No. People with ambition and determination rarely elevate their nations unless forced to, because elevating others involves their own loss. Then the nation falls behind others and the leadership is usually deposed by revolution. I am not stating anything new. It's been a frequent observation for 150 years now, in fact much longer than that, Buddha stated much the same in 300BC.

History indicates that it tends to be efficient but not necessarily fit. The inherent instability can be stabilized with a mixed economy.

People with ambition and determination rarely elevate their nations unless forced to, — ernestm

Lions rarely elevate zebras, yet the plains are greatly benefited by these blonde beasts. Ambitious humans likewise foster health by 1) creating industries which pay taxes and employ others, and 2) inspiring the next generation of industrialists.

Then the nation falls behind others and the leadership is usually deposed by revolution — ernestm

What are you referring to?

The inherent instability can be stabilized with a mixed economy. — praxis

What's an example of this instability?

I don't seen much point in arguing the point, because its main proponent, Rand, also believes that the only point of a concept is to conquer others. So its rather futile arguing at all. But it is not the prevailing view of wisdom. Thats all I have to say. Have a nice day.

The Great Depression ring a bell?

The Great Depression ring a bell? — praxis

Is our present economic system mixed enough to eliminate the threat of great depressions?

don't seen much point in arguing the point, because its main proponent, Rand, — ernestm

It's a brand of social darwinism that appeared in the UK and the US in the 1870s.

Among other things, it led W.E.B. Dubois to claim that the moral weakness afflicting black people should be corrected by selective breeding. For real.

Of course you may also have the last word, as i say, no point arguing, you wont change your mind because of anything I say, it's not like I havent tried several dozen times before. Nothing I say would make any difference. When you yourself are victimized by poverty or disease, you will find reason to reconsider your view.

It doesn’t eliminate the threat. It helps to stabilize, as I mentioned, and cushion downturns.

Don't give up so easily.

It doesn’t eliminate the threat. It helps to stabilize, as I mentioned, and cushion downturns. — praxis

I would go with Chicago circa the Haymarket riot. It was a cultural wasteland.

The Great Depression was partly an agriculturally induced environmental disaster.

It's also important to recall that all human motives are rooted in the pleasure principle. If a society spends much of its resources making life comfortable for the weak and wretched, this will diminish the impetus towards self-improvement in the population.

This is just basic psychology.

Yes the lavish wealth bestowed upon a select few wondrously strong individuals makes society "leaner and fitter". Opposition to this is anti-life yessir.

My Darwin/Freud/Nietzsche combo is all mechanism-philosophy, the intellectual aspect if the Mechanistic Age (in contrast to the Platonic Age of Essence.)

As long as you look at humans and their world purely mechanistically, my argument will win (unless I stray too far supposing it to have a scientific grounding, because it doesn't).

So far no argument has diminshed its force. The psychic shock of the Holocaust did more to undermine its power than anything else.

I think it's possible that it can't be defeated logically. It's defeated by something you lack almost completely as far as I can see.

wow that's all pretty fucking stupid

But think about what happened in 2009. State intervention created short term stability, but would a larger scale reset have done more to produce long term stability?

I don’t know what you mean by state intervention or a large scale reset. We were last talking about a mixed economy, as I recall.

What do you mean by mixed economy? State ownership? Or state intervention in the economy in the form of regulations?

Laissez faire promotes social strength by rewarding the strong and punishing the weak. — frank

Ayn Rand in a nutshell.

Agree? — frank

No.

t's also important to recall that all human motives are rooted in the pleasure principle. If a society spends much of its resources making life comfortable for the weak and wretched, this will diminish the impetus towards self-improvement in the population.

This is just basic psychology. — frank

I assume you are trotting out this curdled milk of human kindness cheese dip as a devil's advocate exercise. The idea is that there is only so much goodness to go around, and if it isn't lavished on the people we like, then we are wasting it.

assume you are trotting out this curdled milk of human kindness cheese dip as a devil's advocate exercise. The idea is that there is only so much goodness to go around, and if it isn't lavished on the people we like, then we are wasting it. — Bitter Crank

I think any workable argument against it will end up being a moral argument.

Ayn Rand in a nutshell. — Wayfarer

Possibly. In a nutshell, why would you say it's wrong?

If you want to rather arbitrarily attach ambition, striving, resilience and opportunity taking to anyone; give it to the poor saps who should flourish under this ideal of resilience and adaptation but do not.

A single dad sleeping 3 hours a night with 2 jobs for 3 children.

A nurse who can't afford healthcare and has no plan through the privatisation of the healthcare system she is underpaid to serve in.

The craftspeople who had their skillset invalidated by their employers coopting technologies made through public funding and outsourcing all labour to violently oppressed workforces.

A social care worker who comes home every day covered in bruises due to the closures of specialist facilities, their body separating a violent 16 year old child sex offender from the 7 year old girl in the other room. They keep at the job because they know it's needed.

These are the people that should be rewarded for their contributions to society, they are resilient, skilled, hard working and adaptable. They are the value added to our common good, not the whims of shareholders and speculators.

By "strong," I mean creative individuals with ambition and determination. By rewarding such individuals with wealth and power, society in general becomes leaner and fitter.

Opposition to this view is essentially an anti-life ethic which promotes mercy and pity over greatness.

Agree?
@Terrapin Station? — frank

How are we determining "fit," "great," etc.?

If you want to rather arbitrarily attach ambition, striving, resilience and opportunity taking to anyone; give it to the poor saps who should flourish under this ideal of resilience and adaptation but do not. — fdrake

The Frodos of the world are truly amazing, but they apparently need a Lord of the Rings to provide them with something to overcome. So does this argue for or against the lords?

How are we determining "fit," "great," etc.? — Terrapin Station

My thinking has evolved away from Nietzsche toward just libertarianism. Nietzche is just there to invalidate any moral argument by way of the godless universe.

Opposition to this view is essentially an anti-life ethic which promotes mercy and pity over greatness. — frank

Life? I wonder if you have ever considered just exactly what life is. "Red in tooth and claw," is a start. And I have news for you. Nietzsche was far too smart to be Godless. You're confused over the distinction between a god and the idea of a god and suppose him and others no less confused.

What you're opposed to, apparently - and I credit you as not actually yourself espousing this view - is civilization. The reality is that no thinking person is opposed to civilization and its bene-fits. We just acknowledge that so seemingly simple a thing seems difficult for people to understand and attain - or keep.

What you're opposed to, apparently - and I credit you as not actually yourself espousing this view - is civilization. The reality is that no thinking person is opposed to civilization and its bene-fits. We just acknowledge that so seemingly simple a thing seems difficult for people to understand and attain - or keep. — tim wood

I'm fascinated by human culture and was really intrigued by the idea that we live in an age of mechanism (can't remember where I first contacted that idea, but it's around.) I'm just exploring some aspects of that.

What sort of divinity do you think Nietzsche believed in?

The Frodos of the world are truly amazing, but they apparently need a Lord of the Rings to provide them with something to overcome. So does this argue for or against the lords? — frank

The anti-biotics of the world are truly amazing. But apparently they need bacteria to provide them with something to overcome. So does this argue for or against streptococcus?

Me? I'm not going to side with fucking Sauron.