The Origins of Unhappiness: A New Understanding of Personal Distress
by David Smail
Link: http://a.co/1GQHEYr

Looks a reasonable approach. — Wayfarer

"It is the main argument of this book that emotional and psychological distress is often brought about through the operation of social-environmental powers which have their origin at a considerable distance from those ultimately subjected to them..."

Probably not a book that subscribers to "happiness is a choice" want to read.

The Buddhist term 'dukkha' is used to describe the general state of humans. It is usually translated as 'distress', or 'stress' or 'unhappiness'. — Wayfarer

How does Buddhism say we should respond to that state?

I'm not very literate in Buddhism. Part of one chapter in The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, by James W. Sire, is the most exposure to Buddhism that I have had.

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO I think really what your post is about, is more about 'the politics of identity' than happiness, per se. — Wayfarer

I believe that what David Smail calls "psychological distress" is a more useful concept than "unhappiness".

And the way that I understand the work of his that I have read, he shows that, yeah, the politics of identity is strongly correlated with psychological distress.

In that case there is not a problem to be found in the individual self such as "mental illness" or poor moral character. Therefore, personal/individual rights misses the point. Instead, the source of the problem will be found at the system/group level.

The more fundamental question is why we continue bringing forth more people. — schopenhauer1

Some people choose not to.

And not because they are antinatalist.

It is not necessarily one of why things exist in the first place, but rather, why we want to put more subjectivized beings in the world who will need to form goals to follow and make more people who will also form their own subjectivized world and need goals to follow, etc. — schopenhauer1

It probably varies with the individual (see above about how some people choose not to).

There is probably great variation between those who do choose to do it. Subconscious conditioning for some. Conscious rebellion for others. Pressure to conform for others. Etc.

It seems that the answer will not be found at the level of the individual being.

It's a very deep question. It's worth recalling that 'the pursuit of happiness' is written into the US constitution... — Wayfarer

As the last item listed in the same sentence after "life" and "liberty".

I would argue that the notion that some people in the population simply lacking happiness infringes on everybody else's right to the pursuit of happiness is absurd.

I would also argue that not respecting people's right to their own feelings--even if those feelings do not include any happiness--could be flirting with compromising liberty.

Some years back, my wife bought a book on 'positive psychology' by Martin Seligman. This was all about, well, what it says - positive psychology, techniques and attitudes for overcoming inner conflict and so on. I thought it was OK, if a bit anodyne. I was surprised to see a backlash against it - opinion pieces on 'the myth of happiness' and how unhappiness was somehow more insightful, more human, than the superficial smiley-face of 'positive psychology'... — Wayfarer

The backlash may have been because people recognize that a lot of happiness is cultivated in ignorance, lies, and unjust social structures/conditions while unhappiness is probably more in tune with empirical and moral reality.

Another item from the media that I have noticed is the so-called 'happiness surveys' of different nationalities. India always seems to come out on top, which is surprising to a lot of people, considering the poverty of much of India... — Wayfarer

Actually, that does not surprise me.

After reading Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures (1998 edition), by Gustavo Esteva (from Mexico) and Madhu Suri-Prakash (from India), my appreciation of the fact that people without Western standards of living can be happy while people with those standards of living can be unhappy was increased exponentially.

An impoverished family living in a shanty in a crowded Indian city welcomes and offers hospitality to well-off strangers. Americans living in their suburban McMansions see a not-well-off stranger in the neighborhood and call the police. Who do you think would report greater happiness on a survey?

The Poles and Russians always seem to rank very low. That doesn't surprise me, East Europeans often strike me as lugubrious, and the Russian climate and language hardly communicates joyfulness... — Wayfarer

It could be that they really are very unhappy compared to the rest of the world.

Or it could be that they can get away with not pretending to be happy, unlike in other places.

Or a little of both.

There was a long essay published recently by Wilfred McClay, mentioned by David Brooks in a NY Times piece called The Strange Persistence of Guilt. It notes that in modern culture,



Technology gives us power and power entails responsibility, and responsibility...leads to guilt: You and I see a picture of a starving child in Sudan and we know inwardly that we’re not doing enough.

“Whatever donation I make to a charitable organization, it can never be as much as I could have given. I can never diminish my carbon footprint enough, or give to the poor enough. … Colonialism, slavery, structural poverty, water pollution, deforestation — there’s an endless list of items for which you and I can take the rap.”

McClay is describing a world in which we’re still driven by an inextinguishable need to feel morally justified. Our thinking is still vestigially shaped by religious categories.

And yet we have no clear framework or set of rituals to guide us in our quest for goodness. Worse, people have a sense of guilt and sin, but no longer a sense that they live in a loving universe marked by divine mercy, grace and forgiveness. There is sin but no formula for redemption.

The only reliable way to feel morally justified in that culture is to assume the role of victim. As McClay puts it, “Claiming victim status is the sole sure means left of absolving oneself and securing one’s sense of fundamental moral innocence.”

I think this explains a helluva lot about modern cultural dynamics. — Wayfarer

Do those "modern cultural dynamics" include how a white, heterosexual, cisgender male like me has been told as far back as he can remember--and probably on back to the moment of his birth--that he "enjoys" "privileges" that non-white, non-heterosexual, non-cisgender, non-male people do not have, and that he is not conscious of those privileges and cannot know what life is like for the non-privileged, etc., etc.?

