homeostasis requires profit to achieve — Garrett Travers

Homeostasis has nothing to do with profit. You wish to invoke "profits" in the definition, that's your prerogative.

Homeostasis, a desire for food, etc.
— Xtrix

Your words exactly. — Garrett Travers

"X, y, etc.," does not imply y=x.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

Yes, you used words to describe something that wasn't homeostasis. — Garrett Travers

I didn't once describe homeostasis, so the above is meaningless.

The people being bribed are the "masters"?
— Xtrix

Yes — Garrett Travers

:lol: OK!

Meaning, I care more about people than anyone you know, including yourself. — Garrett Travers

Good for you! Well done.

Seems to me that Russia has a much greater justification for invading Ukraine than the US did for invading Iraq.

That's not homeostasis. — Garrett Travers

I didn't once offer a definition, so this statement is meaningless.

Scraps are profit. And perhaps they should try harder and live more virtuously. — Garrett Travers

:lol:

I don't let those who bribe others off the hook. Again, you're welcome to.
— Xtrix

No, just their masters. — Garrett Travers

The people being bribed are the "masters"?

You're derailing.

But in actuality is the greatest murder of the human in history. — Garrett Travers

According to a simplistic dogma that blames any and all problems on governments.

It doesn't, and I don't care about the world outside in terms of other people. — Garrett Travers

It does, and we're all well aware that you don't care about other people -- but thank you for clarifying.

You and all other humans are almost exclusively dominated by a desire for homeostasis, you are a functionally profit-seeking being. — Garrett Travers

Homeostasis, a desire for food, etc., has nothing to do with profit. Nothing. If you want to define profit in some other way, you're welcome to.

all people who have things are benefitted by profit. — Garrett Travers

A small minority benefit from profit. The rest get scraps.

Not the people tempted to offer the bribe because of some perception of fear. — Garrett Travers

I don't let those who bribe others off the hook. Again, you're welcome to.

Blaming the government in every instance is, as I've talked with you about before, too simplistic. It's an incomplete analysis. But one with an important function: to divert attention from the decisions of private power.
— Xtrix

There is no private power, there is only state institutionalized power. — Garrett Travers

There is private power, and it's unaccountable. State power is accountable to the people, in principle. In corporations, there isn't a vote for CEO among the employees. They're private tyrannies. We can find a way to blame the state for the decisions of private power, but again -- simplistic, incomplete analysis.

The money in my bank account in no way relates to anyone else. — Garrett Travers

It does.

Because there's a world outside the self.

Valuing money is not what is leading to destruction, valuing destruction is — Garrett Travers

I doubt very much that the CEOs of Chavron or Exxon "value destruction." They're helping to destroy he environment, yes -- but that's not because they value destroying it. Their destroying it is a consequence of short-term thinking, spurred on by a system that demands greater share prices each quarter.

Profits are what benefits people — Garrett Travers

A small minority of people, yes. The environment and the rest of the population -- not so much.

Meaning, there is no distinction between people, and the pursuit of profits in function, and also nothing wrong with profit. — Garrett Travers

There is a very clear distinction between people and the concept of profits. I don't know what the above sentence is supposed to mean.

There is something wrong with profit when profit gets prioritized over human well being, yes. As we see over and over again, with the examples I mentioned.

The lobbying you mention would not be possible if law makers, who are representatives of the monopoly on force that is actually the core "of this rot," wern't there to be bought from rich people seeking to avoid competition through government protections against said competition. — Garrett Travers

That's one part of the story, yes. We can blame the weak-willed bride-takers. We can also blame those who bribe. You seem much more reluctant to do the latter.

Blaming the government in every instance is, as I've talked with you about before, too simplistic. It's an incomplete analysis. But one with an important function: to divert attention from the decisions of private power.

There is also no evidence whatsoever that market "competition" will solve any issue, let alone all issues (as is often claimed). Market efficiency, in my view, is a myth -- much like free markets.

When you live in a socioeconomic system that chooses to value money and property over everything else, these issues are mere symptoms.
— Xtrix

Money and property is the recognition of individual value. — Garrett Travers

Money and property have nothing to do with a human being's value.

But even if it were true, the ranking of money and property over everything else, as mentioned above, is leading, and will continue to lead, to massive destruction.

There's a social world outside of the self.

The US has far more guns than nearly any other country, per capita. The gun manufacturing industry, with their propaganda and lobbying, is behind it. Which only means, as usual, the valuing of profits over people is at the core of this rot.

Same with tobacco, same with sugar, same with fossil fuels, same with opioids, same with hundreds of other examples. When you live in a socioeconomic system that chooses to value money and property over everything else, these issues are mere symptoms.

Philosophy and religion -- though neither are well defined -- care about (i.e., ask questions about) similar things, like what human beings are, what the ultimate reality is, what truth is, what is good, how to live a good life, what happens when we die, etc. Where "religion" seems to separate from philosophy (and science) is in its openness to change. It gives answers, and from then on stops questioning. It bases the rest of its system on these indisputable axioms.

In Christianity, there's a certain set of beliefs one must have to be entitled to label oneself a Christian. Likewise in Buddhism and other religions.

Similar things can be said about schools of thought in philosophy. Platonism, Aristotelianism, etc. In this case, these too can be considered quasi-religious.

