Society in many ways is not the fosterer of individual freedom but rather convention (agreement), law, order, policy and regulation and ultimately control of a population.
Many of these things are of course beneficial to the vast majority - such as law and order and the general peace and security that comes with that. — Benj96

Has the individual ever been free? We've been living in ever-growing communities for the last 12,000 years, but even as hunter-gatherers individuals were not "free". Social animals like us can't be entirely free and independent agents. We are obligated by our various needs to maintain tight social relationships.

Obligated social beings as we are, we still have drives which conflicts with society. We have all sorts of needs and (especially) desires which may not be satisfied, sufficiently or at all. That is the bind we are all in, and always have been in.

There are various ways one can find relief. One can rise in society and gain more executive agency. People with more power and money have more options. One can also find social roles which involve less conventional social engagement. Loners, mavericks, and rebels specialize in social opposition. This route involves significant material sacrifices, usually, but can bring the reward of individual executive agency and interesting options,

One can also adapt to society, which is what most people do. Well-adjusted people fit society and society fits them. They may be better or worse off than others, but they are reasonably content, reasonably successful, reasonably happy. This is the lot of most people in the world.

The defining characteristic of capitalism is the contract made between a private citizen who owns a place of production with another private citizen to exchange labour for a wage. — Judaka

Less than a contractual relationship [and many workers do not have 'contracts' per se] the defining characteristic of capitalism is the accumulation of profit at the expense of the workers who produce all wealth in the first place.

Capitalist ethics? Bah! Humbug!

That interpersonal relationships within capitalist workplaces can be pleasant doesn't change the nature of exploitation of the workers by the company owners. Many capitalists are also "honest" people who behave "ethically" all the while exploiting for the purpose of getting richer.

That was a very nice sentence to read.

the theory rests on the observation that from the torrent of information processed by the brain, only a meagre trickle makes it through to consciousness; and crucially that includes information about the processing itself.

For which we can be exceedingly grateful. Imagine being aware of everything the CNS was doing. You'd have no time to look at porn! Or consider the 'enteric nervous system' the CNS sub-system that runs the digestive tract. Would you really want to be cognizant of the flow of data from your bowels? Mercifully, the enteric nervous system operates without regularly updating the conscious , or even the unconscious mind, of what it is doing down there. When it does send a news flash to the conscious brain, it's almost always bad news, like your bowels are about to explode; get ready.

I don't get this impression we have of lizard brains being primitive. We are the lizards that survived the extinction level event 65 million years ago. — TheMadFool

The survivors of the Yucatan Impact are birds, not humans, We descend from mammals that lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and survived the catastrophe.

We do have a "reptile brain", so called because it is similar to the brain of reptiles. It's the cerebellum and brain stem. It's a vital control center of physical functions like breathing. It is in control of our innate and automatic self-preserving behavior patterns, which ensure our survival and that of our species.

You might like to know that your inner ear structures are an adaptation of the back part of the fish jaw that shrank in size and somehow (don't ask me) was used to fashion your inner ear as we developed into a different group within the larger phylum of vertebrates--chordata (animals with backbones). Chordata is divided into five common classes: fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. To read more about this (and related matters) see YOUR INNER FISH by Neil Shubin. Fun read, I thought.

"Wisdom" and "wise" may be the sort of word that seems to be meaningful but is very difficult to qualify or quantify, and is, in general, non-inferential. Expertise, knowledge, and experience are much more measurable. Wisdom not so much.

Learning from one's mistakes, knowing one's limitations, understanding motivation, knowing what one doesn't know (and having an inkling as to what one won't know in the future), wide-ranging "common sense" all takes time to accumulate, and some people accumulate it a lot faster than others. As a consequence, there are "wise" 35 year olds and 70 year old idiots.

Wisdom is a word I almost never use. It's just too vague, subjective.

Hmmm, haven't looked at a National Geographic in decades. No. The idea that poor people can be happy comes from experience -- my own experience and observation, and others' observations. I am distinguishing "poor" from "immiserate"--lacking food, shelter, water, etc. The immiserate are not happy.

