Er, yes I do. That's kinda the point. — Bartricks

"It's like mugging because it kinda looks like it if you ignore all context" is not a convincing argument to that effect though.

I do not voluntarily tax. I am taxed and if I refuse to pay I will be kidnapped. — Bartricks

That doesn't mean you somehow have a right not to be taxed.

How so? — counterpunch

Corporate taxes are on profit, not turnover. So if you pay higher wages, you already pay less taxes.

Government is perfectly entitled to tax as it sees fit, and to set minimum wages as it sees fit. Why reinvent the wheel? — counterpunch

Yeah that's my question. An additional tax break seems like double dipping for the company.

so it's okay to mug me and to give the proceeds to the hungry person if there's been a vote on it?? What moral planet are you on? — Bartricks

You aren't mugged. That's just nonsense. If you have a contract that entitles you to an income, that income is already subject to taxes. The same is true for wealth which you acquire under the express protection of the state. None of these things is somehow naturally assigned to you in full and without obligation.

Yet that's what the state does. — Bartricks

Except, the state doesn't do that, the state has democratic legitimacy and the state is the institution establishing property as a right in the first place.

It's a good idea to pump money into the bottom of the economy, because money creates value as it spirals upward, however, I think a significant increase in minimum wage, with tax breaks for companies paying it, is a better approach than a Universal Basic Income - because value would still be derived for what is effectively a giveaway, but a giveaway that doesn't point a giant spotlight at quantitative easing. In this way, I think you can maintain all the natural capitalist incentives and avoid many of the inflationary effects on prices and wages of giving away free cash. — counterpunch

Why would you need to give companies a tax break for paying the minimum wage? Wages are always deducted from taxable profit anyways.

Two other considerations are giving away free money will always draw a crowd, so you'll immediately have increased immigration. (Or, you can attract businesses with low tax rates - even if this cancels out with high minimum wages.) — counterpunch

Assuming you pay the UBI to non-citizens, which seems unlikely.

Also, you open the door to Communism. To ensure people are not claiming UBI in all 50 states of the Union, you'd have to means test it in the sense you'd need to know who had claimed. — counterpunch

I don't think you need any kind of massive bureaucracy. That's kind of the advantage of an universal basic income. You can just add it to the taxable income of anyone who claims it. Since people already have to declare their income (and usually the employer transmits that information to the tax authorities automatically), it'd not create any new difficulties.

The notion that people should be allowed to keep their income and wealth secret from the state is dubious anyways.

It may seem that way, but mutual respect can only come about as a result of free interaction. Mutual respect enforced through state coercion is just a deception. — Tzeentch

That seems contradictory to me. If the mutual respect is already a human tendency, then enforcing it wouldn't be "coercion". You can only coerce someone into doing something they would not otherwise do.

And if mutual respect is not already a given, what makes you think it'll appear?

In a system where states are chosen as the guardians of individual rights, it would simply be a matter of what the state can coerce individuals into. More rights equals more coercion. From the perspective of individual rights it is self-defeating. — Tzeentch

Then what even are "rights", according to you? Where do they come from, what's their purpose?

I see what you mean. However, this was not what I meant by conspiracy theory. By "conspiracy theory" in this context I meant something more like "fact-based working theory on the basis of which we attempt to logically explain events or situations". — Apollodorus

Isn't that just a theory? Why use the specific name of a currently much discussed phenomenon if that's not actually what you want to talk about?

Obviously, I'm not an expert on conspiracy theories and I wasn't aware of any technical term for it. — Apollodorus

Have you been living under a rock the part 5 years?

QUESTION 1. Apart from political outlook, what is it that makes us accept or reject a conspiracy or conspiracy theory? — Apollodorus

There has been a lot of debate around this in recent years, for obvious reasons. Some people advocate to not use the term conspiracy theory at all, and instead use conspiracy narrative to distinguish it from actual theories about conspiracies, which of course do exist. Others have rejected this, pointing out that one aspect of conspiracy theories is that they really do want to be theories, applying scientific method, albeit in imperfect ways.

My own view is that what makes a theory a conspiracy theory is a combination of two things:

First, a conspiracy theory will adopt the aesthetics of a scientific or forensic analysis but will cherry pick it's results, using bad epistemology to justify this (see the zetetic method for an emblematic example).