Others will say the defining feature of religion is that it is faith-based. But philosophy itself takes many things for granted before it gets off the ground. Most of our actions in life are also faith-based in many ways.

I think it's more useful to look at the questions being asked, and in the end giving up words like philosophy, science, and religion. They've mostly been a nuisance. Instead, we should focus more on questions like "What do you want to do with your life?", "How can one contribute to the world?", "What am I?", etc. Whether one is "doing" philosophy or religion or science or whatever makes no real difference, in my view.

One day you'll cite someone other than Chomsky, and then you'll be allowed to talk. — StreetlightX

Would it be helpful if I quoted linguists who follow Chomsky’s program? I could do so, but I don’t see any need to yet. My understanding of his thought is enough to recognize Dor’s (and, I assume, your own) characterization is completely wrong. So there’s no need to go into technical detail (where I do not have sufficient knowledge), and thus no reason to cite scholars outside Chomsky.

So the comment about reading outside the few scholars you have cited (all prominent critics of Chomsky, one which you have quoted in the past a borderline fraud), while snarky, also happens to be accurate. Doesn’t matter if they were 100 in number — if they misread Chomsky they misread Chomsky. What can I say?

Maybe some of them really do destroy Chomsky’s theories. Fine. I’d have to look at the details and responses, etc— all that I mentioned before. But when you cite Dor, and apparently endorse a comment like

all that is left is the original assumption of infinite generativity—the idea that everything we ever do and experience, which is finite by definition, is always an arbitrary obstacle on our way toward the fulfillment and understanding of our infinite linguistic potential.

then a technical analysis isn’t required. All that’s required is knowing what Chomsky actually says.

And it’s not this. Why?

Because what we “do and experience” does matter, just as what we see matters. And just as there are biological and physical principles involved in vision, there are also principles involved in language.

Chomsky believes there is such a thing as human nature. Perhaps this is wrong. But if it isn’t wrong, then it’s hard to argue (in my view) that language isn’t part of that nature— and an important part. Maybe thinking and awareness are also important parts (I tend to think so). But if we’re approaching these phenomena scientifically, we’re approaching them physically (chemically, biologically), in terms of theory. That’s what Chomsky is doing, and that’s why Chomsky is a scientist.

The best criticism I see is that of unfalsifiability, to be honest. What he’s really doing is applying logic/ mathematics to language. If we reduce language to a simple operation (merge), that may make sense — but only if we first agree with the mathematicalization. Perhaps that’s the wrong emphasis.

But that’s a larger discussion to be had.

[@Manuel I tagged you here to get your thoughts as well, if interested.]

Damn, that was a long forum.... These are gonna get longer. Wanna move this chat to private? No pressure. — Garrett Travers

Agreed. That's fine with me. It'll take me a little bit to respond in any detail, but after reading your response I think the basic issue has become clearer, and one I touched on earlier: the source of the problems. Again and again you come back to governments. What I'm arguing is that we have to look at who controls the government. When you look at that, I think it's pretty clear who does. But it's not the people. Tom Ferguson has done interesting work on this, in terms of what policies are enacted.

So if the government is the problem, and the government is actually controlled by capitalists....then I think it's clear as to where we should look.

Well, there are birth restrictions, and active on-going genocide, forced poverty, ideological suppression, just to name a couple things that should serve the purpose. — Garrett Travers

These aren't metrics. True, there are birth restrictions and suppression of information. I assume by genocide you're referring to the Uyghurs. The US knows all about crimes against humanity, of course -- especially to Muslims. As far as forced poverty goes -- not sure what you're referring to, considering they've lifted 700+ million people out of poverty (per the World Bank) and Xi's government has spent billions attempting to pull even more out of poverty -- and apparently has succeeded.

Again, plenty of terrible things to say about China. Plenty of terrible things to say about the US as well. Who's "far worse"? I'd prefer to live in the United States, myself -- but just because I'm a citizen and feel that way doesn't prove or disprove anything. In many respects, China has been a huge success and is currently outpacing the United States in many metrics.

the proper way of saying that is: to the degree that China has exapanded rights of property and the freedom of markets to operate naturally, is the exact degree to which people in China have been lifted out of poverty. It isn't Capitalism, much closer to Fascism, or Socialism (as administered by the state). — Garrett Travers

The level of state intervention in the Chinese economy is overwhelming. There are no free markets. China has opened trade with the world, which was a smart move -- but they're still an authoritarian regime. And a very successful one, unfortunately. The world is a complex place -- even good things came out of Nazism, for example. Yes, we can pretend that nothing good came out of it, but that's emotion speaking.

True, we can attribute their success to capitalism somehow, or to the small degree that they were capitalist, or to "free markets," or the approaching of free markets, or whatever else we want to claim -- but I anticipated that already. That's simply motivated reasoning. There's no evidence for it, and nothing that can be used to disprove it. So it's a religious belief, an economic dogma. The faith in efficient markets really does parallel Christian faith in this regard.

It's like arguing "China has lifted 700 million out of poverty, therefore their market must be 40% free." It's just lunacy. We have to do better than this. Not liking China is no excuse for irrationality any more than arguing the Volkswagen didn't come out of the Nazi regime, but out of the degree to which they were _____. (Christian, capitalist, altruists, whatever.)

