When discussing concentrations of wealth and power (.001%), there's very probably an interaction. Once you're part of the club, you've had to have internalized certain beliefs and values - mainly about capitalism and politics. That's what the scholarship seems to suggest.

So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point. — Xtrix

Lets see the scholarship then. I'd be interested.

$100MM net worth seems a fair cut off level here. At this level you have people from entertainment, some professional athletes, but I'd imagine the majority comes from business. While I wouldn't expect them to be Marxists, I would still expect a decent chunk of them to be Democrats, but who knows - lets bring in the studies if you have them.

As a general rule I'd expect the elite of any society to be on balance a little more interested in preserving the status quo. There are still a number of individuals at this level of wealth who'd be described as Democrats. But yeah, obviously not too many of them are talking about "abolishing billionaires" but you do see supporters of higher taxes, stronger safety nets and strong environmental regulation.

Where's the scholarship on this? I'd like to see some evidence. Because it's often claimed, and of course there are examples and thousands of anecdotes, but I have a hunch it's complete nonsense -- at least when talking about what we're discussing here, which is the 1%.

It's a lot like talk about voter fraud -- yes, it happens, but so rarely as to be imperceptible. — Xtrix

I was just talking about people advancing classes, not necessarily into the 1%. If someone who's lower middle makes it into the middle class I would count that as class mobility, as well as those who jumps from poor to lower middle. I'm definitely not talking about the poor jumping into the 1%. It is feasible to go from upper middle to 1% though.

I think the mobility issue now is less that people cannot move upwards from middle class, but that you're more likely to move down than up and, once down from middle class, you're unlikely to get up again. — Echarmion

Where are the stats that people are more likely to move from middle to lower class than middle to upper middle? I feel like if this were true we'd be seeing an increasingly large lower class which I don't think we're seeing. Keep in mind the "bottom 20%" of income earners is not the bottom 20% population-wise. It's actually a significantly smaller percentage.

I agree with the first part you wrote about risk: Someone with more wealth is generally speaking in better place to take on risk even if this risk doesn't always work out.

Also, on the topic of ambition, and your conversation with apokrisis: society should be structured such that an unambitious person who just wants to stay at home and tend to their little garden can do so. — Pfhorrest

See, to me this isn't really a question of "shoulds." Lets say we're both 18 and we graduate HS together and I tell you "Hey Forrest, all I want to do now is live in an apartment or some sort of home and tend to be garden all day." Now the question is: Do I have the means or am I going to have to rely on the taxpayer - you, that is - for support? If I have the means to sit home all day and watch my garden, then that's fine; I'm not hurting you. But if I'm going to need support to that and I'm going to need you to chip in to support my habit that's a different issue.

So with great pain and reluctance I resigned myself to an "ordinary" life. Instead of trying to achieve great things, I would aim low, just try to secure my basic necessities like a house, just the minimal level of financial security, so I wouldn't be poor and on the verge of homelessness like my parents by the time my kids (that I then expected to have some day) were adults. — Pfhorrest

I honestly think this is a fine, reasonable goal. This goal is quite doable on the median US income, but not in expensive areas. In much of the country you can find decent homes for around $250k or even lower.

Thomas J. Stanley's The Millionaire Next Door. I think they're just asking who inherited that sum, and if you didn't you were "self-made." I know, it's not perfect but I don't know how you get perfect stats on that given how difficult the notion of "self-made" is. After all, is anyone really self-made? In any case, you'll see this 80/20 number on numerous online sources as well.

I will say though that it's certainly possible for middle class people earning a stable salary, investing in retirement funds and living frugally to become millionaires. Class mobility is still certainly a thing in this country.

That’s a general thing I like to point out when taking risk is argued to be what makes the rich deserve their rewards. — Pfhorrest

For me personally, I try to avoid using the term "deserve" in this context. I think "deserving" in this context is a very tricky notion.

The more you have beyond your basic needs, the more you can afford to gamble smartly, accepting some short term losses as you play the odds to long term victory. E.g where I am
now in life, my investments can fluctuate up or down by hundreds or sometimes even thousands of dollars a day and I can afford to just ignore that so long as overall they trend upwards, because it’s not like I’m going to need to spend that money tomorrow. (Even now that I’m without a job, because I didn’t start investing until I already had a sufficient cash safety net set aside too, for exactly that reason). — Pfhorrest

You're talking about investing here, right? Yeah, I understand. I understand that the rich are able to invest more, and in turn take more advantage of market upturns, but at the end of the day a bullish stock market is good for you too. I mean sure we can point and laugh at the billionaires when the market tanks, but your own portfolio is liking taking a hit there too. Even if most of the benefit goes directly to the mega-rich, I'd rather see the stock market rise.