Secondly a conspiracy theory always has a devil - a shadowy, evil force, which is half hidden, but always visible enough, which is arbitrarily powerful, but can be defeated by the virtuous.

And it's this second aspect that causes people to accept conspiracy theories. There is a growing body of evidence that conspiracy theories are about "taking back control" of a confusing and complex reality. Defeating the evil force and gaining the hidden knowledge gives you control over reality - where now you are one of the few chosen ones who will guide the fate of the sheep

For example, Rob Brotherton in Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories, says that the fascinating and often surprising psychology of conspiracy theories tells us a lot--not just why we are drawn to theories about sinister schemes, but about how our minds are wired and, indeed, why we believe anything at all [this is an important point]. Conspiracy theories are not some psychological aberration--they're a predictable product of how brains work. — Apollodorus

It's cool that you're quoting the Amazon description verbatim for those that don't click the link, but do please use quotation marks.

But what about conspiracy deniers? While believers in conspiracy or conspiracy theories may be said to operate under the influence of “suspicion” or “paranoia”, disbelievers may similarly operate under the influence of “denial”. — Apollodorus

I don't see much evidence for there being some sort of "denial" that is comparable, in the way it operates, to a conspiracy theory. There is plenty of wilful ignorance of complexities to avoid having to challenge one's existing beliefs, but that's not really the same thing. Things like confirmation bias apply to normal theories as much as they do to conspiracy theories.

I don’t know if denial has anything to do with it but during and after WWII we were promised a better, more civilized world. — Apollodorus

And the word has become a whole lot better for the majority of people. One can debate "civilized" but that's because the term is so vague.

QUESTION 2. How can conspiracy or “conspiracy theory” be discussed without participants falling into either of the extremes? Is this at all possible, or are we reaching a point of no return where the concept of dialogue and debate has lost all meaning? — Apollodorus

Most advice seems to agree that one needs to take the emotional position of the interlocutor into account. Take the emotional investment of participants seriously and try to build some emotional rapport (optimally, you already have some kind of connection before the discussion begins). Its probably best not to focus on what someone believes, but why they believe it

Right, and if the survival of humanity isn’t important to your moral philosophy then my argument wouldn’t apply. I’m not knocking that perspective I’m just conceding that my argument requires that you care about humanities survival. — DingoJones

The thing is, it really bothers me that I cannot find a good argument for why it should matter. It seems like it clearly should matter, but it's hard for me to figure out exactly why.

Sure, if you don’t care about the survival of humanity then science isn’t bad according to my argument. — DingoJones

Obviously I'm not just talking about what I care about in an emotional sense. This is a philosophy forum, I'm asking how to address the problem from the perspective of moral philosophy.

Also, just because total destruction will happen anyways in billions of years doesn’t mean we should not care about being destroyed now. That’s fallacious, like saying there is no point to living because you eventually die. — DingoJones

The difference to me is that I'm already alive and I want to keep being alive. This doesn't apply in the same way to potential future generations. And it's not just about having or not having future generations. It's about whether or not the advantages to actual people outweigh the drawbacks for potential people.

Same way we do with all future risk assessment. In this case we know that science is the tasty poison that will eventually kill us. So we weigh the benefits against total destruction. Total destruction trumps those benefits and shows us that science is bad. — DingoJones

Does it? This is a serious question. Why do we care about the ultimate survival of humanity? For one, as long as we don't figure out a way to get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics, total destruction will happen anyways. For another, future humans aren't actual people. They're potentials. Their moral standing seems questionable. How is it to be measured?

Of course a just society is possible! — ToothyMaw

I agree. I didn't want to argue that it isn't, only supply an analysis for why we see heightened identity conflict.

All of that being said, I believe a society should, ideally, be able to be colorblind once equity is achieved. — ToothyMaw

That would perhaps be a natural consequence of a level playing field. Xenophobia will not go away completely, of course, so vigilance is necessary, including concerning one's own prejudices. That's actually a good practice regardless of topic, to be aware of your blind spots and tendencies for bad reasoning.

But most white people, while privileged, do not actively oppress people of color. Unless we are talking about unconscious bias, microaggressions, etc. - things that are difficult to correct for. — ToothyMaw

Essentially the only way to correct for it is equality of outcome across the population groups, which is to say we should see similar distributions of income, wealth etc. Regardless of skin color if a) there are no relevant and statistically significant biological differences and b) there is no conscious or unconscious bias against one group.