There isn't single Capitalist that I know of, that assesses these issues rationally, that doesn't have a problem with the above highlighted conscerns. However, I will remind you that the tactics that are put in place that allow such companies to not only grow to that size, but to comport themselves in the manner in question are generated by the state, and the state funds them and protects them in doing so. Free Market businesses and corps with those kinds of standards would be phased out in almost no time at all as a result of competition. As it currently stands, Corps are the protected class and the State is the ruling class that protects and authorizes them. — Garrett Travers

I'm not sure about the first part. They may be decent people otherwise, but I don't think you can be rational about any of this if you're a "believer" in capitalism. It's simply the nature of the game: you make profits for your company, preferably each week but definitely each quarter, or you're out. You're out as CEO, you're out as board chairman, you're acquired by other companies, you're attacked by hedge funds, etc. Remember the Friedman Doctrine: the sole responsibility of a corporation is to make a profit. We see the results. To the point where even in the face of an environmental disaster, the fossil fuel industry is still fighting to keep the industry alive -- for obvious reasons.

As to the second part, what you're stating is the efficient market hypothesis. With a free market, and free competition, everything will sort itself out naturally. There's zero evidence for this, historical or otherwise. It's at best simply hypothetical -- at worst a complete fantasy which enormous harm has been done in the name of.

Corporate America is the ruling class -- that's how wealth organizes itself, in the multinational corporation. It's here that the real power lies -- because they essentially own the state. We can say they're "protected," yes -- but they're protected for a reason. They weren't always as protected as they are today. But take a look at the cost of political campaigns -- especially since Citizens United. It's skyrocketed. Pretty obvious what the results will be.

Now true, we can blame the government. But to me that's kind of like blaming the puppet. The real power in America comes from concentrations of wealth. The rest -- politicians included -- become their employees. That's capitalism for you.

That's capitalism. It's based in private ownership and private profit. The less its regulated -- i.e., moving more towards "freedom" of the market -- the worse things get for the rest of the country, as we see in the neoliberal era. Global warming is one example -- but there are countless others. Quite apart from politics, something is going awry. It's just that people blame it on different things. One side says it's the government, the deep state, the bureaucracy, or the liberals; the other side says it's the Republican party, the 1%, etc.
— Xtrix

Well, no, it isn't, because they are funded via taxation of state created fiat currency controlled and manipulated by both the Fed and Congress. — Garrett Travers

What does the "they" refer to? Who's funded by taxation?

I can't really make heads or tails of this statement. It's true we have fiat currency and that the Fed controls monetary policy (the money supply, interest rates, etc)...but I'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote above.

Not to mention the protections and contracts and anti-trust and patent laws. Far from Capitalism, my friend. — Garrett Travers

Not sure why anti-trust laws are in there, but yes -- the state allows capitalism to go on. We're a mixed economy, as are almost all nations on earth. It provides the foundation of capitalism -- in private ownership. I don't see how that's "far from capitalism." Rand herself argues for protections of contracts as a function of government.

You're just kind of losing me here, I guess. I've provided a definition of capitalism I think is reasonable. It's based in private ownership, private profit, and unique in its employer (owner) / employee (worker) relationship. That's what separates it from other systems in history -- because we've had all kinds of systems, just as we've had all kinds of governments.

Dirigisme, that's what you're identifying. — Garrett Travers

Neoliberalism is hardly dirigisme. The New Deal era perhaps (I wouldn't agree, but that's when you had much more regulation, more unions, more robust welfare programs, etc) -- but certainly not the last 40 years. And it was the last 40 years I was identifying.

Coming back again and again to blaming the state is exactly what I'm trying to show you doesn't work. The analysis simply breaks down. If the argument that less regulation, more privatization, less taxes, smaller government, etc. -- the neoliberal program -- is a good one (based on Rand and Friedman's principles), as it provides for freer markets (not totally free, but more free than the decades prior), then we should be seeing proportional results -- the kind you mentioned earlier when trying to account for China's success with poverty.

The results of the last 40 years has been a disaster. I could go through the specifics if you like, but if you compare the era from the 40s-70s to the 80s-today, the results may surprise you. One era you had what Friedman and Rand railed against (the New Deal policies), the other you had policies they advocated for. You say the latter is dirigisme makes me wonder: what ISN'T dirigisme? Has it ever existed? Has it even come close to existing? When? Where?

And the only time in 20 years we've moved away from heavy, deep regulation was under Trump, and it wasn't near enought to stop the Fascism slowly approaching. — Garrett Travers

Trump was continuing what had been going on for decades, beginning with Reagan -- who did far more damage than Trump, in many ways.

They also thought they could provide for their people, with all that juicy money coming from the oil fields. What happens when people stop buying, when America goes oil independent? Then everything falls apart and everyone loses their minds. — Garrett Travers

You mean when the US imposes severe sanctions? Yes, it's pretty obvious to anyone what would happen.

Saying capitalism is a "domain that recognizes" is incoherent to me. You're defining it out of any relevance. Capitalism is a socioeconomic system, one based on private ownership and unique in its relationship between employers and employees. Like feudalism before it, we have a different organization of power.
— Xtrix

No, my friend, these are Socialist lies. — Garrett Travers

It has nothing to do with socialism. It's also not a "lie," it's a definition. I'm not claiming it's "the" definition -- capitalism, like socialism, is a complex word. Many interpretations, no doubt. I'm offering one, and not an uncommon one -- actually pretty standard -- and willing to explain it further. So I'm not sure where this comment is coming from, or why what I said is so threatening as to make it.