But where I was a decade ago, a downward fluctuation of a thousand dollars would immediately knock me out of the game — I wouldn’t survive to make up for it over the long term. And that’s the kind of situation that most people are always in. — Pfhorrest

It's good to hear that your portfolio is able to withstand those drops.

It’s just a way of speaking in terms of statistics, exactly like distribution of ability. A uniform distribution means the quantity in question is equal for everyone, a normal distribution means the quantity in question follows a gaussian curve across the population, etc. — Pfhorrest

I guess I just don't see opportunity as something that is "distributed." I guess in some sense it is though.

On balance, the rich have more opportunity than the poor. I'm comfortable saying that. However, when you look at the self, or any other individual, that individual is a billion different things - he may be physically gifted or not, mentally gifted or not, emotionally gifted or not, humorous, charismatic or not, etc. Also how sensitive that person is to failure plays a role in opportunity. Emotional resilience is huge.

These are all things I believe: 1) The rich, on balance, have more opportunity than the poor. 2) Even in a completely economically equal society, there would be no equality of opportunity. 3) The notion of "equality of opportunity" is a dubious one.

The way that poverty affected my opportunity was creating an unstable home life and leaving me nowhere to fall back on, forcing me to work close to full time to support myself while going through school, handling al my own crisis expenses like car breakdowns, living in shitty crowded shared housing (which is what got me that one B: housemates kept me awake all night right before a final) while being terrific of eviction or rate increases because I would just be homeless since I didn’t have family housing to fall back on, etc. Which in turn made me extremely risk-averse, kept me in shitty jobs because they were stable instead of trying for better jobs that might fall through, which kept me from learning further on the job and so has made finding better work increasingly more difficult even as I’ve gotten more stability with age that could allow me to risk trying out possibly better jobs, etc.

I can think of a few decisions I could have made differently in my early adulthood that would have made a dramatic difference in my life today, despite the poverty of my family, but not having a stable family to guide me through those decisions meant the only reason I now know I should have chosen differently is because of hindsight. — Pfhorrest

Thanks for sharing that. You mentioned something really important in the last paragraph - the importance of a stable family that could have guided you and given you help. I'll definitely agree that family is huge: Imagine if you had the support structure. It's definitely got to be tough without it. I'm very thankful that I have had a supportive, functional family throughout the years. If I fail, I would be able to fall back on them.

But yeah, I certainly don't like seeing anyone struggle, especially someone who is willing to work and has a desire to advance his economic position. I'm not claiming my advice is flawless here, but maybe you should reconsider the risk-averse attitude. I do think it would help considerably if you could find a better job, and sure there's some risk in that, but I've worked low wage jobs and it's just not something someone should be doing long term. If you don't take risks you're going to stay in relatively the same spot you are now.

Oh and also, having to pay rent instead of just living in my family’s second or third home for free, or getting help with a big enough down payment that interest on a mortgage wouldn’t exceed rent, etc. — Pfhorrest

Oh I would love to be able to do that too but unfortunately my family doesn't have 3 or even 2 homes. I am actually living at home now I separated from the military around 3 months ago and I'm looking to going back to school.

I see what you mean. If perfection is impossible, just give up. In fact even to try can be equated to fanatical Nazi euthanasia. Sounds legit. — apokrisis

What is perfection? Complete equality of opportunity? I want you to really think on this one: Even if the US was a completely equal society, would every child have equal opportunity? Would everyone be equally capable of being an NFL football player? How about nuclear scientist? Is everyone capable of being a Picasso or a Michelangelo? How about a chess master? This isn't about "giving up" this is about acknowledging reality.

Hey, that's me. That's any normal person. That's who society ought to be built around ... in my selfish view. — apokrisis

Do you honestly believe that society should specifically cater to those who are less ambitious? IMO, society shouldn't really "cater" to anyone - if you want to work long hours and make your job your life, that's an acceptable decision and if you prefer more time off that's acceptable too. The trade-off there is that while you get more free time you'll likely be earning less. The high-earners on the other hand often have a lot less free time. It's about the trade-offs. I do strongly reject the view that society ought to be built around the less ambitious though. Society should largely not pass judgment except in extreme cases.