And why do you think that this dynamic is necessary? Do you really think that people of color want to oppress white people - or do they just want to be treated in accordance with the difficulties that they face? — ToothyMaw

I think that people on the extreme end of "wokeness" believe - implicitly or explicitly - that oppression cannot really be overcome, hence their focus on drawing boundaries around groups.

Because science will always evolve faster than our societies, our biology and our understanding of science it will inevitably cause conflict and destruction when it interacts with human biology/society, science is NOT good. There will be a grace period where we enjoy it’s benefits, especially the siren call of medical technology, but the science will advance beyond our societies and biology quickly and with exponentially increasing speed until it destroys us. — DingoJones

Assuming this analysis of science is correct, does it follow that science is bad?

For one, the notion of humanity without science is incongruous. While our technological society is historically contingent, the basic ability to understand the world in a methodical way clearly isn't. You could have a human society that intentionally does not advance technology, but this runs into a second problem:

Humanity is doomed regardless. There is no practical way to avoid the destruction of humanity that we know of today, and there certainly isn't one if technology stops before interplanetary colonisation. So, at best, we're delaying it's demise.

And then the question is, what's the price we're willing to pay for that delay? You're calling it a grace period, but it means real, tangible benefits for a lot of real people? How do we even begin to weigh these against future risks?

While white privilege exists, and racially conscious policies are sometimes justified, this kind of flagellation is equally pathetic as the fanatics that Venita Blackburn criticizes, even if those fanatics are significantly more dangerous. — ToothyMaw

I think what we're witnessing here is the end of Utopia. If you believe that no truly just society is possible, what remains is only to reinforce the borders - both the physical and the metaphorical ones.

In such a scenario, the oppressor and the oppressed can never truly integrate, and while their positions can change to the opposite sign, the fundamental dynamic cannot be overcome. Either the oppressed is cast out and shackled, or the oppressor must engage in a continuous process of, as you call it, self-flaggelation to atone for their continued but inescapable oppression.

I need around £10bn start up capital. — counterpunch

It's unfortunate, then, that there isn't a system that would spread wealth to everyone so you could collect this sum from people, rather than having to appeal to either states or the largest corporations and banks.

And where are the left? Occupied with deconstructing whiteness, maleness and straightness! — counterpunch

But you just criticized the left for wanting to tax and regulate. So are you in favor of higher taxes and regulation or not?

I see young people being set up to be enslaved by communism; via political correctness and environmentalism. The "woke" are sleepwalking into a trap, and I'm pointing out that trap. This isn't about partisan politics for me. This is about a sustainable future, that I assure you, cannot be achieved by undermining capitalism. Capitalism can be made sustainable by harnessing magma energy, by drilling close to magma chambers, beneath volcanoes - and converting heat energy to electrical power, hydrogen fuel, desalinating water to irrigate land, recycling, fish farming etc, there can be a prosperous sustainable future - and freedom — counterpunch

Sigh, and and back to the evangelism. I think it has been pointed out numerous times to you that, if your plan can really work within capitalism, all you need to do is start a business.

I don't care whether its a red future or a blue future, but I do care there's a future - and that cant be achieved by the have less and pay more, tax this, stop that, wind and solar, low energy, neo communist approach of the left. — counterpunch

You do realise that, since the 1980s, we've been in a period of deregulation and tax cuts in the west, right?

Well think about it. Every time Labour/Dems lose an election, it's the fault of the electorate. They're stupid, racist or greedy, and that's why the left didn't win. It's not that the left failed to represent the interests of voters. It's the voters who are at fault, every time. — counterpunch

Well, both sides have their scapegoats. Inherently there's nothing more substantial to blaming "liberal elites" or "indoctrinated students" either.

You have a point though, when you say this:

I recently read a book entitled 'Despised - why the modern left loathes the working class' by Paul Embery. He wants the left to get back to representing the interests of working class people - rather than telling the working class what they ought to value. I think he's right. — counterpunch

There is no longer a unified left in the western democracies, but there is a subset which has become increasingly divorced from the traditional left electorate. In terms of the voting structure, we see the same pattern in every western European country as well as the US: The left wing electorate is increasingly well educated and has higher incomes, while an increasing amount of low status voters abstains completely or switches over to social nativist movements (UKIP, FN, Trump).

