Yes, I understand. I didn't mean political socialism but socialist policies. I very much agree with everything you said on the subject.

You provide a sound argument for why entrepreneurs are likely to stimulate growth over the ultra rich. I would say though that unless taxation takes some of that money from the ultra-rich and redistributes it, the ultra-rich are not taking anything away from the mid-level entrepreneurs. Their wealth is growing independently and unlike income disparities, it's not like capital increasing is depriving anyone of any opportunities. It's just capital will account for a greater portion of the overall wealth because it's growing faster than the economy.

It seems more logical to assume that increased capital can only increase economic growth. Alternatively, maybe no impact? I assume at least some ultra-rich will make some businesses and be a bit productive, invest into companies and make them more productive... things like that. The main problem appear to be the social and political implications.

I may have to read Capital myself and see what he is saying precisely.

It will be a real return to the past and the creation of an oligarchy!

I wonder if it were feasible to dismantle these dynasties... like you can only pass on $10 million or less per person. What the impacts of that might be? Alternatively changing how taxation works but you can also see negative impacts for that too. Same with higher taxation on investments. It's a complicated issue.

I thank you for introducing me to this concept of r>g, it is such a simple representation of the problem. It really changes my views on taxation.

Can you explain your reasoning as to why this leads you to believe inequality leads to lowered economic growth? I am not saying you're wrong but I don't quite understand it.

What ramifications are there in r>g for the mid-level entrepreneur that make him different from the ultra rich?

Do you have any resources about economies becoming less productive because of inequality? I'd like to learn about that if it's true.

Also what I mean by trending towards greater socialism can be observed in much of the West. Free education, subsidised or free healthcare, increased benefits for disabilities to name a few of the things which become more achievable as governments become wealthier. It just wouldn't be feasible for a developing country to do what many Western countries have done here. Countries with capitalism will continue to be capable of more.

I think in the future we will see unemployment rates being much higher than today and the state taking care of a lot more people. As unskilled labourers or lower end blue-collars will continue to be replaced by computers and machinery. These people will need to be taken care of by greater socialist policies.

Indeed.

There's also a question of trust in a pragmatic sense, like I am an employee who has 10 staff members. If I don't trust them to do their jobs then it's going to be hard for me to run my business. The alternative is micromanaging and constant surveillance which becomes a bigger problem than it's solving.

I could treat my employees like I trust them because I think this will deliver the best results.

There's also trust in competence, like my employee says he can change a system in place in my business and make things better. I know he means what he says but I may not trust his skills to be good enough to do the job. Instead of trust, why couldn't it just be an evaluation of risk?

Trust is a word that goes thrown around a lot like it's a fairly simple thing but realistically it's not. Still, my answer is that one can trade in trust entirely for pragmatism and depending on how good he is at that, it may end up being very productive for him.

Let me clarify a few things, this is what you called me "idealistically" failing to distinguish between understanding and meaning.

I suspect that the difference between what I think your words mean and what you think those words mean is trivial or non-existent. That's what allows language to function. This has not demonstrated objective meaning any more than an objective truth would be demonstrated to be true if it were shown that all souls on Earth believed it was — Judaka

This is a quote which really shows that I recognised the difference between the two from the start. I would advise you that your assumptions about me are incorrect. You don't see it perhaps but I am saying what allows language to function is some level of understanding and not objective meaning. This is achieved through small enough differences in our interpretations to allow communication.

It is from the start that it was, in fact, you who has argued for objective meaning by demonstrating understanding is possible. I don't consider this "idealism" but it is something you've admitted to doing.

It is also not the case that we are debating to see whether or not you can be satisfied that you are wrong and I am right. I said earlier that you think my arguments have no merit and I think I've pretty much proven the idea of objective meaning to be false at this point. I don't really agree that the onus is on me to disprove objective meaning if you thought it existed then you must prove it. I only wanted to prove that objective meaning doesn't exist because I think I can.

I think for me to continue talking to you, I'd have to go back and revise all of your arguments for objective meaning and try to dismantle them in front of you. Whether I could or not, who knows? It just doesn't strike me as a very interesting concept and I get worried when debating people who seem to have a low opinion on me. You are the "realist" and I am the "idealist", I don't want to argue with someone who sees the debate being framed in that way.

My premise for question 1 was that you agreed with that your position was that language has rules sufficient to create objective meaning but now you are saying I can understand you without rules. If there aren't rules for English then I don't understand your position any more.

Your counter-argument for question 2 is that you aren't arguing for complete objective meaning. You initially said that because I could understand you, you may have demonstrated either a paradox or a contradiction, now you say that there is no complete objective meaning just partial.

If you can understand the meaning of my words when they lack objective meaning, what's outlandish about you understanding the meaning of my words (at least enough so to allow language to function) if all of them lacked objective meaning?

I don't know what you mean when you use the word "objective" but I can't think of a definition that makes sense with what you're saying. I don't understand what your argument is and I don't understand what I need to prove/disprove to further my case against yours.