Yeah, even though deep down I know intellectually that that picture of "privileges" that I "enjoy" and other people do not is monochrome while the reality of the social world is too complex for one such snapshot, the guilt that people have used that picture to heap on me has terrorized my mind almost every hour that I have been awake and conscious.

There's no difference between the government taxing us to pay private companies to insure for health care and it taxing us to to pay private companies to build roads. — Hanover

Very few individuals, if any, can build a network of roads on their own. The overwhelming majority of individuals can purchase an insurance policy on their own. Exploiting the latter in morally and constitutionally questionable ways may be good politics if your goal is to maintain or increase your power by appealing to certain voters, but it is bad politics if your goal is to enact well-vetted reforms that will endure.

The progressive/liberal labeling means so little these days. I'd like to think that I'm both a liberal and a progressive, like an FDR or Woodrow Wilson, but not like a Clinton or a Sanders or a Thanatos "you're a racist!" Sand. Strangely, I'd argue that even the conservatives of a hundred years ago were closer in political philosophy to their liberal counterparts than liberals today are to liberals then. — Buxtebuddha

Can you illustrate that?

What is a concrete example of a conservative and liberal then being closer than a liberal then and a liberal today? New Nationalism vs. New Freedom?

I don't understand how you can say that a conservative view of spending is ideological and whereas your view is practical. Can you explain? — praxis

Doing good financial housekeeping and eliminating unnecessary expenses is not the same thing as saying that discretionary spending over a certain % of GDP is evil, that government spending limits economic growth, that the money the government is spending is stolen and should be given back to citizens through tax cuts and spending cuts, that taxing wealthy people and spending on poor people is being Robin Hood, etc.

If money is being spent on glossy printer paper that is never used, that expense should be eliminated, don't you think?

Since when is maintaining a lean budget an ideological position?

Absolutely, we have a right to be unhappy. That's one right that is probably secure into the distant future... — Bitter Crank

It does not seem very secure at the moment, let alone the distant future.

Either "get help" (pharmacies are stocked with Prozac; not very difficult getting a prescription), get out of the way (homeless shelter, jail, prison, etc.), or die (but we don't have the courage to do it; kill yourself, we'll call it a suicide, and our reputations will remain intact).

But, unhappy people are a drag to be around,... — Bitter Crank

Probably because they remind people of realities they cannot or do not want to cope with ("Ignorance is bliss").

More importantly, if "happiness is a choice" then any negative felt in the presence of an unhappy person is one's choice. You can't say "Happiness is a choice" and then say "That unhappy person is compromising my happiness". No, you are choosing to let that unhappy person compromise your happiness. Either own the latter or drop the "happiness is a choice" bunk.

so if you are too miserable, please get lost, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out the door. This entrance for happy people only. The wretched of the earth need not apply... — Bitter Crank

I have not scientifically investigated it or read the research that has already been done, but I bet that after they are treated the way you describe a lot of those people do get lost: they end up homeless; they commit crimes--probably violent crimes sometimes if not a lot of the time--and end up in jail or prison; they perform poorly on the job and produce poor-quality products and services; they kill themselves; etc.

They may not hurt--compromise the happiness of--the person who tells them to get lost, but after the buck is passed they will probably hurt somebody else.

Respecting their right to their feelings and asking them to respect your right to your feelings is probably the more prudent thing to do.

Listening, empathizing and showing compassion is probably the most prudent thing to do.

Another source of this "you are the root of your problem"... — Bitter Crank

An unhappy person does not necessarily see his/her unhappiness as a problem.

goes back decades to psychologists like Fritz Perls who emphasized that we are not in the world to live up to each others expectations... — Bitter Crank

Yet we demand that everybody live up to the expectation of being happy.

"I am not responsible for what you do. Your actions are always entirely your responsibility." Do your own thing; if it turns other people on, great. But suffer in silence, please. We really don't want to hear about your shit... — Bitter Crank

Maybe it is not "shit" to them.

Maybe to them it is a feeling, concern, etc. that deserves respect.

Then too, people don't want to take on any highly inconvenient responsibilities, like the possibility that their actions may actually hurt other people. "My sticks and stones can wound you deep but vicious words can't make you weep" supposedly. "I can't control how you feel." Off the hook.

In fact, we are responsible for each other in a web of consequences. No, we are not responsible for EVERYONE'S feelings, but we are responsible for the things we do to other people with whom we interact.

Being swept under the rug is a disgusting experience. It's dark, all the dirt is under there, the skin mites are huge, it stinks, and after all that, people are always walking all over you. — Bitter Crank

I don't know about 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, etc., but it seems that today a lot of people say that they have the "right" to be happy.

That sounds to me more like an attitude of entitlement than a healthy knowledge of people's rights and the limits of those rights.

The right to be unhappy is not about entitlement. It is saying, "I am not infringing on anybody's rights, so please live and let live".

Just because a person lacks happiness and is not wearing a constant smile on his/her face and radiating joy does not mean that he/she is in the act of hurting anybody or wants to or intends to hurt anybody. It simply means that he/she is being human.

If nobody has the right to lack happiness, what is next? Nobody has the right to feel physically ill, maybe? "This entrance for physically well people only", maybe?