There is, however, still a sizeable "workers left", it just hasn't fully crystallized into new parties (or retaken control of the old ones).

Then how do you prevent the individual adding cows to the common grazing land until it's a desert? — counterpunch

I'm not an anarchist, really, so I'm not sure myself. That said, there is some sociological evidence that humans are perfectly capable of making proper use of communal resources without oversight. Band or tribal societies have very limited central authority, yet they seem to get by with limited resources. Traditions and rituals develop around the communal resources that dampen any short-sighted temptation. In general, humans have limited foresight, but it's not that limited.

Private companies developed vaccines to combat the pandemic. The government merely created the market by pre-purchasing supplies. — counterpunch

And supplying massive amounts of cash in advance, basically eliminating any entrepreneurial risk. But of course the private companies had the actual equipment and know-how.

That aside, all economies are mixed to a greater or lesser extent. I'm not a free market fundamentalist - but capitalist economy is necessary to personal and political freedom. — counterpunch

Capitalism is a problematic term, since people tend to define it according to their preferred economic policy. I'll say that I think private property and a market economy are necessary components for a just and free economic system. What we should do, rather than look at labels, is to decide what our goals are in a specific area. Healthcare and education, for example, are in my opinion fields that should have equality of outcome. So competition is less useful here.

To my mind, the whole capitalist/communist dichotomy is over. Communism has failed, and we need a new democratic opposition. — counterpunch

The lesson I take from the failure of communism, above all else, is that centralising too much power in few hands is dangerous, and doing so without accountability is disastrous.

My problem with a pro capitalist approach is that capitalism can run into the same problem when it turns into neo-feudalism, a process arguably already underway.

So I think the focus should be on the democracy part. Democracy creates accountability. Make sure power (and this includes wealth) does not concentrate too much. Make sure those with a stake in the outcome have a say. Not necessarily an equal say - if you build a company from the ground up, it's reasonable that your view should be very important. But if you eventually end up with thousands of workers, it's probably not reasonable to claim that these thousands do not get at least an equal voice.

Build on what works, discard that what didn't. No need to reinvent the wheel, really. There are good ideas out there already, and some that have been tried successfully. Unfortunately politics has a very short memory, and we tend to forget that the debates did not start yesterday.

Forgive me, but could you elaborate? Are you denying the validity of historical evidence? — TaySan

I'm saying there is no one course of history that is more "natural" than any other. History is a thing that exists inside the minds of sentient creatures. It doesn't really make sense to apply the term "natural" to a mental concept like "a course of history".

This is really vague. Can you make it more specific? I have no idea what it means. — TaySan

I could try with a metaphor: We are the universe looking back at itself.

Without conscious beings to experience the world, what is the world good for?

Have you never noticed how the right represent peoples interests whereas the left assume, the people exist to represent their interests? — counterpunch

I have not, but then I'm not caught up in some ideological straightjacket.

Democratic communism is an oxymoron. — counterpunch

It is indeed, because communism would imply there is no "ruling" at all.

People would vote for the freedom of self interest every time! A command economy necessarily implies totalitarian government - prone to corruption - and inclined to genocide when its latest five year plan falls short. — counterpunch

There are some things that make sense having under a "command economy". Vaccine production during a pandemic, for example. Or war materiel during a war. Basically, whenever you don't care about arbitrage effects and just want to put maximum effort towards one goal.

I'd say that is why the USSR managed to get the first man into orbit, despite being significantly weaker economically than the US. But to be honest I don't actually know enough about the history of the space race to be sure.

However, even though we've defined ourselves as social animals and have attributed our success to being such, our cooperative behavior can't hold a candle to that of other social creatures like bees and ants. — TheMadFool

Ants and bees don't "cooperate" in the way that humans do. Ants have no concept of the entirety they're a part of. They simply do some task. An insect colony is more akin to a machine driven by a machine learning algorithm than a society.

I guess what I'm getting at is that we're failing to notice internal threats to our social structure. The fact that such "threats" are subtle and not like the direct frontal assault of pride of lions, something our proto-social ancestors probably faced on a daily basis, makes it almost impossible to detect such threats and the risks involved. — TheMadFool

I think you're giving humans very little credit here. We're very good at spotting internal threats - for example people who don't play by the rules. But we're evolved to live in bands of a few dozen individuals, so we're less capable at seeing and reacting to systemic issues caused by the hugely complicated economic systems we have created.