I personally do not know anyone who believes that. Everyone I know is either rich, striving to get rich, or bemoaning not being rich. — baker

You need to get a new circle of friends, associates, acquaintances--maybe new relatives.

"Rich" and "poor" are relative terms, of course, but I understand what you mean by "rich". I don't think it is an exclusively American phenomena, but Americans may be more deluded than some others that they CAN get rich by hard work. 'They' are not grouped together in the '1%' for nothing. The decidedly rich are a very small group--less than 1% of the population.

Ross Perot would call it a giant sucking sound... — James Riley

Goodness gracious! Almost 30 years since Ross got his charts out and cited that 'giant sucking sound' from 'South of the Border, Down Mexico Way'. About which he was at least partly correct: There are so many giant sucking sounds, one can be forgiven for not naming all of them.

There are substantial overhead costs to delivering welfare benefits, just as there are substantial overhead costs in delivering health care, paid for by private insurers. How much is spent to relieve poverty per se is a bit difficult to prize out of budgets. Should the cost of Medicaid be folded into the cost of single payer health care or the cost of UBI?

In 2010 Minnesota spent $20,000 per person in poverty. Nationally, however, the amount spent was just $11,000. Similarly in 2018, Minnesota spent $30,000 per person in poverty. Nationally, the average was just $17,000. — American Experiment

Minnesota is between Massachusetts and Rhode Island in spending--we are #5. Fine by me; my source for these statistics (American Experiment) lamented that so much was being spent [WASTED!]. Then there is the issue of state funds, federal funds, and NGO programs. Determining amounts spent for what becomes complicated quickly.

I see how it looked like an afterthought. Gay liberation, as it manifested itself in 1969 and into the next decade, was a big deal to me. It is not now, because the times have changed and I've changed, old age and all.

Technology was not an issue in gay liberation but the means to organize, using digital connectivity, didn't come into wide practical use until the late 1990s.

Technology trumps gay rights? — RogueAI

What do you mean by the question? No, I don't think technology trumps gay rights.

Happiness comes from personal qualities and how you think. — Tom Storm

I could not agree more.

I don't think there is a conspiracy either way here. — Tom Storm

I don't think it's a conspiracy either. It's just business as usual.

bad news and tales of disaster and woe provide the strongest interest, bringing in the highest potential revenue — Tom Storm

Aka, "If it bleeds it leads." Totally agree. We enjoy watching disasters that don't have anything to do with us.

Instead they'll simply look for distractions and buy shit to cheer themselves up. — Tom Storm

Just so you know, my comments were following on @CountVictorClimacusIII's comments, above.

It takes too much effort to blow up the local factory or store — CountVictorClimacusIII

We wouldn't want to give too much away but actually, blowing things up doesn't take all that much effort. (that was a joke)

hopelessness and despair — CountVictorClimacusIII

The corporo-technik elite is more likely to lull you with hope and happy talk rather than despair. Hopelessness and despair are not useful corporate values. People without hope and who are deep in despair are unlikely to either produce or consume at the desired Level. If they are hopeless and despairing enough, they might blow up the factory, office, or the store--and then where would we be?

controlled and manipulated by a technocratic / corporate elite through the media — CountVictorClimacusIII

You can rest assured that the technocratic / corporate elite is, or would like to control and manipulate the masses for purposes of enhancing their return on investment. Their efforts include the media, but a lot of their effort takes place in the workplace and marketplace. It may be pervasive, but it's not all that difficult to evade. You can tune out, for instance, and turn off. You can pursue ends that are quite different than those which the techno-corp elite pursues. Sure, there are some costs [you won't be invited to the annual elite Christmas Party, for instance] but you will be free of a lot of their corrosive influence.

For what it's worth, according to the web, more than 60% of high school graduates go on to college. That surprises me. — T Clark

It should surprise you. In 2019 29% of students aged 25 to 29 completed a BA degree. [nces.ed.gov]

The percentage of the population 25 years and older holding at least a bachelor's degree has increased by about five percentage points across the 15 years. In 2005-2009, 27.5% of this group had a bachelor's degree. That increased to 29.3% in 2010-2014. And in 2015-2019, the percentage reached 32.1%. [Census Bureau]

The college drop out rate is fairly high because a) college is more difficult than high school; b) college expenses may be unexpectedly high (living expenses, books, fees, tuition, etc.); c) success in college requires more motivation than success in high school; d) students fail and/or drop out sometimes because they do not know how to self-manage in college.