Of course there's no such thing as a truly free-market, but conservatives generally want an absolute minimum of governmental intervention in business. I can only imagine the thought of being "equal parters" would be rather unappealing... — praxis

I wouldn't say, "This administration wants to reduce gang violence in the community. Therefore, business, we are going to tax you more so that we can hire more police officers; we are going to give you incentives​ to hire convicted felons; etc."

That is government intervention.

I would say this: "Business, we need to reduce gang violence in the community. Everybody, including you, will benefit. Can you help?"

That is not government intervention. It is government and business being equal partners, not one controlling the other.

Businesses are usually attracted with tax breaks and other incentives, or a well funded public sector, which is all costly.

By economic development policy do you mean regulations?... — praxis

I am assuming that we would not be beggars. I am assuming we could choose what industries and companies to target.

It wouldn't be regulations. It would be targeting businesses with certain characteristics, such as good work/life balance for families, a minimal ecological footprint, etc.

On a second look your position seems to be more towards the center than left. — praxis

I wouldn't be reducing spending to cut taxes on the wealthy--I am not a supply-sider.

I would be reducing spending to be frugal and try to live within our means.

There are other ways to meet people's needs besides government spending. Recruiting volunteers is an example.

Conservatives want things like reduced spending for ideological reasons. I would want them for practical reasons.

When you focus right down to it, every single behavior and action conducted by not only humans but all living things can be sourced right down to a mechanism just to sustain the continuation of life. — ThinkingMatt

So serial killers are sustaining the continuation of life?

Rapists?

Polluters?

Genocidal regimes?

All of those are sustaining the continuation of life?

I think an intriguing point about all of this is that now evolutionary biology has been accepted as the kind of secular/scientific equivalent of 'a creation myth', that it carries with it many often unstated connotations and assumptions. To be clear, I am not for one minute aligned with any school or form of creationism or intelligent design, in fact any overtly biblical form of religion. But notice how many people turn up on forums with exactly this question! It's definitely a cultural phenomenon, IMO.

None of which means anything like 'rejecting evolution'. One of my favourite books from a few years back was 'Your Inner Fish' which shows the trajectory of evolution from ancient fossil fish to, well, yours truly. I think one of the awe-inspiring things about evolution is ones' kinship with other creatures.

But the philosophical horizon of Darwinism is so narrow. Some of that is from Darwin himself, who was not in the least philosophically-inclined, but rather more of it is from the combination of that with Enlightenment scientific rationalism and the construction of evolution as being 'science as opposed to religion'. But that is blatantly reductionist, in that it reduces what is unique to the human condition (as distinct from species) to a function of biology or neurology or some combination of the two. And to question that, is then to be automatically characterised as ID - whether you are or not. — Wayfarer

People do not even stop to empathize with or listen to the religious fundamentalists they mock or to ask what are the historical and sociological antecedents of such fundamentalists' anti-Darwinism.

This is just one example--and there are probably plenty more to be found--of what people would find if they stopped, empathized, listened and/or did a little research: in Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism Richard H. Robbins shows how Protestant fundamentalism in the U.S. was an early-20th-century response to the expansion of capitalism. If capitalists need cheap labor and are therefore undermining your families and communities by recruiting women to work outside of the home, then people using things like literal interpretations of the Bible to resist that encroachment should not be seen as anything unusual.

But rather than seeing it as an understandable response to an unwelcome encroachment by overpowering forces, the bashers of anti-Darwinists see it as backwards, irrational, bigoted, uneducated rednecks impeding "progress".

It may be a secular "creation myth", like you say.

But there is also evidence that it is, ironically, its own form of bigotry that blinds its adherents to the plights of certain groups of people and undermines solidarity against forces that are harming all groups.

Let's not forget that increasingly people are being thought of as--and thinking of themselves as--"customers" rather than as patients. There was an article not too long ago--Harper's Magazine, I believe--about this phenomenon and about a surgeon who refused to be insulted by "customer satisfaction" surveys and chose to retire. A dental practice I went to last year emailed a survey after every visit asking how satisfied I was with the care I received, the wait time, etc. Is this not unprecedented for medical care? Patients being asked for their feedback like customers of retail or fast-food restaurant chains?! Do the hospitals, clinics, etc. now hire, promote and fire doctors based on subjective "customer" satisfaction as indicated in a survey?!

Your approach is essentially liberal. Conservatives would hate it because of the degree of political and economic manipulation it would require... — praxis

And conservatives' biggest hero, private business, would probably love it because it would treat businesses as equal partners in solving problems, not vilify them and treat them like enemies to be regulated and taxed.

Apparently, conservatives believe that a free market is self-regulating or self-correcting, despite historical evidence, such as the great depression and the 2008 recession, to the contrary. — praxis

I would be looking for ways to cut costs, cut waste, cut spending, reduce debt, etc., so I doubt that any conservative would play the "unregulated free market" card against me.

But what conservatives would probably not like is that instead of saying that government is the problem and encouraging people to be selfish individuals I would be trying to get government, businesses and households to work together for results that benefit everybody.

By "deal with such people" I presume you mean "convince them to be happy without ultimate and objective purpose"... — VagabondSpectre

Don't assume that everybody has happiness as a goal.