I'm so glad you are impervious to corruption, because otherwise such power could drive a fool mad! — counterpunch

Isn't that why we have elections?

But what if this is just the natural course of history? — TaySan

There is no such thing as a "natural" curse of history. History is a human conception. The "unnatural" - that which is created by a self-aware awareness is what gives anything any meaning.

Right. That’s why putting a gun to someone’s head is illegal/blameworthy. — Pinprick

And that, according to you, is unrelated to the actual intent and result? I.e. it's always the same blame, regardless of your reasons and the result?

Consider the tendency some have of blaming the victim. Is a woman to blame, in any way, for the actions of the rapist? Feel free to imagine whatever scenario you like; she was coming on to him, was dressed provocatively, etc.

If we’re going to blame someone for someone else’s actions, then we have to contend with examples like this one. If she’s not to blame, why not? I have a feeling whatever argument you use to justify not blaming her can also be used to justify not blaming Manson for murder. — Pinprick

Well one obvious reason here is that it's the victim we're talking about. We're not blaming the victim because they weren't the ones that decided to break the rules. It's important here to distinguish between intention to cause harm and negligence. The victim does not intend to be victimized, so the charge can only be one of neglecting precautions. Every society has to define it's own standard of acceptable precautions. Those cannot be absolute, lest everyone be paralyzed. So we make decisions about what we should and shouldn't demand of people, and many societies have decided that asking women to make precautions such as dressing in specific ways isn't acceptable (besides the actual causal connection being suspect in the first place).

Intentional behaviour is under much stricter rules. If you intend to cause a certain result, in generally does not matter how many intervening decisions there are, unless the connection is so tenous as to be effectively random.

Following a rule to ensure survival isn't the same as the proposition "we ought not kill" being true -- or is it? When we say that "we ought not kill" is true, are we just saying that we choose not to kill as it's in our best interests not to? I don't think that's what the moral realist means. — Michael

Well, I'm not saying it's necessarily what a moral realist means. But from an epistemological position, it seems equivalent. A naive realist says the proposition "the cat is on the mat" is true if it corresponds with the objective reality of a cat on the mat. That's the ontological position. Unless you follow a divine command theory of morality, it's obvious that a similar ontological position is impossible for morality. What's the point of even debating something as obviously nonsensical as "objective morality" in an ontological sense?

But from an epistemological perspective, the naive realist does not simply compare two states given to him. The statement would instead look more like this (heavily simplified): "the cat is on the mat is true if the cat being on the mat is a predictive theory that explains all currently available evidence". This is implicitly goal oriented.

The scientific method isn't "true" in the sense that we're using the word "true". We're using it in the sense of the truth-aptness of a proposition. — Michael

You're right, that was mistaken.

When I asked how to show that an ethical system is true or false I am asking how to verify or falsify the claims "we ought act only according to that maxim whereby we can will that it should become a universal law" or "we ought maximize happiness and well-being." — Michael

I don't think the categorical imperative would be truth-apt in the same way the scientific method isn't truth apt. It's the method by which we verify or falsify a statement.

And how does one verify or falsify an ethical system? Is there a way to show that utilitarianism is false or that the categorical imperative is true? — Michael

Isn't this also true for the scientific method? We know it's true because it works. It cannot be checked against anything other than its utility.

A claim such as "2 + 2 = 5" can be shown to be false by counting; a claim such as "a cat is on the mat" can be shown to be true by looking at the mat. But a claim such as "we ought not kill"? I don't even know what to do with that. — Michael

If the goal is to not be killed, then having the rule "we ought not to kill" makes sense. It follows from instrumental reason.

Is it true that the goal is not to be killed? That's an odd question. It's akin to asking "is it true that we want to understand and predict nature"?

So, if it turns out that humans are exterminated by our own technological inventiveness, I think that will definitively answer to your question "no." — T Clark

But hey, it's their life, their choice, right. Besides, pollution is fun for children, innit! — baker

I think both these points go into an interesting direction. Just how do we morally balance a bunch of increases to comfort and quality of living to the predictable and predictably unpredictable long term effects?

Related to this, there is no reason to suppose that technology will increase linearly forever, or that there is not a point at which a society would conclude that more technology does more harm than good.

