I don’t think that biology is what makes someone “human”. — Average
Theories of biological humanity have been used by some of the most nefarious forces in history to justify their atrocities. — Average
But I also don’t think that it’s a good idea to be merciful to someone that would not extend that same mercy to you. — Average
Given the chance they would probably butcher you just as quickly as their other victims regardless of your humanistic or humanitarian ideas. — Average
Maybe it has more to do with the arbitrary nature of the crime and the fact that such behavior is unwarranted. Under this revised metric it would not be the simple fact that the serial killers are predators but it would instead be the fact that they are hunting people that haven’t done anything to warrant the death sentence. — Average
This relates to what I’m saying here as well. In much the same way as we know depression is often linked to social isolation (loneliness) or general lack of fulfilling relationships, I think this political hopelessness is also linked to a lack of collaboration with others. — Xtrix
I don't see capitalism as intrinsically evil. Capitalism is a fairly efficient means of solving extremely complex problems. We don't appear to have an effective alternative. In my opinion, it's simply a tool that's not being wielded for the common good as it should be. — Theorem
At the heart of the matter, in my view, are phenomena that have always been there: irrationality, false beliefs, greed, hatred, prejudice, fear. — Xtrix
This is a big one, no doubt. For the last 20 years I’ve often used this as an excuse — for all kinds of things. But then I look at what people in Argentina and Nicaragua and Sudan achieve, or in the poor areas of Boston and Chicago, and I realize I have far more opportunity than they do. Yet they make things happen, and it’s largely because of strong communities. — Xtrix
This relates to what I’m saying here as well. In much the same way as we know depression is often linked to social isolation (loneliness) or general lack of fulfilling relationships, I think this political hopelessness is also linked to a lack of collaboration with others.
— Xtrix
No, it's the lack of a realistic goal, and people being less or more aware of this. — baker
Genuine reengagement within existing systems would transform society, but many people think this is middle class masturbation and only a revolution will do. — Tom Storm
At the heart of the matter, in my view, are phenomena that have always been there: irrationality, false beliefs, greed, hatred, prejudice, fear.
— Xtrix
If this is how you think about it, then it's no wonder you don't feel motivated to get together with others, and also why others might not be particularly motivated to get together with you. — baker
Yet they make things happen, and it’s largely because of strong communities.
— Xtrix
Or because they are so poor, in such real need that this keeps them together, acting as glue. — baker
I could be wrong, and it really is ignorance. I would argue that isolation contributes to this. But let's assume I'm right, and the problems are known and solutions are fairly clear. What then accounts for inaction? A lack of a detailed plan? Perhaps. But I would point instead to isolation, hopelessness, despair, and the inability to engage with and join with others. — Xtrix
What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle? — Xtrix
I never once said I don't feel motivated to get together with others.
I never once said others don't want to get together with me.
The sentence you quote was in response to someone else. If you paid closer attention to the context,
/.../
Seems to me you're hell-bent on disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. If that's the case, I'm not interested. — Xtrix
But in talking with others, I've come to learn about factors which were once invisible to me until pointed out. — Xtrix
See, this is exactly why I don't want to get together with you: your bad faith in relation to other people, your readiness to quickly assume the worst about the other person. — baker
If this is how you think about it, then it's no wonder — baker
We can't talk about alternatives to something we can't define. Your definition of "efficient means of solving extremely complex problems" is inadequate, and I don't agree with it. — Xtrix
Capitalism, as I see it, is just the name for an socioeconomic system, one which is differentiated from past systems by its unique power structure -- viz., one of employers (owners) and employees. In the modern industrial age, its best representative is the corporation.
If you look at how corporations are organized and governed -- with a few people on top (shareholders, board of directors, CEO) making all the important decisions, and everyone else living with those decisions and taking orders -- then it's easy to point to alternatives: worker co-ops. Workers owning and running their own business. — Xtrix
So how about this for feedback -- at least when dealing with me: give respect, get respect. — Xtrix
It was simply an observation. Capitalistic economies have been the most productive and efficient economies in history. Through them an incredible number of highly complex problems have been solved. — Theorem
Just questioning how efficient the alternatives are in comparison. — Theorem
That's just it: you don't give respect to begin with. — baker
Others should respect you first, and then, maybe, you'll respect them. And you apparently don't seem to see the problem with this one-sidedness. — baker
This is exactly the kind of attitude that puts people off and why they don't want to get together with those who have such an attitude. — baker
But if you don't define it, then you're not talking about anything. — Xtrix
So far as I can see, there are no capitalist economies in the sense of "free market capitalism." — Xtrix
I see no evidence that capitalist economies have solved problems better than others, nor are more productive, nor are more efficient. — Xtrix
Sure, if we attribute everything to "capitalism" that's positive, then you're stating a truism. — Xtrix
I think co-ops are very efficient. — Xtrix
Would you agree that most of the economies of the 'western' world qualify as broadly capitalistic in nature? If so, do you not agree that these economies have the been the most productive and efficient in history? — Theorem
How (1) are we defining capitalist? — Xtrix
Capitalism, as I see it, is just the name for an socioeconomic system, one which is differentiated from past systems by its unique power structure -- viz., one of employers (owners) and employees. In the modern industrial age, its best representative is the corporation. — Xtrix
And (2), how are we measuring efficiency? — Xtrix
It's just too broad to talk about. We can't possibly say that "capitalist countries are more efficient" -- because we haven't the slightest idea what that means. China is productive and efficient, outpacing the US in many ways (including GDP) the last few years. They're without a doubt a communist country, but a mixed economy as well. Is their efficiency due to their "capitalist" parts? — Xtrix
Pareto efficiency is a theoretical state that (as far we know) cannot be achieved in practice. Also, there's no way of measuring it directly — Theorem
so economists usually use other metrics such as GDP, unemployment, etc. — Theorem
or to deny that some degree of central regulation is required for optimization. — Theorem
By the definition you provided above, it's fairly easy to determine which economies qualify as capitalist. — Theorem
So you're referring to a theoretical state that cannot be achieved and cannot be measured? — Xtrix
The level of state intervention involved in the economy is enormous. So my point is this: whatever success you point to, why not attribute it to the state? Why is it "capitalism" that accounts for this so-called "efficiency" of production and distribution? — Xtrix
In this case, nearly every country on earth is capitalist, including Asian and African nations. Saudi Arabia and Sweden and Japan and Gabon and Belize are capitalist in this sense. But clearly that's not the entire story -- it just points to how business is generally run (by owners). In order for the private ownership and private profit to exist, it needs the assistance of the state. — Xtrix
It just so happens that the state is now the lapdog of wealth, and wealth is generated in the main from business, particularly the corporate world, and particularly the financial sector of the corporate world. So what I want to see change, therefore, is the concentration of power in the hands of the owner class (the capitalists), and more in the hands of the community. We don't sacrifice productivity or efficiency by doing so. — Xtrix
it seems like we should want power to be in the hands of the most competent people, regardless of what class they happen to be from. — Theorem
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.