The Feudal system was NOT an ecomic relationship between people, it was a power hierarchy predicated on brute force and the Divine Right of Kings to rule. — Garrett Travers

A power hierarchy doesn't involve relationships between people? The very heart of feudalism was the relationship between a lord and a vassal. The divine right of kings is somewhat related. As for brute force, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Force was a factor there as well, but not central.

Maybe an outside source can help a little:

Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was the combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs that flourished in Medieval Europe between the 9th and 15th centuries. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships that were derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor.

(Wikipedia)

The land was called a fief, which is where feudalism gets its name. Manorialism plays a big role, and so on.

It was one system. Slavery is another system. There are all kinds of socioeconomic/political systems. My point in bringing it up was to contrast it to capitalism, which is a different socioeconomic system. It grew up out of the middle ages and took off in the industrial revolution.

I don't think any of this is controversial.

Capitalism is NOT a power dynamic, but many hierarchies — Garrett Travers

Feudalism had many hierarchies as well. Hierarchies are structures of power, and involve power dynamics -- almost by definition.

There are all kinds of gradations of rank in every society. Capitalism is no different in this respect. But instead of a king at the top -- as with monarchy -- or with masters and lords as in slavery or feudalism, respectively, we have a different hierarchy. Who's at the top? Well, to make it concrete, let's look at a corporation. Who's at the top of a corporation? Yes, the CEO -- but also the chairman of the board of directors. The board of directors are voted in by the shareholders (one share, one vote -- so especially the major shareholders). These are the owners (technically, not legally the owners, but de facto owners).

So one could argue it's the shareholders, the board of directors, and perhaps the CEO and a handful of other executives. That's really not many people -- maybe 50? In a corporation that employs hundreds, thousands, even millions of people -- that's the top of the pyramid.

What are "employers"? Just another word for owners, really. Who owns the corporation? The public? No -- they're owned by private individuals.

So there you go. That, in my view, is the heart of capitalism. It's a system based in private ownership. The corporation is the example I use because it's the primary form of organization today. They're owned and controlled privately -- not through the government. The state can regulate and legislate, no doubt -- but for the last 40 years it's been the opposite: de-regulation, tax cuts, etc. Not to mention subsidies and bailouts. The state works for the corporate sector -- for the owners of this country.

Look at the word "capitalist," which pre-dates the word capitalism, and it begins to become clear. A capitalist is an owner of capital. Again, it's about ownership -- but private ownership. Marx says the private ownership of the "means of protection," a particular kind of property, but I like to just say private property generally.

The closest examples that we have of Feudalism in the modern world are North Korea and Saudi Arabia, to name a couple. Those are NOT free market societies. — Garrett Travers

True -- Saudi Arabia is a mixed economy. Sweden is a mixed economy. Germany is a mixed economy. Brazil is a mixed economy.

There are no free markets. If free markets is how you're defining capitalism, then it doesn't exist any more than a communist utopia exists.

So saying something isn't a free market society is pointless. The United States isn't a free market society either.

Here is the definition of Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. — Garrett Travers

Well, fine -- that's kind of what I was saying earlier -- with the important qualification that, again, there is state intervention on nearly every level in the United States, China, German, Japan, India, etc. That is, there are no free markets and the owners of capital don't have complete control over trade and industry -- the state plays a huge role. So if capitalism is a system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners, then capitalism exists exactly nowhere.

But yes, private ownership, private property, private profit -- those are essential features of capitalism. The relationship between owners and their wage-workers, their employees, is a unique one in history. The owner is not a lord, is not a king, is not a clergy -- his power comes from his ownership of property, of capital. He owns the land, the factories, the equipment, the means of production, etc., and gives some of his/her money (not protection from harm, not from the devil) to the worker in exchange for their labor. This is the game, the rules of the game.

That game -- that system -- is capitalism.

As far as stock buy-backs, that isn't an issue. Stock buy-backs do nothing to the bottom line that workers recieve, or anything like that. — Garrett Travers

This is just factually wrong. It has in fact impacted the bottom line of workers. It's partly why wages have stagnated. There's a lot of good, non-partisan scholarship on this, in fact. Happy to give references. The numbers are astounding -- trillions of dollars in buybacks in the last couple decades. Companies often issue debt to finance buybacks -- and so the debt picture is looking very bad indeed. It's been sustained temporarily by QE, but it's not pretty.

Why do they do this? Why buy back stocks? What good does it do? Ask yourself.

You might recall the printing-press and the reformation that followed, of which the Earth still holds echo. — Garrett Travers

There's no doubt technology is playing a huge role. My only point was that this discontent pre-dates a lot of the more recent, and more troubling, technology (iPhones, social media, etc.).

China is much, much worse. — Garrett Travers

On what metric? Let's be concrete. I agree -- I wouldn't want to live there -- but a lot has been overblown, while ignoring the good (it's often said that "capitalism has risen more people out of poverty than any system", for example, when it's overwhelmingly China that's responsible for this -- is that "capitalism"?).