If we had equal distribution of opportunity, we would expect a normal distribution of outcome, to match the normal distribution of abilities. — Pfhorrest

Talking about a "distribution of opportunity" honestly confuses me.

But in the world we have today, someone like me — who is, according to all the aptitude tests of every kind I’ve ever taken, in the top 0.1% of ability — can just barely manage to keep up with the average (mean, not median) of financing outcomes, if they’re born into poverty like I was. — Pfhorrest

Did you get straight As in school? Any college scholarships? I'm not going to doubt you here, if I could remember I think we've already delved into your personal situation a bit and I recommended getting out of California. We've already had this talk, I know. In some cities someone could be pulling 6 figures and still struggling. This isn't just a "you" thing - plenty of people are moving out of California because the state is ridiculously expensive and moving over to Texas where they can buy a house at a 1/4 the cost.

I know the American system isn't perfect and there's plenty of changes that I would make to it if given the opportunity. I don't just blindly endorse the status quo.

so if you’re not rich then you simply must not actually be so smart or hard-working etc, because if you were then you would be rich. — Pfhorrest

I would certainly never argue this.

Sure. With another reasonable person. :up: — apokrisis

Just to add to what I was saying earlier: Even in an absolutely perfect society there wouldn't be equality of opportunity. I mean what are we suppose to do, get rid of all the children with learning disabilities? What about the people who are naturally less ambitious and prefer to live a more relaxed lifestyle? Are we just suppose to expect everyone to be type-A perfectionists who strive to maximize income at virtually any cost? Even if society were perfectly fair and generous we could be seeing vast inequality.

Social mobility is a tough topic. I prefer studies which track individuals over, say, a 30 year period rather than just taking a snap-shot in time. I think when you look to these types of studies the picture is a little less bleak.

Many Americans strongly believe the U.S. is a "Land of Opportunity" that offers every child an equal chance at social and economic mobility. That Americans rise from humble origins to riches, has been called a "civil religion", "the bedrock upon which the American story has been anchored",[14] and part of the American identity (the American Dream.

I've long felt that this view of the American dream is kind of a straw-man. I don't know anyone in their right mind who'd believe that every child has an equal chance of economic and social mobility. I mean maybe in the abstract everyone has some chance, but an equal chance? In any case it's easy to argue against such fantastical positions.

tergenerational immobility versus economic inequality in 2012. (Countries closest to the axis in the left bottom have the highest levels of socio-economic equality and socio-

That's an interesting chart, but honestly comparing America to Denmark is a little silly. Denmark is a largely homogenous country of around 5 million. I live in one of the smallest states in the country and our population is 6 million.

Net worth for the top 1% starts at around $10MM while it's around $1MM for the top 10%. Plenty of them are self-made, I think most millionaires in the US are self-made (if i could recall that figure is around 80%.)

In the 1% you certainly have successful people but I'd hardly call someone with a net worth of $10MM one of the "masters of the universe." IMO there's no a huge difference between someone with a net worth of like $3-5MM and one with a net worth of like $10MM. 1%ers often have like 3 homes across the country.

At 9 figures I'd imagine things get pretty insane.

I grew up in the top 10%. I know some 1%ers. I certainly don't know anyone beyond that.

I actually think that those possible types of answers to questions about reality and morality stem from applications of the analogous answers to the personal emotional question: — Pfhorrest

:100:

You have encountered a challenge. Maybe things are not going to work out as you expected. What do you do?

- Give up?
- Indulge in a happy fantasy about how it must definitely all be okay?
- Acknowledge the difficulty and keep trying anyway?

When the challenge is in figuring out what is real or moral, the last option is exactly the kind of criticism universalism that I advocate on those topics. — Pfhorrest

I get it where you're coming from. I'll add though, and maybe this is me just playing devil's advocate, but I'll add that some problems in life don't really appear to be solvable. In those cases, it might honestly be better to either approach the problem from a different angle or reframe it in some way... or just honestly try to think about something else. We all have limited mental energy and numerous problems that we would like to address so often sacrifices have to be made. Nothing wrong with jsut kicking back and wanting some time off from your problems either.

By all means you're free to philosophize and I would never tell you otherwise. For me, personally, at this point it's less about finding absolute truths or perfect systems than using philosophy as a tool to understand someone else's worldview and maybe kick around some ideas.

