 weeks the membrane will work and the thingy can live outside the womb.

Some people reject that claim. So the buy-in for it is iffy.

What about the potential of personhood? — Harry Hindu

A lot of the land surface of the planet has the potential to become a person, Harry.

Your hair used to be some dust stirred up by a brontosaurus.

Then what use is the term, "person" if there is no way to determine what it is? Are you a person? How do you know? Can you point to sonething that has an equal nunber of properties of personhood and not-personhood? — Harry Hindu

Sorites paradox

But this diverges from the original point I was making between you and BitterCrank - that we need to be consistent in how we define life, personhood, and suffering. Both political extremes are not being consistent at all. — Harry Hindu

And this is probably why the debate continues. There's no clear cut way to determine when a fetus becomes a person.

Well, Frank -- if a behavior is tolerated, and there are no laws defining what a behavior is, then it is a matter of personal interpretation as to whether one can permissibly do x, y, or z. You've raised a non-issue, seems to me. — Bitter Crank

So does it sit well with you that child abuse is considered to be a matter of choice in Montana?

It's a non-issue?

So: In states where abortion is legal, some people consider it murder and others consider it medical procedure. — Bitter Crank

Sure. So imagine you live in a state where sexual abuse of children is tolerated, say it's Montana. There's no law against it. Would you say that in Montana, sexual abuse is a matter of choice?

Wrong! Richard Dawkins had a time machine and he did it. Because he's an asshole!

Did you answer the question?

. I know abortion isn't like feeding the poor

It would be a little odd to have a party to celebrate having your gallbladder removed, but I'm accustomed to people doing strange things.

If abortion is different, that is, if you feel people really shouldn't be casual about it, that implies some ambivalence about the morality of it. Doesn't it?

I'm OK with some people thinking that I, as a homosexual, behave immorally. I'm OK with some people thinking that my beliefs about god are immoral. I'm OK with some people thinking abortion is immoral. — Bitter Crank

If some people think sexual abuse is OK, should they be allowed to do it?

What I would think would be immoral is if you got to decide for me — Hanover

My point is that if you believe a certain act is immoral and seek to make it illegal, I need to address your concern one way or another.

Saying that it's a matter of choice does not address your assertion.

This is a passage from the Old Testament. Samuel was a judge and the people asked him for a king. This is his response.

"He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.

12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.

13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.

14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.

15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.

16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.

17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day."

1 Samuel 11-18. :smile: It's an old problem.

Also your mother named you Gago.

It seems they're not sending their best. — Streetlight

And also, you're cross-eyed. And your nose is shaped like a colon polyp.

where Laurie Kilmartin said she would "joyfully abort our fetus" — Harry Hindu

I would kind of prefer this to "a woman has a right to choose."

If you think abortion is moral, go ahead and say it. Normalize it. Otherwise it's like: "abortion is moral for some of us, but not all."

That doesn't make any sense.

There is also this celebration of abortion that the left has, as if having an abortion is a badge of honor rather than a tragedy — Harry Hindu

Where did you see this happening? Just curious, because I haven't.

If Ukraine had joined NATO earlier, the invasion wouldn't have happened. Finland and Sweden see this and want to join now.

Makes perfect sense.

It’s unjust, Frank. It’s an unjust system. It seeks to arise at a just state through unjust means. Not only that but it does so inefficiently, wastefully and poorly. — NOS4A2

I think most people are OK with having their taxes go to WIC or their state and local food aid organizations. They don't think of it as unjust.

All of it at the cost of justice. It cannot differentiate between just and unjust distribution of wealth. — NOS4A2

It's food stamps NOS. Cheese. Milk. Hamburger.
Buns to put the hamburger in. It's not going to turn the world upside down.

Ill-fed people probably have access to food but just don't procure it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

This would take us back into discussing what's really going on with nutrition assistance in the US.

Why don't you research that topic?

Exactly. It treats adults as unweened. — NOS4A2

It's just nutrition assistance. Nothing drastic.

Only insofar as I think the state should defend human rights, which you just claimed yourself right before you implied it should offer people food and a living. — NOS4A2

The US state does give food to kids. So do state governments and city and county governments.