Don't assume that everybody has happiness as a high priority or thinks that it is important.

And "happiness" is no less ambiguous and abstract than "meaning/purpose of life".

Seldom do I bother with an attempt, but when I do it's not always so difficult. If my interlocutors care deeply about having a rational and empirically sound view of the universe and the things in it (including ourselves) then I will make strong appeals to the evidence based merits of science, skepticism, and atheism (read: "soft-atheism"; colloquial agnosticism; refraining from belief where there is no evidence or indication). In concert with showing the incredulity of the metaphysically gnostic (read: those claiming knowledge beyond the scope of what physical evidence can show)... — VagabondSpectre

That sounds a lot like what Ken Wilber calls "Flatland".

this approach can be very effective... — VagabondSpectre

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy, confirmation bias, or something like that.

It sounds like "This approach can be very effective with people who already believe what it says".

If a person doesn't care so much about the logical consistency of their beliefs as they do about how it makes them feel... — VagabondSpectre

These people who shun logic and care only about how their beliefs make them feel, where are they?

I doubt than any such people exist.

Speaking of evidence-based, no evidence has ever been presented to me to make me believe that such people exist.

then I will paint a picture which emphasizes the value of empathy, joy, and shared experience. Living a long and happy life with few regrets, surrounded by those you love can be a powerful image... — VagabondSpectre

Again, happiness is not necessarily a universal goal or universally desirable.

The same could be said about longevity and "being surrounded by those you love".

It could be a narcissistic, narrow, crippling image to some people.

Mental, physical, and emotional fulfillment in this temporary life is the best end goal that I can offer. Compared to our greed for eternal paradise and other such grandiose ends, this portrait seems small and humble, and yet it is infinitely more achievable... — VagabondSpectre

Or maybe we should give people the benefit of the doubt and not call it "greed".

Maybe mental, physical and emotional fulfillment is not enough for some people. Maybe some people need more. I would not call the longing or effort to satisfy a need "greed".

And how are we defining "eternal"? Ken Wilber defines it not as time with no beginning or end, but as no longer being in the stream of time. Maybe the latter, not the former, is the object of that aforementioned "greed".

Finally, instead of small, humble and achievable, it may seem narcissistic, prideful and repressive to some people.

The real trick of it is to paint a sufficiently vivid and detailed worldview which then becomes more appealing to them than their own (generally an easy thing to do if they have no pre-existing grand narrative I must compete with). It can require a lot of ground work, especially when to bereave someone of a grand narrative might also bereave them of their moral/value system. Most of the time I prefer to not deal with ideologues driven by grand existential narratives in this way, but if I become seriously committed to doing so, then because so much of their world view might need replacement, the discussion becomes broad and long... — VagabondSpectre

That makes worldviews sound like the work of a used car salesman or a spin doctor.

More importantly, it sounds extremely disrespectful and condescending.

And if a worldview is worth having, it should speak for itself.

Some people might be happier in the long run with their personal grand narratives, and so long as they cause no harm, why should I rebuke them? (ironically they're still living long happy and love filled lives, so they check my existential boxes; why not let them check their own imaginary boxes too?)... — VagabondSpectre

Anybody who is secure in his/her own worldview should not care what other people think.

And anybody who is going to disrespect others based on their worldview is probably not secure in his/her own worldview.

I think there is no one (single) "meaning of life." There is no one (single) end or purpose to life. We're part of a vast universe, and in light of its vastness it seems to me foolish if not absurd to think we're the best part of it or of any special significance, or that it was created for us or is a kind of vehicle or forum made so we have a place in which our destiny plays out. — Ciceronianus the White

It is finding the meaning/purpose of life, not the meaning/purpose of humans, the universe, etc.

And where in the question "What is the meaning/purpose of life?" does it say that anything is the best part of anything or of special significance or that anything is made for anything else?

It simply asks, "This experience we go through called "life", what is the meaning/purpose of it?".

Also, the question is not "What is the one meaning/purpose of life". The question is, "What is the meaning/purpose of life?", period.

Nonetheless, if we're the mind of the universe, the universe is diminished. — Ciceronianus the White

Why is that a problem? It may be reality.

Ken Wilber puts it this way:

1.) The cosmos has great span.
2.) The noosphere has little span.
3.) However, unlike the cosmos, the noosphere has great depth.

Doing this would implicitly acknowledge that tossing a coin to decide what laws are implemented would be the moral thing to do. In other words, you would be tacitly communicating that the allocation of resources by sheer luck is ethically right... — rickyk95

No.

You have two political actors who want something and you have chosen a coin toss as "how" who gets what when.

No moral considerations have been incorporated into the process.

It strikes me as fascinating how you wouldnt consider this to carry moral baggage. If I suddenly came to an empty piece of land besides your house with a tank and declared its mine, I imagine you would have something to say about the rightness or wrongness of such an action. Would you not ask yourself if someone needs that land more than I do? Do I deserve that land if I wont use it productively? etc... — rickyk95

The conqueror may have a moral argument about his/her right to the land. Or he may not.

And if you say that it doesn't belong to him/her and give moral reasons to support your assertion, he/she could reply "Well, it belongs to me now".

There do not have to be moral considerations for there to be political actions.