Personally I think that the amount of suffering that can plausibly be alleviated by technology in the near future, not least the suffering related to aging and death by disease and old age, easily justifies continued progress. Getting off this planet is also rather important if we care about the long term survival of the human species (though why exactly we should care isn't easy to answer).

But there is definitely room for an interesting discussion here, I think.

Another way of saying, yet again, stay on topic, which concerns the proportionality of Israel's military response and whether the U.S. should support it. — Baden

Can there even be a "proportional" response, in the traditional sense of the word? What I mean is, given the overall situation and the history, how could any kind of tit for tat reaction be proportional, seeing as the only plausible consequence would be more violence and more death?

This isn't aimed at you, I know you are just asking people to stay on topic. But Western politicians like nothing so much as calling for "proportional reaction", but this seems to really say nothing at all. It can never be proportional to use violence at all where other means exist, and for Israel they definetly do.

It's much deeper than this. The mainstream Left seems to have been bad at articulating rival narratives. And there is no question that Murdoch hasn't helped. I don't wish to dwell on this. — Tom Storm

I think the conclusion here is right, but perhaps your analysis is a bit one sided. It's not that the left is simply bad at articulating a rival narrative, it's that the left, if we take it as a whole doesn't have one. After world war 2, the parties on the political left successfully build the democratic welfare state - something to rival the Marxist/Leninist idea of the totalitarian one-party-state (and, as it turned out, much more successful). However, the evolution of the welfare state was basically finished in the 1960s. Since then, there sinply hasn't been a widely supported left wing strategy to deal with the remaining problems.

The presence and demise of the self-styled communist countries had a big influence in this. While it made sure that robust re-distribution could not be entirely opposed by the wealthy, it also pushed the left into an ideological space of national competition. The fall of Communism then removed the shackles from the inegalitarian factions, while the left is still locked into its old modes of thinking. By now, the traditional classist left has disintegrated.

I always understood coercion to be persuading someone with the use of force or threat of ruin, like extortion, torture, blackmail. It's like "duress". Perhaps the word is open to interpretation. At any rate, I wouldn't put the scenario you outlined on the same scale. — NOS4A2

Basically, the reason I am asking is because there seemed to be a trend in this thread, where all questions concerning interaction between the individuals are answered by pointing to "respect for other individuals". But that's only a convincing answer if said respect actually covers at least all basic conflicts and is enforceable.

Having the enforceable rules limited to "no coercion" and the defining "coercion" in a very limited way obviously means a whole bunch of conflicts are outside this scope. And conflicts that are will be resolved either by compromise or by force. And if it's the latter, then someone is going to loose. What can the individualist offer the loosing side? There's obviously no guarantee for compromise.

In any case, by now the ideology of "freedom" and "leave me alone" is so strong in the US (and being fair, is also growing in other parts of the world), that I don't know what could overcome it. Not that it cannot be defeated, just that I don't see how at the moment. — Manuel

Based on post-election surveys, Piketty argues that what we're seeing in Western democracies is the breakdown of the old left/right class structure into a system of multiple elites: an educated left wing elite and an income / wealth right wing elite, both of which are inegalitarian. The left wing elite is interested in cooperation, but not to the point where is would endanger it's privileges, and the right wing is committed to competition as the basic principle.

There is still an egalitarian, internationalist left, but it's not yet fully crystallized and vying for the support of the disadvantaged classes with the nationalist movements.

I'm not denying that some people genuinely hoped that they could built a Marxist state. But i'm not talking about what people hoped or wished for, I'm looking at what existing communities actually were built around. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't know if we're just talking (metaphorically) different languages here, but this juxtaposition makes no sense to me. What people hope and wish for is usually a central part of what communities are "actually" build around.

Marxist movements where political movements looking to overthrow the existing structure, looking to tear down... in the first place. Whatever came after was something else. — ChatteringMonkey

That's basically the exact opposite of how I see things. The whole reason Marxism was so powerful and ended up so terrible was because it had, as it's goal, a powerful utopian vision - the classless society. A Rousseauean paradise. And because it was such a grand goal, people were willing to do grand things for it - including grand destruction.

And I mean this shouldn't be surprising really, if you look at what the common values of the left are, they are critical or reactionary for the most part... they don't stand on their own. It's freedom from something else, non-discrimination in reaction to some discriminatory traditional practice, equality as a reaction to inequalities created by existing societal structures, etc... — ChatteringMonkey

I think you're retroactively applying a judgement (justified or not) of modern left-wing intellectuals onto the entirety of traditionally "left" movements. Any political position is a "reaction" to the status quo, even wanting to keep said status.