Many students are not well advised to attend college. They are not well prepared and they are not very interested. There are other manual/technical kinds of work that pay well that may be far more suitable (not talking unskilled or semi-skilled labor).

If college were free, and people didn't have high expectations for employment afterwords, then millions would benefit from higher education. Their cultural sophistication would get a boost, if nothing else. They would be able to appreciate finer grades of porn, for instance.

Well, Aliens, apparently — CountVictorClimacusIII

Or it could be evil spirits. Don't count them out.

I often wonder if we are in the decline phase. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Well, we could be -- depending on how you define "our culture" or "my culture".

I'd say that the average person who completes high school this year is in general less well educated in general than someone who graduated 50 or 60 years ago. The function of high school for the hoi polloi has changed, as has the nature of labor (to some extent). This has resulted in a cultural decline among the majority of the population who are younger (under 55 or 60, say). For a minority of high school graduates, the function of high school is college prep, and for this minority of students who go on to professional work, the culture of education, and their lives later on is excellent.

Those who like classical music are alive at a time of abundant high quality live and recorded performances. This area of culture is better off now (IMHO) than at any time in the last 100 years. Bookstore (local or Amazon/Barnes & Noble, etc.) now have more high quality science fiction than ever before. They also have a lot more schlock. I find too many interesting historical and sociological studies to read should I live another 25 years (I'm 75 now). The INTERNET makes a huge amount of interesting and at least very good quality material available that would once have been very inconvenient to access. That's a cultural improvement.

Do popular music consumers think the culture is getting better or worse? (I don't know -- I'm too old to judge; there are current bands that I like the sound of, but most not so much.). I don't think fast food is improving; good Chinese restaurants are getting harder to find in the midwest, alas. Are sports teams improving or deteriorating? Don't know.

We have a very good technical culture. Smartphones are remarkable pieces of tech. On the other hand, a lot of stuff one buys at big box stores (Walmart, Target, Cosco, Amazon, et al) is quite often cheap plastic junk. That part of the culture is in the dustbin. I can buy excellent shoes (costs an arm and a leg) or I can buy cheaper tolerable shoes which won't last as long, won't be as comfortable, and so on. But... I don't have to go barefoot in the snow.

So, it all depends.

I think all of these other things being equal, money brings more friends, sex, relationships, and achievement - presumably helping to explain the rise in happiness as one's income rises up until 75k. — Down The Rabbit Hole

You are, actually, probably right. On the face of it, money likely does make people happier. Even a $1,000 emergency fund gives people more security than no emergency fund at all (and many Americans have zero funds to take care of emergencies). $2,000; 3,000; 5,000... the more one has on hand, the more secure one is. Let's say, up to one's annual take-home pay. [Many people would have great difficulty saving a year's take-home pay, even over 10 years time.]

Money on hand gives some security, and security gives one more options (up to a point). One can afford to entertain good prospects for friendship and sex, for instance. Having enough money (enough -- not a lot) enables one to avoid continuous cash-short crises, and be more relaxed. Etc.

Beyond having enough money to operate a secure but frugal lifestyle (up to $75,0000 what do you think the mechanism is of money's contribution to one's number of friends, happiness, frequency of satisfying orgasms, happiness, et al?

The theory that money makes people happier has to account for the happiness of people who have not a pot to piss in. How do the poor manage to be happy--enough poor people are happy enough to make the question worth asking.

And what happens after $75,000? Does too much wealth begin to sour? I ask because I've never come close to $75,000, so I know not what it would do for me.

Does more money bring more friends, sex, more stable relationships? It may, but the people I know who have lots of friends, sex, and good relationships are on the low end of the economic distribution. Good looks, health, a strong sex drive, and a pleasant personality help more than money.

If one has great wealth, not just "some wealth", one can arrange to have people surround one with what looks like friendship, sex appeal, and good relationships. In that sense, money can get one those things. But none of this is "the real thing". One's 'friends' and 'bed mates' are playing a role. I've heard that some rich people are actually nice folk who other people like for who they are. That's the rumor, anyway.