Something like this is, I think, the main error underlying pretty much all philosophical error: that the only alternatives are either abject nihilism or religious faith. Cynical relativism or dogmatic transcendentalism, pick your poison... or so they'd have you think. — Pfhorrest

Personally I think the question of finding meaning or value in the universe is largely a personal/emotional one. Atheists are certainly capable of living subjectively meaningful lives, but I do often find these people, like Carl Sagan, have a connection to the numinous (something that "wows" them, for Sagan is was the wonders of the physical universe.)

I'm a pretty strict agnostic: No firm opinion on God's existence, and I'm fine exploring many different lines of thought whether theistic or atheistic. If one has a healthy mindset and a positive disposition they'll probably be fine as an atheist, but I do think anyone should be concerned with attempts to utterly disassemble the Judeo-Christian philosophical remnants of today's society.

Personally I'd like there to be something out there. It doesn't have to be the Judeo-Christian God. Maybe it could be an Earth-spirit of Gaia type deal, or who knows. I have not yet heard a compelling atheistic moral system, though I'm open to it. I'm sure there are reasonable moral systems under atheism but I think they'd be fundamentally different from a theistic model, or how we naturally think about morality today.

Hope Peterson has recovered but he's had his 15 minutes. I don't think anyone cares much about his ideas any more. — Baden

Peterson still has a ton of adoring fans. That book is gonna sell out instantly.

Marxists will describe the outgrowth of capitalism as a form of imperialism.

If I was violent, and there was a place where violence was not punished (or rarely/lightly punished), I would prefer to be there. So would everyone else like me. — Pinprick

Cool, so violent people must love Caracas, Venezuela or Detroit because they can be around other violent people who are like them. Maybe all the violent people can become friends after hanging out together. They could throw violent-themed parties, maybe grab some violent-themed decorations.

Yes, I am a woman. I didn't know that Nietzsche is a philosopher that mostly teenage males read ... but that doesn't surprise me! — Coryanthe

He's not, Banno is just talking crap.

One of the main things that Nietzsche talks about, and that he's in agreement with many Christians about, is that when you remove the God element out of theology - whether it be Christianity, Judaism, etc. - is that the whole system collapses. So he's arguing against those who basically try to remove God, but keep the system of ethics and Judeo-Christian worldview intact. The Judeo-Chrstian worldview/ethic is not at all obvious or immediately self-apparent to someone trying to build their system of value.

This point has been echoed by Christian thinkers. Personally I find it pretty convincing. I like that Nietzsche's writing is relevant in that he's primarily dealing with questions of value in a post-Christian age, a process which is ongoing.

But getting back to Nietzsche I do wonder if another possible way his ideas could be translated into practice would be as anarchism, but this is yet another complex area. — Jack Cummins

Possibly. Nietzsche hated nationalism. I've never read any of his writings on anarchism and I'm honestly not sure if he ever wrote about it. I'd love it someone could find out more about his views on the state.

^That's a good one.

The obvious answer being because the people are violent. After all, that’s what’s really meant when we say a particular society is violent, right? So the real question would be “why are people in group X more violent than people not in group X?” And it could be that people who are violent just so happen to prefer group X for whatever reason. Or it could be that violent people created group X for whatever reason. It doesn’t have to be the case that group X created violent people. — Pinprick

Sure, we can ask “why are people in group X more violent than people not in group X?” But we probably wouldn't say "people who are violent just so happen to prefer group X for whatever reason."

For instance, an example of a society is, say, a violent inner city or a prison. Lets just go with a violent inner city. For all intents and purposes, we can say that the people or the kids there are basically stuck - it's not like they could migrate to the suburbs if they wanted to. So if you go to high school in an violent inner city you fall into that social order whether you like it or not. Maybe the bullies start messing with your brother or sister. I'm just saying you're probably not going to be able to seal yourself off from the rest of the world (if you are you should consider that a privilege.) Look into the social orders, look into the incentives, look into the repercussions for being on the low end of that social order. If you take prison as an example it should be clear to you: You're basically locked away with a ton other predators: Kill or be killed. Be weak at your own risk.

You're there whether you like it or not and you just gotta make the best of it.

Sure, but I don’t think anyone can accurately say why I have the expectations I do. — Pinprick

I do think repeated reinforcement plays a role, especially if you've never been exposed to anything else. Some of these expectations are mostly innocuous by the way, so I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. We all have them. I'm sure media and literature and our parents also play a role. It's certainly multi-faceted.