Even in that case: if I pass and enforce a policy that I believe to be wrong in the benefit of my own interests, this implies that what Im doing is wrong, and that perhaps some other policy would be right, therefore carrying an implicit moral claim. — rickyk95

No, it implies that no matter if it is right or wrong you are going to do it anyway.

If other political actors know that you are going to do it no matter what, they know not to bother responding with moral arguments. They know that diplomacy, military force, a coup, etc. are how they must respond if they don't want you to get what you want.

Redifining politics the way you do doesnt free it from its attachment to morality. In other words, there is no way of deciding who gets what resources and who doesnt without involving moral claims... — rickyk95

There could be coin toss. Heads, capital punishment is the law. Tails, capital punishment is abolished.

A disagreement could be decided by a duel (unless you are Governor of Kentucky; the oath of office still includes​ "have not and will not participate in any duels").

Or you could simply use force. Cross the border with tanks and infantry and say "This land is now ours".

And other ways to allocate resources without paying any heed to what is right or wrong, what constitutes a good life, what constitutes a just society, etc.

If say "person A has a right to vote and person B doesnt", or "Person A should be convicted for using drugs", there is an implicit judgement of what is right and wrong. — rickyk95

Not necessarily.

Somebody could subjectively believe or objectively know that a policy is morally wrong but enforce that policy anyway because he/she likes being in a position of power and needs that policy to keep him/her there.

In other words, his/her actions aren't saying "This is right". They are saying "This gets me what I want".

There is a component of politics that deals with social issues, but how these issues are dealt with is a mess. The allocation of resources is much more straightforward, the top 1% get the largesse. — Rich

I would argue that social issues in politics are just another way that who gets what, when and how is decided.

If nobody gains or loses anything--liberty, safety, power, influence, business, etc.--from politicizing abortion, abortion would not be a political issue.

I can't find it again, but an article I read said that the U.S. didn't want to be like its enemies such as WW II Germany and later during the Cold War for ideological reasons did not want anything that was thought of as socialism, therefore the U.S. never adopted a single-payer system like much of Europe did.

Consider the present health care mess in the U.S. to be the legacy of the U.S.'s role in world politics from the early 20th century through the Cold War.

If I find the article I will provide a link.

rickyk95 — rickyk95

Politics is simply the authoritative allocation of resources​.

Economics is supposedly the non-authoritative allocation of resources, but some people will probably tell you that it is another form of politics.

Either way it is about resources and their allocation, not the moral lives of people.

The best way to deal with resources, not a good life, is what politics is concerned with.

"Politics is who gets what, when, and how" -- Harold Lasswell.

One really has to ponder to scientific view of life to find the sleight of hand that is being performed.

There is no altruist. There are the altruistic genes (the flip side of Dawkin's Selfish genes). So science simply anthromorphizes the gene and squeezes some behavior in it. Genes love to multiply. People don't love each other, neurons so, etc, etc, etc.

Science observes some small stuff move and then attributes any and all behavior to the small stuff. Somewhere there always had to be the mind. There is no getting away from it. — Rich

I have heard people going farther than that and saying things like abortion (and probably infanticide) is people ensuring the reproductive success needed to preserve their genes.

If science, biology, is right the single purpose of life is to reproduce - pass the genes. — TheMadFool

That can't be right.

Some people sacrifice their own lives without having first reproduced.

The explanation from sociobiology / evolutionary psychology is that altruistic behavior from one person increases the chances of reproductive success for those close to the altruist who are carrying some of the same genetic material.

Either way, the altruist's own genes are at risk of not being​ passed on to somebody else.

I think there are potentially some very progressive policies that could be sold to the conservative camp, at least on some major aspects. For example, Universal Basic Income would give ordinary citizens a degree of security and a whole heap of flexibility. But it could be pitched alongside freeing up bureaucratic employment legislation and cutting the need for lots of admin jobs in welfare.

The "old progressive"/left approach is to encourage full employment, and perhaps there are vested interests in the Unions etc that propagate that view point, but it's no longer where ambitious and potentially successful policy sits IMO. — Jake Tarragon

An idea that I have had for several years now is to end the firms/households binary and treat all economic actors the same. No longer would anybody be an "employee" who is "working" for somebody else. Every non-government economic actor--individuals, small organizations, large organizations--would be a business producing and selling a product. Every non-government economic actor would be treated the way we now treat the economic actors we call firms. Every economic actor would be taxed and regulated the same way. I would not be an "employee" of anybody. I would be a business selling a product: labor. I could give my business a name--"The Cook On Demand", if I was a cook, for example. Instead of posting a resume, I would buy airtime and other space and "advertise" my product. The money that it costs me in gas, vehicle maintenance, vehicle insurance, etc. to get to where I sell my product could be deducted from my taxes as a business expense.

Everybody would be an independent contractor, basically. Instead of being "hired" by one employer, individuals could bid on and be awarded many different contracts of many different durations at the same time. So somebody who is a cook could work for one business for an hour, another business for an hour, etc. depending on demand. So the restaurant that is going through a slow period with little traffic doesn't have people on "payroll" that it does not need and the restaurant across town that is understaffed because somebody didn't show up can get the help it needs from the independent contractor cook who might otherwise be standing at the other restaurant with no work to do. And instead of being paid "wages" the cook would send everybody he worked for a bill.