The thing with money is that "enough money to meet one's real needs" is as good as a lot of money beyond what one can spend easily.

I’m still looking at how I wish my career and mid life to go. I definitely don’t think pursuing money is a good path. — Benj96

I agree: pursuing money as an end is not good. Thrift is very helpful, as is limiting one's material aspirations (even if it's a necessity). Thrift and low-overhead make it easier to pursue your own agenda.

If you don't mind me asking, what are your career and life plans? What do you want your life to be like in 20 years--assuming the world doesn't go to hell in a big way?

I find this puzzling. Personally I don’t believe happiness is anything more than a transitory emotion. — Benj96

What emotion isn't transitory? One thing: people who are happy don't spend a lot of time discussing it. They get on with their lives. And getting on with one's life probably helps keep one happy.

I'm happy right now so I don't want to discuss this any more.

from reading Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre and exploring ideas from Camus, then relating these to the current cultural climate in the West, I'd like to stir discussion on whether you think we are in decline, or in despair as modern individuals living in our times? — CountVictorClimacusIII

Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Camus didn't invent despair or anxiety. History has had many episodes where people felt like a Christian Scientist with severe appendicitis. [That's a joke; it means suddenly discovering that one's beliefs are decidedly not up to the demands of the moment.)

Society is always in decline, always being renewed. Culture rises and falls like waves on the shore. The details depend on who is pontificating at the moment. There IS real decline and renewal, but it isn't society wide, generally. Not unless events shred the very fabric of society -- such as what happened to the society of dinosaurs when the big rock hit the Yucatan 65 million years ago. Even the plague didn't wreck societies, even when 35% of the population died.

How's the cultural climate? You can't tell in the middle of it.

The data shows that happiness increases with income up until about $75,000.

There would be no need to try and obtain more, but there is no point in giving up the non-material things that could influence happiness, such as friends, sex, love, and achievements. — Down The Rabbit Hole

According to Statista, "In April 2021, the average hourly earnings of all employees in the United States was at 11.31 U.S. dollars." If one figures 2100 hours worked per year, the average income is then $23,800. (Obviously, there are many low wage workers, far fewer high wage workers). No doubt, the $23,800 a year worker would feel rich suddenly bringing home $75,000. For that matter, the $50k or $60k worker would also be happy to have another $15,000 to $25,000 a year.

Is it as hard for the average person to have friends, sex, love, and achievement as $50,000 extra? Achievement seems like it might be the most difficult commodity to obtain. It seems like the opportunities to freely achieve are fairly restricted.

It's late in life for me, and I find I have, or have had, most of what I ever wanted. Some of it is gone, owing to normal processes of aging, death, disease, and so on.

There are two things I wish I had when I was 18--roughly--that I have now. One is peace of mind. I'm pretty contented. It would have been good to be so calm and collected when I was at the beginning of college, instead of bouncing off the walls.

The second thing I wish I had had when I was 18 was the technology I use now -- computer, tablet, internet. These three things (and the companies that back them up, like Barnes & Noble or Amazon) would have made study so much more effective.

Yes, it would have been nice if gay liberation had arrived in the outback where I lived in 1964. All that erotic energy wasted under the cold wet blanket of condemnation and guilt.

Loads of money? Nope. I never had a lot, but I always had enough money. So far, anyway. All that one needs is a little more than one needs--a margin.

I doubt Biden will run for a second term--just based on age.

There is more than the presidential vote at stake, and the Republicans have done a much better job at the state level of getting and keeping control of enough seats in legislatures to control redistricting, which is crucial to either party's long term strategy.

I agree; for the most part, presidential candidates--and other office seekers in some states--win or lose with slim margins. We have not had a major landslide election for president since Reagan in 1984 (525 Electoral votes to Walter Mondale's 13); Before that, Nixon's 520 Electoral votes to George McGovern's 17) and then Roosevelt's 523 Electoral votes to Alf Landon's 8 in 1936.