People will often consider society or culture as a cause for human behavior, but isn’t society itself actually caused by human behavior? If a society or culture is particularly violent, isn’t that because the people within that culture behave violently? To me it seems that society or culture is basically just a scapegoat for our own actions and behaviors. Instead of pointing the finger at ourselves, we abstractly point to society instead, as if the fault/blame has nothing to do with us. — Pinprick

Ultimately, I'm a believer in free will so I believe that regardless of how horrid a society may be the individual still has a choice to whether he pulls that trigger or mugs than homeless guy.

I will say though that society is more than just "the people" - if a society or culture is particularly violent we should look into why that is. This isn't my area of expertise, but I'd be fascinated to see what the reasons are for that. The individuals in that society probably aren't all just free floating individuals in a vacuum who happen to be violent. I'd be inclined to believe that there's a reason and a logic for it.

Society is also expectations. Expectations are pervasive: We expect things of men (achievement, strength, etc.) and we obviously expect things of women (maybe grace, beauty, kindness, etc.) These expectations (i.e. standards) can be oppressive to some and have deep implications and we should be cognizant of this. This type of thing transcends the individual.

I know everything about sovereign bonds. I issued them for 5 years at the Dutch State Treasury Agency. So fire away. There are still bonds out there that will perform even if interest rates start rising again and the market value will lower but there's Ukrainian collateralised bonds offering 6% or so, which given current interest rates is a good return and relatively safe.

Another I've always found interesting but never tried is investing via crowd funding. There are platforms that allow you to evaluate the underlying business case and pick something you know something about so you can make a real assessment. — Benkei

I'd be interested in learning more about government bonds. I don't own any. What's their importance for the macro picture? What should newer investors know about either buying them or the bond market in general?

Define imperialism. Some political science theories look at the ability to project power over territory which doesn't necessarily mean it has to be part of the sovereign territory of a country. — Benkei

Yeah, the definition is going to be the contentious point in these kinds of discussions. I would ask these political theorists to define what they mean by "power" - if they're including soft power, then I feel like virtually all decently powerful countries would qualify as "imperialist" under this definition.

As for "Joe Biden: Accelerated Liberal Imperialism" hasn't imperialism, liberal or otherwise, been US policy, more or less, since the get go? (Earlier eras of imperialism maybe shouldn't be described as "liberal".)

Imperialism tends to be such a good thing for the imperialists, be they Belgian, Dutch, German, Russian, English, French, Italian, American, Spanish, Japanese or Chinese--whosever--it's hard to imagine potential imperialists foregoing the opportunities. If they could be imperialists, why wouldn't they?

Since the beginning, has any country's leadership ever said: "We could become fabulously rich by taking over and exploiting those shit hole territories over there; but, you know, imperialism is just wrong, and we wouldn't want to become wealthy by doing something that moralists would consider distasteful." ???? — Bitter Crank

I remember reading a study done that concluded that imperialism was extremely expensive from the host country's point of view and the policy of imperialism didn't really make sense economically. It could really only be made sense of from a matter of national pride. I'm sure I could dig up the study if you like, but if you think about the costs of maintaining all those soldiers overseas and facilities it's got to be extremely expensive.

Historically speaking the US has not been anywhere near the level of imperialism when compared to the European powers. We briefly experimented with it as a matter of national policy in the Phillipines in the 1890s but I just don't recall America having the desire or stomach to maintain these colonies. Just to be clear when we're talking about imperialism in the traditional sense we're talking about colonies.

I understand that legal standards existed but whether the nations signed to them or not, they were not followed in the Pacific theater. I was just wondering whether you'd consider FDR a war criminal due to this, and if so, is there any conclusion beyond that that we should be drawing?

I'm not trying to defend FDR here. FDR is an icon for the American left though. I'm not even trying to push a certain view here - a part of me obviously wishes affairs in the Pacific could have been more humanitarian, but on the other hand I understand that was a completely different time period and that I'm so far removed from the actual situation in my warm home and comfy chair. There were American war crimes in the European theater as well that went completely unpunished. No one should try to white-wash them, but on the other hand excessive criticism comes off as suspect. How we ought to view these crimes is an interesting topic.

Yeah, people who get into it for the money are the first ones to leave on the dip. In my experience they buy high and sell low. I remember in March when things were looking terrible with COVID and BTC had dropped 50% in a day looking at the price and telling myself that I was 100% ready to go down with the ship on this one.