Yeah but this ignores that we live in a community. To speak of individual rights is fine, but we also have an impact on others around us -- every choice we make. In some ways, even the guy who goes to live in a cave is having an impact on others.
— Xtrix

No, it is specifically this concession that allows for the existence of community. If you respect the sovereign boundaries of your fellow human, community emerges as a by-product, and so does respect and empathy for one's circumstances. Sovereignty is the cover charge to peaceful society. — Garrett Travers

Recognizing others as human beings is a good thing. I'm not disputing that. I'm talking about externalities. Individuality fine; trade is fine. I wouldn't exclusively raise both to the level that Rand does, but no doubt they're important and have been part of human existence for a long time indeed.

What I'm talking about is externalities. I may do something that's good for me, or for my company -- or may make a trade that's beneficial to me and another person. What doesn't get considered in all this are the effects to third parties. Pollution is a good example, as is climate change. Right now we're heading to disaster with the warming planet. Why? Because fossil fuel companies, using the same tactics as the tobacco companies, have successfully delayed any transition away from their products -- all for short term profits. Can we fault them when they're doing what companies (supposedly) are required to do?

That's capitalism. It's based in private ownership and private profit. The less its regulated -- i.e., moving more towards "freedom" of the market -- the worse things get for the rest of the country, as we see in the neoliberal era. Global warming is one example -- but there are countless others. Quite apart from politics, something is going awry. It's just that people blame it on different things. One side says it's the government, the deep state, the bureaucracy, or the liberals; the other side says it's the Republican party, the 1%, etc.

Providing for the general welfare does not mean forced federal taxation to pay for any social cause statists can get their hands on — Garrett Travers

Nor does it mean taxation to pay for what Rand considers proper functions of government -- protecting private property, law enforcement, courts, etc. I didn't agree to that. You have no right taking my money to pay for those things either. Can't have it both ways. As long as their is taxation, however, and billions are spent on military funding and corporate America, I think we can take a page from other countries and provide national healthcare as well, etc. Given especially that we're the wealthiest country on earth (or maybe that's China now -- but we're close).

You want to make it sound like private property costs me nothing because the state doesn't protect it, private owners do. But in the case of land -- leaving personal property aside -- the state is constantly reinforcing contracts. If you own the land, the state allows you to protect it and not get put in prison, for example. And, of course, they provide military to protect the entire country, and all the property within it.

Private property, again, isn't free. Rand recognizes this too, she just thinks it's a proper role of government. The founders had every reason to believe this to. Fine. It's in the constitution. But so is the promotion of the general welfare -- which they also recognized is very important.

We have millions of Americans in poverty, with stagnating wages and massive debt, rampant drug abuse, etc. To argue it's unfair for our money to be "stolen" and go to charitable causes -- because that's coercion -- and not also note that it's equally unjust for our money to go to protecting private property and military expenditures, is just hypocrisy. If this is what your philosophy leads you to, you should recognize something has gone wrong along the way. Like a math problem, it's worth going back and checking your work. Everything may have looked fine, but clearly the results are wrong.

Anything positive is because of the free market and capitalism.
— Xtrix

It's not like I wish it to be that way, my friend. It simply is that way. — Garrett Travers

But it really isn't. If this is truly what you believe, then you're on par with a Christian who claims everything good is a result of Christianity. "It simply is that way." While we can easily see that Christianity has also done untold harm, he or she cannot.

Being a believer in free markets and a version of capitalism that precludes any possibility of failure is an unfalsifiable dogma.

I would ask for examples, but I can anticipate what they'd be. The example of China is a good one. A communist country. Yet they've pulled millions out of poverty. Why? Capitalism. So China is a good country? No, they're very bad. Why? Communism.

It's just not serious.

The fact is that there are no free markets, and never have been. It's a nice theory that one day, if ever we achieve truly free markets, we'll have wonderful results -- but it hasn't happened yet. Under that rationalization, in fact, we've done far worse -- that's the last 40 years. Compared to the prior 30 years, under a more center program (Keynesian policies) -- there's no contest.

Capitalism is nothing more than a domain that recognizes the right of every individual to accrue, exchange, and produce private property. It is inherently anti-state. Systems that show any disregard to this model, predicated on anything other than protecting the citizens from harm, are in direct violation of Capitalism. I just described every single state that has ever existed. It is the state that sanctioned slavery, it is the state that caused the depression, it was states the ground 100mill humans into nothingness in the last century, and so on... That was not the recognition of every human to own and trade and produce private property. It was the exact opposite. Even simple taxation is the violation of Capitalism, as my private funds that are my property are stolen from me without recourse, involuntarily, and with no hope of negotiation. I could go all day on this topic.

Saying capitalism is a "domain that recognizes" is incoherent to me. You're defining it out of any relevance. Capitalism is a socioeconomic system, one based on private ownership and unique in its relationship between employers and employees. Like feudalism before it, we have a different organization of power.

To argue that the state causes slavery, the depression, etc. -- Here again, because there's never been free markets, it's easy to make the claim. Mostly untrue, but there's some truth to it (the Fed's monetary policy after the crash was a factor, etc).

But what about corporate allocation of profits? How is the state responsible for those decisions? They're not. This is one area which I mentioned specifically for the very reason that the state plays no role. It's up to the board of directors of these institutions. So why all the stock buybacks? If we say it's because the government, the SEC under Reagan and guided by Friedman ideas, changed the rules -- then yes, you're mostly right. So I guess in that case we should re-implement the regulations that were in place prior to 1982? Or is that anti-free market?