It would be a much more flexible, fluid, efficient market for the sale and purchase of labor.

And it would make every economic actor equal and gradually eliminate the whole capital vs. labor problem--everybody would be capital.

Most importantly, it would give every individual the status of being a business and eliminate the "worker" label and all of its sociological ramifications.

I don't know if any of that qualifies as conservative, progressive, or neither.

I think that it is further evidence that change that is permanent and good won't be generated by thinking within any small box, even if that box is labeled "progressive".

You're a traditional, mainstream liberal. Be proud!

Someone once described liberals as conservatives who can't resist tinkering. Another way to look at it would be that liberals focus on stuff that has practical solutions.

Remember Obama's bit about Hillary's campaign slogan: "Trudge on up that hill!" That's liberalism. You leave the revolution to someone else and just fix shit. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know about the liberals you refer to, but the people I hear today identifying as "liberal" or "progressive" seem to have a really bad case of tunnel vision.

Healthcare reform? Insurance! Insurance! Insurance!

Education? More money! More money! More money! (higher salaries for teachers; more loan and grant money to give away like Halloween candy; etc.)

Inequality? Anti-discrimination laws! Anti-discrimination laws! Anti-discrimination laws!

Climate change? Tax emissions! Tax emissions! Tax emissions!

If I had authority/power, I would have the antithesis of that tunnel vision. I would utilize every resource available to generate and implement solutions immediately with as little political fighting as possible.

Healthcare reform? Create health savings accounts that people can start contributing to and earning interest on right away while the ideologues continue their decades-long fight over insurance. Replace junk food vending machines in all government facilities with vending machines that dispense produce and other fresh foods, and encourage private businesses to do the same. Do some administrative maneuvering to see to it that all future public works projects include bike racks and bike paths in the design. Etc.

Education? Create tests/assessments that people in the labor market can use to demonstrate the knowledge and skills that they have. When trying to attract business to the area, look for employers who have liberal hiring practices and consider the complete package, not just the degree listed (or not listed) on a resume. Facilitate the creation of public and/or private museums, clubs, events and other cultural infrastructure that create an environment that encourages learning. Etc.

Inequality? Identify things in the culture and environment that are obstacles to peoples' success and find creative ways to overcome them. If a criminal past is keeping certain people from being hired by employers, give them the resources and support to find and be successful in entrepreneurial opportunities as they work on making their criminal record less of a liability (having them expunged, for example). Are family responsibilities limiting women's choices in the job market? Provide mobile nursing rooms at workplaces where the employer does not provide nursing rooms. Facilitate the creation of neighborhood associations where families can provide daycare for each other; and help them with the logistics, such as by creating a website with software to help them schedule daycare assignments around each other's work schedules. Etc.

Climate change? See healthcare reform about bike racks and bike paths--killing two birds with one stone. Create a website with software to help people organize carpools. Provide secure, well-lighted spaces so that people can walk, run, play basketball, etc. at all hours instead of burning petroleum driving their cars to a gym. As for the real polluters--industry--craft economic development policy that seeks to attract businesses that minimize emissions. And plenty of other actions that can lead to reduced emissions without long, drawn-out ideological battles over liberty, the size of government, environmental justice, etc.

I don't know what my approach to leading and governing would make me--a political pragmatist, perhaps. But I sense that the people who now identify as "liberal" and "progressive" probably would not like it. It would refocus men and women on the solidarity between them and take their focus away from some fault line called "patriarchy". It would encourage environmental-friendly behavior from everybody, not vilify big business. It would encourage innovation in education, not use a bully pulpit to shame the American public for not being more like Scandinavian countries. Etc.

Another potentially massive leap forward could be made by freeing up education along the lines of personal growth and development, and distributing the delivery of education more widely, away from institutions somewhat. That would appeal to a lot of conservatives. Chucking money at education is the old progressive way. Surely it's time to rethink education lock stock and barrel? — Jake Tarragon

End credentialism.

We could still have institutions that award diplomas/degrees. But education should be a constant process, not something confined to schedules at formal institutions and the awards they give (grades, credit hours, etc.).

People can acquire knowledge and develop skills a variety of ways. For example, I have never taken a formal course in public speaking. I don't have grades and credit hours to show with respect to public speaking skills. But I do have those skills--I developed and practiced them through doing volunteer work.

A good idea would be tests/assessments in which every person could demonstrate the knowledge and skills he/she has, no matter how they were acquired and developed.

Let's end the monopoly that formal, accredited, degree-awarding institutions have on the packaging, distribution, presentation, serving and accounting of learning.

If political views matter -- I think that they do -- and if there is anything at stake -- there is -- then conservatives and progressives, statists and libertarians, etc. have little reason to work together. You can get people of various opinions to sit down and explore their differences, and that's fine -- nothing is a stake there. If a 2 or 3 trillion dollar budget is at issue, there is absolutely no reason why these disparate groups would cooperate -- the interests they represent are very antagonistic to each other. — Bitter Crank

I believe that a leader with the right skills could get enough people to work together to resolve problems.

It probably happens all of the time in school boards; university meetings between the president, the governing board, and faculty and students; legislative committees in statehouses; negotiations between the White House and Congress; and between various actors in international relations.