I think in order to be a good, patient investor you need something beyond the monetary reward. Bitcoin is a vision. I think the greatest thinker in this space is a guy named Andreas Antonopolous - check him out on youtube he's got a bunch of introductory material on bitcoin and ethereum. Personally I've done pretty poorly with altcoins because I'm mostly just in it for the gains and when things go too far south I'm out.

As for wallets if you're serious then check out a hardware wallet like the Nano Ledger X (I have the Nano Ledger S which is the earlier model). These store your funds offline and you're not trusting someone else to keep them safe. Not your keys, not your coins.

But the "modern" standards of treating POWs existed already in treaties from 1907 and 1929. I'm judging it by the standards of that time. Japan never ratified 1929 Geneva Convention in the treatment of POWs but did say in 1942 it would follow the 1907 Hague rules. — Benkei

I don't really care about the agreements. I'm talking about the actual treatment of POWs. The "standards of the time" was the actual treatment, not whatever legal standards states happened to sign or whatever standards were outlined in legal documents. I understand that the US and Germany had legitimate POW agreements that were by and large followed, but this was not the case in the Pacific.

The conduct in the Pacific Theater would never, ever fly today.

The way that POWs were treated on both sides of that conflict would be completely inexcusable in 2020/according to modern conventions. There was just very bad blood on both sides - both sides were fed vicious propaganda about the other and the horrific Japanese treatment of prisoners was well known to the Americans. Only around 60% of Americans survived Japanese captivity.

My point is while the way that the Japanese treated their POWs and captured civilian populations was obviously inexcusable and no one tries to defend that, the way the Americans dealt with the Japanese could quite brutal as well and cannot be justified according to modern standards of morality. I think it's a mistake to try.

If we are to hold our leaders during that time period to modern standards virtually all of them fall gravely short. I'm not entirely sure what the upshot of that is though: Does it mean that they're monsters? How harshly should we judge them?

EDIT: My understanding with the killing of POWs was that it was often just inconvenient/annoying to transport and keep watch over them, not that they were really a threat.

And yes, Truman and Churchill should be thrown in exactly the same pile as Hitler and Stalin - the pile of war criminals. That Hitler and Stalin were worse is no defense of Churchill's action. — Benkei

Just curious, would you include FDR in this list? The war in the Pacific was absolutely brutal and the soldiers and high command for all intents and purposes operated under a "take no prisoners" attitude for much of the war. On the other hand the Japanese were known for fake surrendering.

Hey, congrats on your gains. Sentiment has been very bullish lately, so hopefully you got in at a good time. Personally, I've been "in" since late 2016 and I can assure you that the volatility can be absolutely face-ripping. In March we saw roughly a 50% drop in a day. If you hold onto your investment for over a year there's tax advantages to that, i.e. you'll get to keep more of your profit.

I actually didn't buy my first bitcoin with the intention of holding onto it or treating it as an investment. Bitcoin was simply the best way to move money around the poker sites given all the onerous bank restrictions on sending money to them. It's definitely the favored currency on those sites as well now: Censorship-resistant, decentralized, borderless. When you hold your own bitcoin in your own wallet that bitcoin is truly yours - it's not being held onto by a bank or a company that gives you an IOU. It's yours and no one else can access it, not even governments. What else falls into that category? You can send it anywhere you want at any time you want and no one can censor or reverse it. It's truly unique.

"Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that great gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born." - Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, from The Grand Inquisitor chapter.

Are we condemned to be free? Are The Human's choice and freedom in life the source of much tragedy in The Human's life? Do you believe in the Tragedy of Human Freedom? Do you agree or disagree with the quote above? Why or Why not?

I believe that there is truth to man's existence in this quote. Man often appears to be yearning for order, submission, and subscription. Man does not seem to handle freedom well, especially for long durations of time. Yet I find the quote troublesome to ponder on due to man's hope to be free from restraint and order even if it is short-lived...What are your thoughts? Let us discuss this. — The Questioning Bookworm

I do find the Inquisitor's quote to be true, and I also want to mention that I love Dostoyevsky as a writer. It's been years since I read that book but I still remember that chapter.

In regards to the quote, yeah -- whether it's society and its institutions or organized religion, man is quick to surrender his natural freedom. Freedom -- the unknown -- is scary. What if something goes wrong? Who do we fall back on? Why risk keeping my own money when I can just store it away in a safe, insured bank? We delegate so much of our lives to institutions whether religious or secular because these things are deemed safe and they keep our anxiety at bay.