Can't have it both ways.

Discontent? The internet. This always happens in history when a mass communicative paradigme shift occurs. — Garrett Travers

I think the discontent goes far beyond the Internet. The Internet -- particularly social media -- has exaggerated it, but the feelings have been brewing for years. Which isn't a surprise when you look at the numbers. Look at real wages, at debt, at the cost of education and home ownership, at healthcare outcomes, at the enormous transfer of money from the bottom 90% to the top 10% over 40 years (something like 50 trillion dollars, according to the RAND corporation), etc. Yeah, it's no wonder people are pissed -- left, right, and center.

And no, they do not go on just fine. They've been the conductors of multiple genocides and millions of people live in squaler and heartache. — Garrett Travers

Yes, plus endless wars, overwhelming inequality, global hegemony keeping many nations oppressed, etc.

And China's pretty bad too.

Okay, now were getting somehwere. Alright, so you grant one, that rights are inalienable. — Garrett Travers

Well there's a lot to say about that, but yes for the sake of argument, let's grant that's true.

To reiterate, you maintain your rights when not violating the rights of others. — Garrett Travers

Yeah but this ignores that we live in a community. To speak of individual rights is fine, but we also have an impact on others around us -- every choice we make. In some ways, even the guy who goes to live in a cave is having an impact on others.

The basic concepts here are individualism, ownership, rights, and the priority of rights. I've come to see that the greater good, our fellow human beings -- both here and around the world -- is much more important. Not because I'm altruistic, but because it also affects me. A good example is the pandemic. What is it our business to worry about whether other countries get vaccines? I think it's obvious why.

But even within this country, I think the fear of fascism and authoritarianism, which is no doubt a rational fear, has led to the development of these ideas you subscribe to -- those articulated by Rand, Friedman, Hayek and others -- and the implementation of which has led to some terrible results. Now that could be as unfair as saying Stalinism represents "communism" or Marxian thought -- which I think is true. Regardless, look at the outcomes. Something clearly isn't working in this neoliberal era.

It is not and never has been the purpose of Laissez-Faire to lead to anything other than the freedom of individuals to produce as they see fit, granted they respect the rights of others. That is the only point to Capitalism. Not that it is going to produce all these great things, which, it simply happens to. — Garrett Travers

Well if they've never been tried, it's hard to make that claim. Perhaps they would, by some invisible hand, etc., but that's purely theoretical.

But like I mentioned, it's arguable whether free markets can even conceivably exist. I don't think they can -- but that's neither here nor there. The fact is that they haven't yet been tried, and that the world's economies are mostly mixed economies.

I also reject the values. So even if we grant free markets can exist and, if they did, would naturally lead to desirable societal outcomes, I would still object to he system. I object to slavery for this reason as well, regardless of whether all parties involved are happy.

I happen to be an anarchist, myself. As far as I am concerened, states, all of them, have lost there right to exist long ago. — Garrett Travers

So perhaps anarcho-capitalist or something like that. Fine -- we agree about the state. In the meantime, while we live with the state (at least a centrally controlled state), we can ask what its function should be. Namely, I don't agree with ...

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

I think we can and should ask more of our collective efforts than this.

But even if Rand (or, better and more serious in my view, Friedman) is correct -- it's all theoretical. That may very well be the goal -- just as communists have a goal -- but the fact is that it hasn't been tried (or if it has, no one will admit it)...what we have are policies that lean more right or left. And for the last 40 years, and currently, we're living in a neoliberal era -- an era of the "Washington consensus." That's moving away from the New Deal, Keynesian policy (the era of Bretten Woods, Glass Steagall, etc.) and towards the right. How has it turned out compared to that era? If you look at it, it doesn't look good. And I think the ideas of Friedman and others are used to rationalize nothing more than conservative, corporate power.

I think what's required is abolishing capitalism altogether. It's done enormous harm as a socioeconomic system.

One thing I can say about markets, they have never produced such carnage or tragedy outside of state influence. — Garrett Travers

They've only existed with state influence. So yes, if we blame slavery, the crash of '29 and the depression, the crash of 1907, the crash of 1987, the crash of 2008, etc., the monopolies we see today and throughout history, the stagnant wages, the outsourcing of jobs, the shuttering of factories, the financialization of the economy, the massive CEO compensations and stock buybacks, etc., to the state -- then that's simply selection bias. Anything that happens that's negative...that's because of the state. Anything positive is because of the free market and capitalism.

But at best that's an incomplete analysis. The state isn't the one deciding what to do with the gargantuan profits of corporate America. Sure, they bail them out and subsidize them, but they don't mandate net earnings allocation. That's handled by the owners of the companies. When all one cares about is profit, we see over and over again how externalities are ignored.

Lastly, even if we attribute all negatives to state action preventing the free market from working its theoretical wonders, the question is: who runs the state? Are the people advocating for bailouts, tax breaks, subsidies, and favorable legislation? Hardly. The people are not being listened to, except at the periphery. As I said before, it's not the people that write the laws -- it's the thousands of lobbyists representing corporate America.