What I know is that without objective validity, objective meaning can't exist.

If we categorised all of the types, colours, sizes, shapes, textures and so on which exist under the umbrella term of "apple". In English, what is an apple? It's all of those things and none of those things. It could be any of the viable characterisations in any arrangement. The premise of "an apple" doesn't lead to a conclusion of what precisely is being talked about.

We could go around and take every word that I'm using and demonstrate further that the possibility for interpretation is rather extreme although potentially infrequently utilised by anyone. The end result would be a near non-existent set of rules, words which can have a variety of meanings and contexts, intentions and etc which can change the meaning of the words/phrase.

I said objective validity is the bare minimum for an argument in favour of objective meaning but it's not the ONLY requirement. There are further hurdles to contend with but I don't see the point in bringing them up.

You act like I've presented no evidence worth contending with and I feel like you basically have nothing left to talk about in your favour which may signal it is better to agree to disagree than continue arguing.

You're certainly missing something. A key difference between what's required for there to be understanding and what's required for there to be meaning is that the former requires there to be a subject and the latter does not, and obviously you can see here that I'm not calling them the same thing. — S

I see.

No, that's clearly not what you asserted before. Go back and see for yourself. You didn't even use the word "understanding". You just seemed to put to me a rephrased version of my own point about a rule based independent meaning, which I obviously agreed with and questioned what your point was. — S

You're right, my apologies.

Sorry, but what are you talking about? You've lost me. If you think that you can refute my argument, then go ahead and try, but you can't just say some tosh about it being subjective without properly explaining how that's allegedly the case. Understanding requires a subject, whereas meaning as I've described it does not. In this sense, it is objective. Over to you. — S

So what you actually said "Yes, and?" to was this.

You are trying to argue that rules which have been created for the sake of making a language functional have created objective meaning because they are independently coherent and established. — Judaka

As such I will take this as your argument for objective meaning which doesn't require interpretation in language.

I have two questions.

1. Where would you advise one to find the established rules for English?

The example of me writing my own dictionary is pointing to this problem. Dictionaries are different from each other, let alone something I might write. Language evolves over time and I think if your argument is that there IS established rules for English, you should be able to point me to some source of where to find them. My follow up question if needed will be why you choose that over something else.

2. Why isn't the lack of objective validity in English a problem for your position?

Objective validity means the premises necessarily lead to the conclusion. This is the bare minimum requires for an argument of meaning not requiring interpretation. If the premises don't necessarily lead to a conclusion then how do you know which conclusion is correct? Someone needs to make a choice.

English is filled with words that describe values, concepts, ideas, feelings and so much more without the required specificity to know exactly what is being talked about. "Justice" could just as easily be killing people as it is saving people, why isn't interpretation needed here? What do the established rules tell us about what is being talked about when people use the word "justice"?

Context matters in English too, if I say "I really need to go", you could understand what I mean differently based on the context. Do I mean to the toilet? Or do I have some kind of appointment? What did I mean when I said I really need to go? Why do I need to go?

The words "I need to go" may have communicated those things but I don't know how the rules of English allow for this.

I would say "I need to go" is a fairly trivial statement but let's find an even more trivial statement like "I am a man".

What does that mean? Why am I saying that? What am I referring to? The lack of objective validity is a problem as far as I can see, this is at least one problem for the idea language carries objective meaning.

I do think that Emancipate has a point.

My definition is incomplete and while interpretation can work the way I described it doesn't have to.

As an example. we might think about psychological things like empathy, fairness, fear, anger, jealousy and such, which are far more ancient than words but serve as expressions of interpretations.

Interpretation goes far deeper than language, I knew this but gave a half-assed definition and got called out on it.

The concept of wealth creation, potential wealth, wealth distribution in monopoly do not replicate capitalism and that is the way OP is trying to introduce monopoly as a relevant criticism to capitalism. I am not sure whether you agree with this point or if you're an avid monopoly fan who wants to debate how the mechanics of the game work but I wouldn't even consider to bring up monopoly in a debate about capitalism if it wasn't for OP thinking it's somehow a good idea.

The game of monopoly's largest potential wealth is the total of all the bills that come with the board game.

Meaning is the jostle of difference. It resides neither in one place nor another, but flows in-between events of encounter (other meets other). Meaning belongs not to me or you (reading this), but it is shared in-between. — emancipate

Can you expand further on what you mean by this?

For argument's sake, let's say you're right.

How do you know that God is THE God? Maybe all the religions have it completely wrong...

You do not distinguish between what is required for understanding and objective meaning, you call them the same thing unless I am missing something. When I asserted this you have replied "Yes, and?".

Where based on an established criterion, a particular judgement is necessarily reached., objective validity is achieved. Which says if premises this means conclusion. When the premises are subjective so is the conclusion. Morality is always going to have subjective premises and so is the same with language.

The dictionary I write is not for a "made up language" it's for English. There are already many dictionaries for English and they don't all say exactly the same things.