The Republicans and Democrats exchange control back and forth, and yet the Republic stands. Both parties have strong allegiance to our economic system. Both parties pursue similar policies in many areas. There are, of course, significant differences between the hard right of the Republican and hard left of the Democrat parties. The hard right Republicans, for instance, have strongly resisted New Deal programs like Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Medicare, Medicaid, and single payer insurance. They haven't scuttled SS, UC, Medicare or Medicaid, but they have tried; and single payer insurance remains unachievable.

The hard right and hard left constitute a cohesive ideological POV, but they do not control very many seats in Congress.

You know how sometimes you look at someone and you just know they are super smart. — TiredThinker

Happens to me every morning when I look in the mirror.

Likewise most people on this thread have shown time and time again they don't care about children other than the ones that die when Israeli is defending itself against Hamas and other terrorists. — Andrew4Handel

I think it has to do with the alleged moral superiority of the oppressed. The same problem exists in the US: Black people killed by the police, accidentally or purposefully, get great press, while black people killed by other blacks, recklessly or purposefully -- a very much larger number-- get minimal press.

A lot of people are also obsessed with power differentials. Israel has much more power than just about anybody else in the Middle East, so to some, that makes them automatically the bad guys.

I don't quite get what this thread is about.

It seems to me that there are no major disjointed periods in history: No new age has dawned where very different rules have come into force; where things that used to happen (200, 2000, 4,000 years ago) are just not imaginable anymore. World War I, II, and the Cold War (with it's potential for global nuclear annihilation) shows us that the 20th century is no more civilized than previous centuries. The five centuries of European expansion (colonization, imperialism, genocide...) are not radically different than previous periods of population movement anywhere on the globe. Whether things as bad may happen in the future is unknown.

After all the butchering of WWI and WWII, and the nuclear threat of the Cold War (which, by the way, has only lessened; it did not disappear) the major economies of the globe have been intentional about keeping a lid on conflict. We should be grateful that a lid is being kept on the kettle, but it isn't because of the arc of justice that this is so. It's caution about unleashing highly disruptive wars. "They" have calculated that war, at this point, would probably not be worth it. (Talking big wars, not little ones.).

Ethnicity and culture are basic building blocks of community. We are not one big Heinz 57 multiculti puree. The impression that we are (a puree) is an elite creation to help suppress inconvenient friction. That will work until material shortages arise (not enough food, water, energy, etc.). Then "WE" will become much more important than "YOU" and business will proceed in the usual and customary warlike way.

One can never have too many south-bashing songs. Now, don't you be triggered, y'all!

Is this song acceptable these days? "That's What I Like About the South... (1947)

Prejudice and stereotype cut both ways. Tall, slim men are subject to more favorable stereotyping than short fat men. A head of thick hair (of whatever type) gets better press than thin patchy hair (irregular spots without hair). Shaved male heads have been subject to extensive amelioration in the last couple of decades--it is no longer the sign of a radical fringe group. There are many examples where various features, skills, histories, and so on that are advantageous to the individual.

Skin tone is famously subject to all sorts of prejudice, stereotyping, preference, race-related emotional reactions, and so on -- among all groups of humans. Both positive and negative emotions are involved. And it is apparently difficult to get it right. Here is the Spanish postage stamp set where the lightest stamp is the most valuable. There are several ways this could have been done better.



I do not see a possible world free of prejudice and stereotyping. There are way too many of us for each encounter to get a 100% unbiased reception. We can, on occasion, rig up encounters where biases are minimized. Supposedly, a jury trial is one such situation. Group job interviews (several interviewers, one applicant at a time) can minimize bias.

Apparently

Dogs know how to puke. Nothing can puke like a dog... — James Riley

The weirdest example of prejudice/stereotyping yet. At least it has a biblical referent:

"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly" Proverbs 26:11

I'm thinking about selling up and moving to Portland. What do you think? Buy a house there, start a business. Send my kids to school. I was hoping to get your advice. — counterpunch

Which 'Portland' are you thinking of?

You are nothing but star dust.

it isn't merely "somewhat concentrated capital" that is the problem; it is extremely concentrated capital that is problematic, whether it is in private or state hands.