We used to be able to turn to factual scientific research. Apparently, science is still trying to figure out the trans equation. — Edy

Science is also a social activity though, and as such when it's subject is relevant to an ongoing political conflict, the science itself is also political. It's quite easy to see this when you look at the discussion surrounding climate change. You can always level the charge that a certain study has been politically motivated and it's results are therefore questionable.

I'm not saying don't trust the science, or don't turn to scientific methods, but science is not immune to politics unfortunately.

I have an issue with woman missing out on championships, careers, scholarships and being role models. All these are compromised in any sport that allows trans to compete against cis. — Edy

It's a reasonable concern, imho. It requires us to look at what the rules ought to be for sport, and what principle leagues and divisions should be build on. It's not a bad discussion to have, and one where the science is definetly relevant, though I think it cannot make the final decision on its own. That's a political determination to make.

Marxism didn't "build" the communities, or "Marxist" states... it usually had to devolve into some kind a authoritarian person-cult to created some kind of shared ideology (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Castro etc...) — ChatteringMonkey

This view isn't compatible with the evidence. There were significant Marxist movements around the world, united by a shared vision. They were occasionally close to coming to power in Germany and France. Nor can either the USSR or the PRC be reduced to "Stalinist personality cult". In the beginning, genuine hope and Identification with the ideals of Marxism existed. And there was genuine societal transformation that is visible until today, for example in the area of women's rights.

Edit: Or consider the example of North Vietnam: There is widespread agreements among analysts of the conflict that the North won because northern fighters were strongly motivated. They knew what they were fighting for. Despite the fact that the North Vietnamese government can hardly be said to have been more beneficial to the ordinary people, it was still able to provide a motivation that South Vietnam was never able to match with its soulless military juntas.

The full Thatcher quote is actually more interesting than the simple phrase that always gets clipped. — Tom Storm

Is it? It sounds like more of the same to me.

It's not just neo-liberal ideology that is to blame though, that's only part of the story I'd say and a bit short-sighted. — ChatteringMonkey

This is true, of course. As influential as it is, neoliberal ideology would not have been sufficient to somehow build individualistic proprietarianism ex nihilo. It has deeper roots in the politics of the catholic church, the Protestant reimagination of faith as something inherently individualistic. It's path has also been charted by the bourgeois revolutions starting in the late 18th century and the proprietarian society that resulted from them.

But still, what have ideologies on the left been other than 'critical', i.e. aimed at tearing down something rather than building up a community around shared ideas. — ChatteringMonkey

Marxism is literally the most powerful political movement in recent history. The only movements of comparable scope and influence are the major world religions (and perhaps capitalism, though there is an interesting discussion about that to be had). Given the tremendous influence on world history exercised by this ideology, it seems weird to claim that it hasn't "build" anything.

Recent woke/identity politics are only the next iteration and further splintering of shared categories that may bind a communities together into something more than a collection of individuals. — ChatteringMonkey

Identitarian conflict predates "left wing ideology". It might even be the original form of conflict. The emergence of a left wing ideology has briefly restructured conflict in Western democracies along class lines (roughly in the period 1930 to 1980). The class structure of politics has broken down in the time since, and identitarian conflict has re-emerged.

So beware what you wish for. "Valuing what we do together", building communities usually implies values and stories build around common goods and goals, and those usually end up not being very sensitive to particular individuals. Or do we really think we can have our cake and eat it too? — ChatteringMonkey

True enough. We should not imagine that building a better system is easy or that it comes without tradeoffs. Utopias are important as guiding lights, but they are also dangerous if they are used as justification.

Can trans activists think of a higher authority. Or is their agenda fuelled solely on feelings. — Edy

Everyone's opinions are influenced by feelings, and everything that affects real people is political. I'm not a fan of casting your own view as a-political and thoroughly rational. At best it demonstrates a lack of self-awareness.

This is a general statement, that's not aimed at you personally.