Talking about language just seems like a tangent from the perspective of validity, the problem with English is that the rules don't achieve objective validity and the existence of rules doesn't necessitate certain interpretations. I haven't argued that the differences in our interpretations might not be trivial or non-existent, perhaps we have different rules for calling something "objective".

That's part and parcel with language, we will have different understandings for words and the concepts they refer to.




Emancipate is expanding my definition in a way which may bring greater clarity to how interpretation works for us all. I have focused on language but this may have been to the detriment of my argument and I will need to think of a better definition for interpretation which encompasses more aspects of it.

You're making the common idealist confusion of muddling up what it takes for something to be understood, and what it takes for something to have meaning. Or, more broadly, epistemology and metaphysics. — S

Funny, I would say the same thing to you. You are trying to argue that rules which have been created for the sake of making a language functional have created objective meaning because they are independently coherent and established.

Your underlying argument comes back to lots of people agreeing on it.

Why?

Because you wouldn't recognise a dictionary I wrote as being of equal validity to all other dictionaries.

Not only that but definitions aren't sufficient to translate meaning in all contexts by themselves.

If I told you I was going to build a great pyramid. You could tell me what every word in the sentence meant but that doesn't mean you understand what I'm talking about.

Because what does the word "great" mean when I use it in the context of talking about a pyramid?

What do the established, coherent rules of language tell you about that?

You do need to interpret meaning for it to have meaning and the loop this creates is no different than asking "why" to every answer a person gives.

If I say "X means Y" and "Y means Z" and "Z means X" this creates a loop. You can do this with many things in language.

If I define a chair and define the words I used to define a chair and define the words I used to define the words I used to define a chair and then define those words and define those words then we create a loop. The loop only stops when you stop asking for new definitions because you think you understand what I mean.

Call that what you want but it's just how language works.


Are you arguing that the meaning of words is not interpreted? Do you understand the larger ramifications for that?

I suspect that the difference between what I think your words mean and what you think those words mean is trivial or non-existent. That's what allows language to function. This has not demonstrated objective meaning any more than an objective truth would be demonstrated to be true if it were shown that all souls on Earth believed it was.

The act of explaining what something means. The important thing is that it is a verb.

If an epistemological nihilist utilised a pragmatic understanding to endeavour towards some degree of success or tolerable failure in his pursuits. This might entail acting in accordance with an understanding that though they know nothing to be true, they will act in the way which seems to best give them what they want. Could he trust nothing to be true, while acting as though what seems to be true is true, hence allowing himself an ordinary life without ever acquiescing that he trusts nothing?

I might also ask whether "trust" is a spectrum or not. If I trust my friend to keep my secret, what exactly does that mean? How much do i need to be willing to think he might not keep my secret until we can't say I trust him anymore or how certain do I need to be that he will keep my secret before we say I trust him to.

As with most categorisations, there's a level of subjectivity attached and that's relevant here because even I don't trust anything 100%. I wouldn't stake my life on any belief if there's nothing to be gained or retained.

Capitalism is similar to democracy, in that it's really the only sensible option we've got. And by sensible I mean implementable, functional, effective and I use all these terms relative to other options.

If you see problems with capitalism then consider advocating changing the way capitalism is implemented, looking at it from this perspective you suddenly have a great variety of options that range from minor to extreme in nature.

The game of monopoly has a fixed amount of potential wealth and victory can only be achieved by the acquisition of more wealth than everyone else.

Capitalism has increased the overall wealth compared to the past. This wealth is not evenly distributed, the increase is not evenly distributed and inequality is increasing but those in lower percentiles are getting lower percentages of increased overall wealth and increased buying power and options.

Inequality is rising but overall everyone is better off. Capitalism will trend towards greater socialism as the capacity for government spending and spending efficiency increases and people are replaced by increases in efficiency and technology.

Meaning is a result of interpretation...

Meaning is created by both interpretations from the speaker, the listener and the ignorant.

Which meaning is the true meaning is also a result of interpretation.

There is no "the" meaning.

Nihil
I don't think you are making any sense. Liberty is freedom... the ego is a motivator, we cannot give freedom to motivations, only actions.

The answer to whether something is "better" than something else is the result of interpretation which is necessarily subjective. A subjective framework can make coherent rules for defining what makes one better than another but ultimately it's subjective. We can only say that someone is better at performing a particular action or achieving a certain goal.

You said we can say "I am better at soccer than you" but is that really an objective truth? I could say Messi is better than Ronaldo and give me reasoning but there are still many who would disagree with that. Just how much better does one need to be at soccer until we can say that person is better at soccer and it's no longer subjective?

You could say "I am better at kicking the ball further than you" because this is something which can be measured. However, we have not stipulated the rules for deciding kicking the ball further and I could include things like an energy output/distance kicked ratio as my main argument for why I am better at kicking the ball further than you rather than total distance covered.

I don't really want to go further with this line of thinking, I am just pointing out it's not as simple as you described in your OP.

Can someone be better than someone else? Yes but this can only be asserted by something subjective and so how much the claim matters is entirely subjective also.