No, of course it doesn't. I don't understand this black and white thinking, on a philosophy forum of all places. Are we just slaves to propaganda, or can we discuss things rationally and imaginatively? It's as if you guys are not satisfied until I do the correct virtue signalling, like saying Putin is a monster or whatever. It's just dumb. — jamalrob

I'm not doing the black and white thinking - I was saying that both a) Putin is a skilled leader who has successfully advanced Russian interests in many cases and retains popularity and b) Is likely a criminal and is responsible for terrible human rights abuses - are both true and both statements should be acknowledged in any account of Putin.

It's not about virtue signaling for me. It's just about the facts. I think we're on the same page here?

Putin has also rolled back liberalization and Democratic reforms, and he could very well be the richest man in the world all on a $133,000/year salary if we're going by the Kremlin. His net worth has been estimated at around $70 billion.

But he's also a savvy leader, no denying that. He could very well be doing what he believes is in the best interest of Russia as a state. But does that preclude someone from being a criminal?

but we should spend less money on upkeep and hiring guards and more money on mental health specialists, educators, etc. for prisons, in my humble opinion. Also, we should not be using prisoners for free labor. Slavery ring a bell? Prisoners are cut off from the world as it is, most of them can't vote, and in some places, they are used for free/slave-like labor. This seems to be a problem too. I feel like there would be pushback more from individuals who aren't even in prison. — The Questioning Bookworm

Aren't prisons in the US required to compensate prisoners for their labor? Obviously the wages are very low and from what I understand the small wages they receive mostly just go back into the prison commissary. Personally I think its best if prisoners just keep busy whether its work or attending class. I just don't think in the US, especially in some of the southern states, you're going to see a huge outpouring of sympathy for prisoners.

Can budgeting be properly executed to allocate money more toward rehab rather than the way things are?

Maybe? I was a bit surprised you'd be willing to cut funding for upkeep or at least try to divert that funding into mental health services, but for me it would just be a matter of how effective these services are and whether they can be linked to less violence in prisons. Personally I see things relating to upkeep - temperature, cleanliness, food services - as being quite important.

Prison reform is an interesting topic.

I think a lot of people can agree that we'd like to see drug offenders not end up in prison, and ideally if we can lessen the number of people in prison that'll make the prison population easier to manage and result in less overcrowding which is never good for quality of services.

I think virtually everyone can agree with prison reform in theory, it's when it gets brought down to the practical level of actually providing more funding or putting prison guards through "bullshit" training that can result in some pushback.

I will say that the poor food quality bothers me though. I've never been to prison, but I did spend time in the military and honestly a good rest and decent food go a very long way. The temperature needs to be comfortable as well, and I've heard this is a problem in some prisons.

It's a difficult issue because prison guards aren't the cream of the crop. After you've had piss thrown at you or been attacked several times, your attitude changes. There are some genuinely terrible and mentally ill people in prison so sometimes when these idealists from outside come in with their grand solutions I get a little skeptical. I do believe in providing the basics though, but I would imagine bringing in increased funding would be an uphill battle in local communities.

Of course you're right, just because you agree with a fascist about a given policy point doesn't make you a fascist.

Fascism thrives in crisis; strong centralized control is often touted, rightly or wrongly, as the only solution to the present, existential crisis that will wipe us out if we don't act. I'd honestly be sympathetic to the idea that under the right circumstances we're all fascists. How do you think the world would respond if we were faced with an alien invasion? Would we be desperately looking to protect civil liberties and limit the scope of government when faced with the annihilation of our species? I think it's disingenuous to only view fascism as some type of foreign threat that we ourselves are immune to; fascism is within us.

It doesn't always have to be "oppression," either. It's simply one person (or a few) that gives the orders, and one (or many) who follows the orders. One commands, one obeys. That's power dynamics, and that's what is being analyzed. — Xtrix

Gotcha - so I think the reason my point here isn't too compelling to you is because you're more talking about the power/powerless distinction rather than oppressor/oppressed. These two are different. The target for the oppressor/oppressed group is often the white, straight, cis male while for the power/powerless group it might be shadowy bankers or whoever holds power. If we're going to talk power we should ditch our discussion of oppressed/oppressor because we're on different territory.

I think power is an interesting topic. I think there's a discussion to be had about power in virtually every society. I understand that corporations are hierarchical, but as a capitalist one of the things I really like about capitalism is the ability of one to find means of income outside of that structure. Nothing in capitalism dictates that you need to work for a corporation, although its certainly a good option for some people because those types of jobs tend to be a little more stable and offer decent benefits.