Conservatives, progressives, libertarians, etc. could all probably better realize their seemingly disparate goals by being diplomatic rather than divisive.

But I think that they all thrive on having the most divisive elements--Christian fundamentalists, radical feminists, anti-government gun enthusiasts, anti-business environmentalists--in their camps.

It increasingly looks like the only way to get anything permanent and good accomplished is to have the skill to work around labels like "conservative" and "progressive".

If one is thinking rationally he/she is going to ask how to best respond to suffering.

One does not have to be suffering to want suicide. One could think that dying on his/her own terms rather than nature's terms is preferable. One could see that famous people took their own lives and want to be like them. One could think that he/she is a burden to others and is doing them a valuable service by ending his/her own life.

Suicide is not the norm. Everybody suffers. Therefore, assuming that suffering is never good, if suicide is a rational response to suffering then the overwhelming majority of people must be irrational.

Or it is more like this: life is neither rational nor irrational. Life is a thing that we do not have the ability to predict. The appropriate response to suffering depends on life. Therefore, suicide as a sufferer's response to suffering is an illusion. The reality is that the occurrence and timing of suicide is simply how life works. In other words, suicide is itself a natural death.

Personally I think the powers that be, kind of like families (other than their own of course) to kind of be dysfunctional as well as societies and governments as well. I remember in a psychology 101 class (or something like it) that gangs and certain organizations (perhaps it was military) prefer recruiting kids from ghettos and projects since they are already use to abuse/dysfunctional relationships and are more loyal to anyone/any group that can provide any kind of security or structure in their lives since they have none already.

I think the term some psychologist use for such people that are use to dealing with drug addicts/drug dealers, corrosive and/or abusive relationships, etc. and are terrified of getting out of such situations (since when you are down and out, the grass looks even meaner on the other side) is called CODEPENDENT. While I probably sound crazy saying that there is a conspiracy to make as many of us as possible to be codependent on those who abuse us, I think history shows us (such as the beginning of the cold war) that such tactics have been often used in the past both by us and in other countries. Below is a link to excerpt from "Atomic Cafe" that sort of visually shows and talks about this kind of condition:

The Atomic Cafe | 1982 | Part 2/4 (17 minutes into the video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4kR73wIrm0#t=17m01s
("in time of social crisis and tension, in times of changes that happen so think and fast that the individual can no longer place himself in his group,when he knows something is wrong but he doesn't know what, when he feels himself upon, in times like these MOST MEN BECOME HIGHLY SUGGESTIBLE, THEY LISTEN EAGERLY FOR ANY VOICE WHICH SOUNDS AUTHORITATIVE, they listen eagerly for any voice who can tell them what is wrong,and what to do to right it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4kR73wIrm0#t=17m01s

Unfortunately, this might also explain some of the reasons the US is sometimes to eager to enter into a war (since wars often help the incumbent party if people think it is the right thing) and/or it might help explain why someone like Trump can get into office; even though he is not typically what one would expect to become president (hot temper, single minded, etc) he also talks with enough authority/ about solving problems that for some people neck deep in it they are willing to give it a shot. — dclements

That is an interesting theory.

Thank you for pointing it out.

I know this doesn't help you, but right now I'm living in a house with around ten other people (plus 4 cats, 2 dogs), it is pretty cramped, and just last year me and my Mom was evicted from the apartment we lived in which at the time they tried to BOTH collect rent and threaten/strong arm us with an eviction whenever we couldn't pay all or back rent at once - PLUS WHATEVER FEES they felt like hitting us with.

One of the main reasons we couldn't pay rent was I had become disabled (or more accurately I was already disabled but had finally lost my job), but another reason was the place we lived was too expense for us to afford. Although there is no one for us to blame for the second problem then ourselves, part of the issues was we were in a bad situation and the move was a bit of an emergency move (where we didn't have time/energy to really think and plan what we were doing) and it wasn't that different than what happens to some refugees who end up in a number of bad set of situations because they are constantly trying to run from one bad thing, survive the process of running away, only to end up in other bad situation or short end of the stick in one way or another because they didn't really know what they were running into. Or at least that is the way I see it. — dclements

I am sorry that you have gone through that.

I did not mean to imply that I have a relatively high degree of misfortune. When I hear what other people are going through--student loan debt of 5+ figures that they can't pay back because of un/underemployment; foreclosure / losing their house; bankruptcy because of medical expenses; and too many other problems--it makes me feel like I have won the lottery compared to many other people, and it scares me into being very careful. It makes me appreciate every advantage, every victory, greatly, such as the fact that $10,000 of student loans are almost completely paid off (balance less than $300 now).

The reason I wrote what I wrote about what I am about to go through is because I find it alarming and I sense that it is part of a pattern of behavior that contributed to the housing bubble, the Great Recession, etc. If they were going to build an indoor swimming pool and a fitness center, connect every unit to high-speed internet service, and other amenities like that, I would not be alarmed that 1 BR is going from $550 per month to $810 per month. But they are changing very little about the property. Yet, apparently there will be people willing to pay 40-50% more for what is essentially the same product. Just like there are people willing to pay a fortune at Whole Foods for the same items they could pay much less for at a discount grocery store.

It feels like more bubbles are being built that will eventually burst.

