And if you want to shoot workers for striking or whatever, and you think that the problem with this scenario are workers, then so be it, I've nothing to say to you. — StreetlightX
I'd prefer if people just specify who they want to tax, kill, etc., instead of doing the whole "X is actually not X" thing. — Snakes Alive
The problem here is what to do with the people who don't agree.
This is an excellent way to hedge your position and avoid thinking. — fdrake
Ah. It seems we cannot even think without doublespeak. — Snakes Alive
I don't think it's too obscure to think of power and freedom as interlinked.
You can only do a thing if you have the ability to do so. It can be more or less hard to do a thing, given the societal circumstances you find yourself in, and which you do not choose. Someone raised in a palace is going to find themselves having more opportunities than some kid thrown out on the street. Someone born in a country where criticising the state will land you in the gulag is going to have less ability to express their political opinions. Someone born without the ability to walk will have less mobility in a society where wheelchairs are not available. Someone born into poverty will have to choose crime to get by more often than someone raised in a palace. Someone born into a rich household with massive social opportunities, like David Cameron, will find themselves in positions of power with much less work; their choices are linked to levers of opportunity just not available for the hoi polloi.
A political idea of freedom that doesn't link to one's ability to exercise choice; regarding what actions they may choose, what effects their actions are likely to have; is one that sees freedom as irrelevant to the likely effects of a person's actions and opportunities. If you are more powerful, your abilities make more waves.
A homeless guy excluded from most opportunities because they can't get a job, so money stops them from doing anything; that guy's powerless. A society that makes that situation likely for some and not for others is one with big power asymmetries; big asymmetries in what people can choose. — fdrake
Freedom is freedom for those who think differently, to quote a socialist. Unless 100% of the community is in agreement, some sort of injustice or coercion has to occur in order to meet the wants and desires of socialist power. This internal contradiction seems to me why socialist plans always collapse. — NOS4A2
I hope socialists don't believe anything like that, but I worry that is the outcome, at least for the sort of Marxist revolutions we've seen. Theres is no such thing as 100% agreement, even among socialists. There are always people in the community who disagree. Either we respect their rights or we coerce them. Problem is that some communities don't value the right to disagree. Religious groups have certainly had this issue in the past. — Marchesk
I have always thought one of the reasons socialism (particularly in the communist form) fails is because it denies the true, competitive, acquisitive nature of humans. — prothero
Systems which substitute ideals for actualities are destined to fail (a problem with progressive liberalism as well). If there is no true reward for industry, innovation and hard work other than the "betterment of society" the result is predictable. — prothero
...money can be seen as a way to store wants, in such a view the will to profit is no different to any other desire. — Chester
Money facilitates trade, fundamentally, and says nothing of wants. Beyond the basics, our culture largly trains our wants. We don't have to want what we're trained to want. — praxis
Collective bargaining, I think, has superseded socialism. It can meet the needs of workers without having to violently overthrow this or that “class” (fellow citizens) and seize mob rule. — NOS4A2
Ah, the "myth of the noble savage" was not the kind of pastoral peace and cooperation you envisage, I think. There was plenty of trouble within groups and between groups just not the kind of weaponry and resources found in modern times. IMHOFunny, because around 90% of human history was cooperative hunter-gatherer societies, so I wonder what nature we are actually denying. — praxis
I didn't say anything about shooting striking workers. I said defending my property in the hypothetical scenario if the community organizes to come take it for the common good, like has happened during certain Marxist revolutions in the past. — Marchesk
Who is "coming to take" anything from anyone in this scenario? — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.