The existence of strong power imbalances is always worrisome, at least in my opinion. I spent some time in the military, for instance, and when a superior officer gave you an order you had to do it assuming the order wasn't illegal. In the workplace, it's a bit different because you could always quit or try to find another job. There certainly are power imbalances in the workplace, but it's possible that the power imbalance can actually be skewed in favor of the worker, as is the case with unions or if one worker is particularly skilled at something or if there are few workers and many firms looking to hire. Not to mention there's also a certain freedom at only being bound to your contract and not having to stay overtime to attend board meetings or make production decisions... plenty of people just don't care.

True...but a pretty compelling historical argument (in my view) can be made that it has indeed been a series of struggles between the oppressors and the oppressed. — Xtrix

You're absolutely welcome to adopt that worldview and plenty of people have. The oppressor/oppressed worldview is, in fact, a compelling narrative because countless people have been drawn into it. Plenty of intelligent posters here use it. I've personally entertained the idea. I ultimately rejected the narrative for a few reasons. I think it's both wrong and toxic, but nonetheless influential.

One of the main points we get from reading Nietzsche is that we come to sever the connection between "weak" and "good." We very often associate these things in our minds, but if I remember correctly Nietzsche associates this connection with living within a Judeo-Christian culture which naturally associates the two. I think severing the association between "weak" and "good" is actually a very profound point that is often overlooked today.

Secondly, if you look to the individual you'll see the individual is really a multitude of identities: We are "oppressors" in some ways and "oppressed" in others. Everybody is like this, unless I suppose you can find yourself a black transgender parapalegic who is also poor, ugly, and fat with a speech disability... you get my point here. If you really want to be serious about pushing for the oppressed vs. oppressor worldview here you gotta take into account everything: class, looks, gender, disability, sexuality, height, family history, etc. After that's done you gotta weight their respective importances: How oppressed is someone who is poor but genetically gifted? How about rich but ugly and short? Who does the weighing is a big sticking point here.

The reality is that basically everybody is oppressed in one way another. Nobody is just a member of a given social class or just a person with a disability or just a good-looking person who therefore has everything in life easy for them. All of this should lead us to considering others on the level of the individual which will always blur this black-and-white notion of oppressed/oppressor The individual contains multitudes and trying to reduce those multitudes so everyone can fit neatly into one of two categories is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

The invention of writing, according to the Communist Manifesto. That's what was meant. (Footnote by Engels on page 1.) — Xtrix

Oh thanks I didn't know that.

I think class struggles is one of those factors that is particularly important in studying human history, for these reasons. — Xtrix

It's interesting to me that you say "class struggles" here as opposed to just "class background" or something like that. Do you see Western society as first and foremost characterized by class struggle? It's one thing to recognize class differences and differences in outlook that emerge from that, it's another to describe the class system as a "struggle." Maybe you're seeing something that I am not. I understand that everyone would like more money and we may feel envious, but why consider someone rich an enemy?

When does history begin? — Bitter Crank

Are you asking me or Marx? If I'm trying to put in a good defense for Marx here I'd say the arrival of homo sapiens, which have always lived in communities. Sure these communities may not have had economies in the sense that we have, but they still needed to ask themselves questions concerning resource distribution and storing resources vs. consuming them immediately. I think humans have always had to make economic choices.

His is at least an interesting proposal to think about. — Bitter Crank

Certainly. It was always my understanding that agriculture allowed for the ancient city-state to flourish. It also tied people to the land. I've never heard that it was a conspiracy but it's an interesting idea.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Well, maybe not. We have had hierarchies of prowess, holiness, wealth, strength, and so forth, Classes, if you will, a long time. But to collapse 12,000 years of settled life and then say that what was going on in the wake of the industrial revolution in the 19th century characterizes all of history could be, perhaps, possibly, BOGUS. A mistake. Error. Over-generalization.

(Ok, off to the firing squad with you, Crank -- this is totally heretical and anti-revolutionary thought.) — Bitter Crank

It's been a while since I've read Marx but I think he does dig into history to try to push for his thesis, like for instance he talks about feudalism at some length. I certainly think one could account for human history in economic terms, as Marx does, but it would seem incomplete.

But yeah, you may not be a rank-and-file Marxist. Off to the firing squad.