The point I tried to make is that it is not much of a surprise that things like fraudulent mortgages and then mass foreclosures happened when we seem to have people--typical American households--eager to play right into the hands of the hucksters.

Gross. — Thorongil

I bought it used, so I haven't tasted the pages.

People had to take those loans for it to work.

I'm​ about to get kicked out of my apartment, I hear. Just moved in a few months ago. Not long after that we were all informed: new owner.

Instead of $550 per month for 1 BR it is going to be $810, I hear.

As far as I can tell, a few cosmetic changes and some new appliances will be the only difference.

Yet, those who can afford it will be camping outside the leasing office so they can be first in line to pay higher prices for the same product, apparently. The words "newly remodeled" in advertisements must be powerful.

If nobody takes the fraudulent loans; if nobody rents the nondescript apartments for more than a mortgage payment; if nobody buys the same food at Whole Foods that they could get from a discount grocery store for much less; if nobody accepts the credit cards and spends money they don't have, it doesn't work.

But for some reason household consumers never seem to be anywhere on the radar of people looking to indict and convict economic and political actors in the court of public opinion.

I can't even figure out if I am poor, middle class, living in poverty, or something else.

I don't really feel like I have much to lose. I don't own a house or car. I have never vacationed in Hawaii, traveled to Europe, etc.

I would welcome an environment where people are focused on people rather than on consuming commodities.

Hopefully something good comes out of whatever happens. Maybe everybody will reacquaint themselves with community and nature after a system that was probably unsustainable all along implodes into a heap of rubble.

Supposedly we are different from the "barbarians" of pre-Enlightenment times. That may be about to be tested. Will we transition peacefully to a more sustainable way of life, or will it be "Easter Island: The Sequel"?

Superstructuralism: The Philosophy of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism, by Richard Harland.

If you could travel back in time and ask for the definition of "truth" you would probably get different answers in different historical periods.

In other words, it is not something concrete and external like rain. It is a concept that depends on cultural context for meaning and application.

At least that is the way that I see it.

See this thread.

We've had the introduction and the rising action.

Now for the climax--in a new thread.

The lack of philosophy of politicians in general is dire. — Andrew4Handel

Agreed. In fact, the situation is so bad that I feel sure that a good humanist philosopher with some PR savvy determined to change the world could do so. — Jake Tarragon

Politicians reflect their constituents.

And your premise that people in power being more philosophically sharp would lead to greater good is highly questionable. David Smail sums it up this way:


"Global society constitutes a system of inexpressible complexity. It is like a huge central nervous system in which ‘social neurons’ (i.e. people) interact with each other via an infinity of interconnecting and overlapping subsystems. The fundamental dynamic of the system is power, that is the ability of a social group or individual to influence others in accordance with its/his/her interests. Interest is thus the principal, and most effective, means through which power is transmitted.

Here, already, is the starkest possible contrast with our conventional psychology: what animates us is not rational appraisal and considered choice of action, but the push and pull of social power as it manipulates our interest. It is not argument and demonstration of truth which move us to action but the impress of influences of which we may be entirely unaware.

Reason, then, is a tool of power, not a power in itself. Just like moral right, rational right is not of itself compelling and, when it is in nobody's interest to regard it, will be disregarded. Those who - like Thomas Paine for example - seem successful advocates of Reason in its purest form, may fail even themselves to see that it is in fact not reason alone that makes their words persuasive, but the causes (interests) to which reason becomes attached. No doubt Mein Kampf was as persuasive to those already sold on its premises as The Rights of Man was to 18th century revolutionaries in America and France. This does not mean, to those who value reason, that Paine's writing is not worth infinitely more than Hitler's; it means simply, and sadly, that Reason alone is impotent. What really matters is power itself.

In her mordantly compelling Lugano Report2, Susan George vividly draws attention to the inadequacy of rational argument as a means of influencing people. In starting to consider alternatives to the potentially disastrous practices of global capitalism, she writes:-

"This section has to start on a personal note because frankly, power relations being what they are, I feel at once moralistic and silly proposing alternatives. More times than I care to count I have attended events ending with a rousing declaration about what ‘should’ or ‘must’ occur. So many well-meaning efforts so totally neglect the crucial dimension of power that I try to avoid them now unless I think I can introduce an element of realism that might otherwise be absent.

…because I am constantly being asked ‘what to do’, I begin with some negative suggestions. The first is not to be trapped by the ‘should’, the ‘must’ and the ‘forehead-slapping school’. Assuming that any change, because it would contribute to justice, equity and peace, need only to be explained to be adopted is the saddest and most irritating kind of naivety. Many good, otherwise intelligent people seem to believe that once powerful individuals and institutions have actually understood the gravity of the crisis (any crisis) and the urgent need for its remedy, they will smack their brows, admit they have been wrong all along and, in a flash of revelation, instantly redirect their behaviour by 180 degrees.

While ignorance and stupidity must be given their due, most things come out the way they do because the powerful want them to come out that way..." -- David Smail,Power, Responsibility and Freedom

We have people saying that robots would be better than humans at raising children, so the concern brought up in the OP is understandable.

But without more context it is difficult to know and respond to the ethical/moral problems that the actions in question present.

and you have failed to address anything I said. — Thanatos Sand

That is because it had very little relevance to what I had said.