The extremely concentrated wealth isn't invested in production; it is generally invested in paper speculation -- derivatives, currencies... stuff like that. Some of the Uber-wealthy made a lot of money in the sphere of actual goods and services, but once the piles are sufficiently large, it tends to be shifted into the less productive stuff.

I'm not suggesting you buy Thomas Piketty's books; but check out an article or two about him. At least, that's the way I understand it.

BTW, you are over-estimating the harm of money in state hands and under-estimating the harm of money in private hands.

How vigorous a percolation that could be would depend on things like inflationary pressures - and would that be such a bad thing with interest rates close to zero? I don't know. — counterpunch

I don't know either, but I do know that historically (going back a long way--even the Romans) inflation has been a problem. True, interest rates are low right now, despite big cash infusions into the economy. That could change pretty quickly. During the inflation spike in the 1980s, banks were paying up to 15% on savings (for a few months--a splendid rate if one happened to have cash under the mattress). They managed to get that under control, so that the top savings rates were more like 7% in 2006. The big crash in inflated investment values happened in 2008. Since then, interest rates have been low.

One of the reasons Economics is the Dismal Science is that economists rarely (or is it never?) see disaster coming.

I call it 'revolutionary change' only because the installed Uber-wealthy class might not be dislodged by a gradual, evolutionary process. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain from major change.

but imagine I was given the money to develop this technology — counterpunch

Major industry develops that way. Someone has a working undeveloped technology with major potential. Investors give a group the money to start production, whether that be a cast-iron steam engine works, new steel plant, a transistor factory, or a large-scale battery storage farm--whatever it is. There is generally risk involved--that the investment might not pay off well, or worse, might not pay off at all. The Uber-wealthy are not risk takers. There is no need for them to take risks--they already have such a large share of the wealth. They can afford to be indifferent.

That is the distortion the disproportionate distribution of global wealth has. The few thousand people controlling 70% of world wealth starve innovation.

Geo-thermal / H-power is just one more good idea languishing on the shelf.

BC, my dear old friend, long time no see! It's always good to chat with you however briefly. — counterpunch

The same to you.

Large concentrations of capital are necessary to an economy - in ways I don't pretend to understand. — counterpunch

Certainly, robust economies require capital to function properly. The problem with 'concentrated capital' is that too few agents control it, and may apply it towards unproductive ends such as furthering the concentration. That is precisely what has happened in the global economy. A tiny number of Uber-wealthy individuals control a very large percentage (50%+) of capital. (How tiny? It numbers in the dozens.). It doesn't matter, in some ways, whether it is a few dozen super-rich individuals or a government. A soviet-style monopoly of wealth is as counterproductive as a yacht full of gold plated parasites.

Highly concentrated wealth deprives a few million (out of 8 billion) individuals from fielding and developing new ideas. Your geo-thermal/hydrogen idea will probably remain undeveloped for lack of capital.

There will probably always be poor people, because "poor" is relative, A man with $1,000,000 is poor among multi-billionaires. A third-world family with enough to eat and a roof over their heads is poor among affluent first-worlders. I don't know how to define "absolute" (non-relative) poverty. Starvation, unsheltered exposure to the weather, and lack of somewhat clean water to slake one's thirst would probably qualify as "absolute poverty", but that doesn't help someone with zero cash living in an urban homeless shelter and being fed slop twice a day.

It is desirable to have wealth vigorously percolate up the economy (rather than a glacially slow trickle-down), but getting the wealth to the base so it can percolate up requires a revolutionary change in the way wealth is controlled. I don't see that on the horizon.

The Republican slime are busy writing and passing very restrictive state laws making it more difficult for various people to vote, and making it easier for Republican Party officials or operatives to interfere with elections.

So, facts schmacts. It doesn't matter. If the Republicans can jerry-rig [aka, STEAL] elections, they have a better chance of winning. If they win, that is a fact that all the fact-checking in the world won't be able to correct.

We know what restrictive voting can do, because the southern state Democratic Parties had a monopoly on restrictive voting rules and regs for decades. By suppressing the black vote, they were able to dominate the US Congress and get very regressive votes passed. The southern lock on voting suppression was broken in the 1960s.