Doesn't the payor always have an advantage, in that all they are trading is money, not themselves. — James Riley

Such categorical statements work, but the larger the category, the more relevant information is lost. It is true that every wage earner "sells themselves" but the terms of the sale differ, and I think that difference is relevant. Prostitution is in a way a microcosm of this. Decent arguments can be made for the position that all sex work is inherently exploitative and objectifying. But it doesn't seem convincing to argue that no-one really wants to do it, and everyone who claims to is either lying or has internalised misogyny or somesuch. It's too dogmatic to apply a category judgement like "all wage labor is slave labor" and be done with it. Personalities and aspirations differ, a market economy does get that part right.

I'm leaning towards not being in favor of proactive action in this instance. At least, not in the shape of the use of force or coercion, unless there's a direct indication that physical violence is about to take place.

Coercion involves violence or the threat thereof. — Tzeentch

Fair enough. It does seem a far cry from the supposed world of mutual individualistic respect that has been brought up earlier in this thread though. In practice, individual rights under such a system are restricted to the right to not be directly physically attacked. All other rights only exist as mere potentials - they are there for you to take, if you have the power to keep them.

That’s true, and you’re right. If someone works for me I expect and demand a modicum of professionalism. But these terms are based upon mutual agreement between free men. I don’t think any coercion is required to uphold such an agreement. He is free to walk away should he disagree, as I am I free of any obligation towards employing him. — NOS4A2

Any coercion is also a transaction and can be framed as a mutual agreement. If there is something I can coerce you with, that implies there is something in my power that you want me to do / refrain from doing.

Let's say A and B have a mutually agreed upon contract. Both get something out of that that they want. A wants to change the agreement. B prefers it to stay as it is, but prefers to change it's terms over loosing it entirely. At what point does A threatening to walk away become coercion? One might say that the parties simply also need to agree on the rules to change the rules. But this causes a nested doll situation where there is always a meta-agreement which is not agreed on (this actually happens in actual disputes sometimes).

If I understand your problem correctly, I would argue the interface functions as it always would, except that each would refrain from coercing or otherwise using force and aggression against the other. One could look wherever coercion and force and aggression is being applied and establish where that violation occurs. — NOS4A2

We need to somehow define coercion, force and aggression with respect to all kinds of freedoms though. Most of these terms, if they are used in a legal context, refer to specific violations of specific rights. There are usually specific characteristics that the coercion or aggression needs to have in order to be considered a legal problem. For example, you can demand that someone who works in your company change some behaviours, possibly including how they dress, what they say in a professional capacity etc, but you cannot demand they have sex with you.

Essentially it is the right of every individual to pursue those things that they deem comprise a good life.

No. It is up to the individual to decide what they wish to do with their lives, and it is also up to them to accomplish their goals. — Tzeentch

Isn't that a bit like saying you have the right to bodily autonomy, insofar as you're allowed to defend yourself, but don't count on the state to interfere? Usually when people say the state should safeguard bodily autonomy they refer to proactive safety. That is to say they assume that there will not just be a determination after the fact of who was right and who was wrong, but instead an attempt to prevent a set of behaviors in the first place, on the basis that those generally violate someone's bodily autonomy. Is that not how you envision things to go?

Assuming you are living in a free country, it is the life you are leading every day. Interaction based on voluntariness and respect for the other's wishes, individuality and freedom. — Tzeentch

Sure, but then my country also has projects that could be characterized as collectivist: Socialised healthcare, for example, mandatory schools, a social safety net with mandatory contributions.

In my mind individual freedom entails the polar-opposite of slavery, allowing the right of an individual to control his own person and property.

In practice it is refusing to interfere in the affairs of one so long as he doesn't violate the freedoms of others. — NOS4A2

The problem I have is with imagining how the interface between individuals functions based on individualism. Ok so noone interferes in "your affairs" so long you don't violate the freedoms of others. But how is this violation established? It seems in principle possible to conceive a notion of individual freedoms and their interactions to account for every possible result.

The right to bodily autonomy, the right to self-determination, freedom of speech, among other things. — Tzeentch

Bodily autonomy and freedom of speech have fairly well practiced contours. What is the right so self-determination? Does it include the necessary material preconditions for that self-determination? And is some form of property on the list of other things?

A state that protects those essential freedoms, and nothing else. — Tzeentch

I wasn't referring to "state" in the more general sense of "state of affairs", though I should have made that clear. I'd be interested in a more "colourful" description of how you envision such a society to look. Do you have real life examples which are closer to this ideal than most?