Corporate America -- and every good capitalist -- knows very well that they need the state. They need the laws, the protection, the infrastructure, the subsidized labor, the handling of externalities, the bailouts and the favorable monetary policy of the Fed. They also know that when things go wrong, the people get angry, and revolution is always a possibility. They're not stupid. So who's to blame for the widespread discontent? Easy answer: the government! The president. The congress. Corrupt politicians. And we see that. It's Trump, or Ted Cruz, or Obama, or Biden, or whoever. I rarely hear the average American talk about Jamie Dimon or Larry Fink, or the Business Roundtable, or ALEC, or the WEF, etc. There's stirrings of it a little more these days, after Occupy and the Tea Party, but that's a fraction. Both the mainstream left and right put all of their attention on the government. I think it's all a mistake if we ignore the major powers that control the government.

I'll ask you, do you see how we're far more compatible than dissimilar? I'd like you to. — Garrett Travers

We all have commonalities. I think we want similar outcomes, but I'm not sure we both see eye to eye on what the problems are and what the causes of these problems are. So solutions will also be skewed because of this, despite both wanting freedom, justice, etc.

Just for fun....

No one has claimed security guards are “law.” Quite the opposite in fact. The law is what grants property rights— in the real world. True, they could be handed down from Zeus— but that’s irrelevant.
— Xtrix

No, the law recognizes that my property rights are not to be violated, as there are no rights without property rights. It doesn't grant me them, it recognizes them. The founders of this country made that explicitly clear. — Garrett Travers

As if property rights are handed down by God. Irrelevant. What is relevant is that they're legal rights granted and enforced by states -- i.e., a gift from states.

Private property cannot exist without a political system that defines its existence, its use, and the conditions of its exchange. That is, private property is defined and exists only because of politics.

Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science.

There are plenty of "rights" without property rights. There's no private property in China, for example, yet they go on just fine anyway.

I suppose if we define property as literally anything, then you can get your answer in one step. But I was assuming we're talking about the real world. In the real world, we can talk about legality. What's much harder to discuss is rights as "natural" or "God-given" or something of that sort.

You may have your feelings about government, that's fine by me. What is not fine by me is you, or anyone else, choosing for me. — Garrett Travers

Like I said at the beginning -- if states (governments) can grant property rights (and patent rights, and corporate personhood, etc), which allows for the massive wealth inequality and hoarding of resources that we see, they can also grant the right to the basic human needs of its citizens. Which, it turns out, is good for everyone. To deny the latter and keep the former is pure hypocrisy.

When you give that authority to the state, it uses such authority to double the harm for every good it does. You know this just as I do. — Garrett Travers

No, because I don't accept the doctrine that "government is the problem." There's plenty to criticize about governments, no doubt. But there's no reason to believe they're inherently evil -- if they work for the people, they can work for the greater good and, in fact, often do. The United States government "of the people" should be responsive to those people -- and it usually isn't. That's a problem. Why isn't it? Because they (the people making up the government) have been bought. It really is that simple. Plenty of good scholarship on this. I think we all agree.

The belief that government is the problem, and the libertarian claims about "freedom" ("free enterprise," "free markets," "free trade," etc.; in its highest and most clever form embodied by Milton Friedman), ends up serving the special interests of corporate America. This is the problem in my view. While we're busy blaming everything on big government, as we have for at least 40 years, nearly everything -- except corporate power -- has gotten worse. Look at any economic metric. Stocks are way up, no doubt -- but that proves the point when you look at who the major shareholders are.

So if we want to be serious about the problems we face, we can't say "business is the problem" any more than saying "government is the problem." It's just not that simple.

Except they aren't. They're recognized by law — Garrett Travers

It is not a concept that requires law. — Garrett Travers

OK, let me parse this a little. There are two things we're talking about here:

(1) Property rights -- or any rights -- as natural, inalienable, God-given, etc. The argument being that they exist one way or another, objectively and factually, regardless of the existence of a nation-state or laws.

(2) Property rights -- or any rights -- as legal entities.

I'm talking about (2). We could argue about (1), but I'm willing to grant it. In which case, whether states "recognize" or "grant" rights is irrelevant. What's relevant is that they create the legal right. Perhaps the Native Americans had "rights" to the land they inhabited for centuries -- I would argue there's something to that. Did they have legal rights? Unfortunately no. That doesn't mean they didn't fight for their lands -- of course they did.

So the point, again, is simple: since private property is a legal right, and this legal right (which can be upheld in court and protected by the state if needs be) is granted by the law, and the law is created and enforced by a government (in our case, the constitution and the military/law enforcement respectively), then why not also "recognize" or grant legal rights of "life" (i.e., sufficient conditions for living)? The preamble to the constitution mentions the "general welfare." I think we should take both very seriously -- not simply one over the other.

We can claim that government's recognition of property rights is more basic than the others. I don't agree with that. And, since we're all citizens of this country, and pay into the government, all of us are supporting the government -- the government which also grants legal property rights. So I'm helping to protect the property rights of Berkshire Hathaway, the patent rights of Pfizer, the landholdings of BlackRock, the legal personhood of corporations, the grotesque military budget, etc. Why is that perfectly fine, but giving checks to those in poverty isn't?

I guess it's just a matter of what we believe the function of government should be. I think it should serve the people's interests and promote the common good.

How about this, you stop insulting me, and I'll quit insulting you, and let's have this discussion and see if we can't work something out? — Garrett Travers

Fair enough. It's less time consuming to be a punk, but I'll try.

You already know where I'm coming from: I follow the precepts of Stoicism, Objectivism, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics; and I generally get where you're coming from, a general left leaning perspective on social issues and what appears to be basically Deontological Ethics. — Garrett Travers

Like I said before, there's no logically inconsistent about objectivism, in my view. I was into Ayn Rand for a while myself -- and still respect a lot of what she says. But I think her views on capitalism are in part a reaction to her experiences of the Soviet Union, and what was taken as socialism/communism. So she pushed the other way, in favor of laissez-faire -- but that's an ideal, one that has never really been tried, one that may not even be possible, and one where even if implemented could arguably lead to destruction. I don't share the value that competition in the free market leads to all kinds of great things.

And for full disclosure: I think we need to move towards anarchism (in the traditional sense), i.e., democracy all around (including the workplace) and then, in the long run, perhaps a system along the lines Plato discussed in the Republic, or Nietzsche hints about.

It does. Without military, you have no state. Without state, you have no property rights to protect and “enforce” through your security guards.
— Xtrix

Secirty guards aren't law — Garrett Travers

No one has claimed security guards are “law.” Quite the opposite in fact. The law is what grants property rights— in the real world. True, they could be handed down from Zeus— but that’s irrelevant.

None of the above statement changes the fact that I am not responsible for the children other people created and abused, or their healthcare. — Garrett Travers

But our government could be — and should be. I’m happy to see my tax money go there. You aren’t. Fair enough. You and Scrooge would get along very well.

What's been in dispute is the necessity of the state to do so. — Garrett Travers

No, that hasn’t once been in dispute — except while talking to yourself. You brought that irrelevant point up, not me.

“Property rights are granted by states through laws.”

“Yes, but most protect their own property.”

Still wrong, incidentally — but even if true, totally irrelevant.

Sorry that you’re struggling.

You are here sharing, sweetheart, because you have the right. — Garrett Travers

Oh okay. So anything we do, we do because we have the right to. Got it. So if I slept with you wife, I did so because I have the right to. No wait, I don’t have the right to do that. So if I don’t, it’s because I have the right not to. If I speak, it’s because it’s my right. Don’t speak, because it’s my right to remain silent.

Laugh at your ridiculous Nickelodeon views on rights? Also my right. Which I am now exercising.

you will have no business being upset with what anyone does to you, as you have no rights otherwise. — Garrett Travers

Nah, I’ll say and feel what I want. Whether I’ve heard of “rights” or not. Wikipedia the history of rights — fairly interesting. Not as simple as whatever some Russian lady says they are, but still worthwhile.

Take some drugs and think about it, Mike. — NOS4A2

:kiss:

I do, the concept doesn't require the law to enforce it. — Garrett Travers

It does. Without military, you have no state. Without state, you have no property rights to protect and “enforce” through your security guards.

Feeding children and providing healthcare is not any duty of mine, simple as that. — Garrett Travers

Yes— how very Ayn Rand of you. That devil altruism, the real destroyer of worlds.

I’ll go with sharper thinkers, who actually understood the importance of the commons. Like Aristotle. You stick with Rand.

You keep saying the state protects property. So, doesn't matter. What matters is, property does not require the state's protection and isn't protected by law enforecement more than property owners as it currently stands. — Garrett Travers

Totally irrelevant, but also happens to be untrue. Why? Because for the fourth time: states grant the legal right of private property — a state is protected by the military. Regardless of whether BlackRock hires private security guards.

don't expect anyone here to take you seriously. — Garrett Travers

Yes, because *I’m* the one not taken seriously. :lol:

Well done, Mr Trump. “No, YOU’RE the puppet.”

“Rights.” Turns out they’re magic. Who knew!

Wonder how the tribes of Papua New Guinea function without this idea. Or literally everyone prior to the 17th century.

If there are no rights, then you have no business telling us what your opinion is on ethical topic, you've no right to share. — Garrett Travers

Yet here I am sharing it.

So much for that theory.

usual sociopathic manner — Garrett Travers

Well done, Donald Trump. Take a claim that accurately describes your philosophy, then regurgitate it and hope it catches on. So very clever.

You’re a follower of a sociopathic cult. You fool no one.

Go back to sleep NOS. Or go read more Ayn Rand.

Those people objectively accrue and protect their own property. — Garrett Travers

I’m sorry you don’t understand what property rights are, nor apparently what the law is.

Healthcare and something to eat are property, they must be traded for because you do not have the right to the labor of others to provide property for you. — Garrett Travers

Yes, maybe if you repeat Ayn Rand another few times it’ll become true.

You do not have the right to the labor of others to provide you with property rights either. Nor the military to protect you. So like I said, go live in a cave if you don’t want to be part of the civilized world.

Imagine believing that feeding children and providing healthcare for people should be a “trade.”

Objectivism really is a sickness.

Property rights are enforced predominatly by private owners, I have already shown you that. — Garrett Travers

They are not. You’ve shown nothing of the kind — you’ve given a blog about the number of private security. So for the fifth time: that’s not the point.

Property “rights” are legal rights. They may also very well be from God or nature or objective reality or whatever bullshit you want to claim they are. That’s irrelevant. Without a legal claim to land, it’s not your land. Cicero explained this to you. But keep trying — you’ll get it eventually.

Taxes is theft of labor, of which the government steals from both you and I, — Garrett Travers

Yes— anti-politics is the one principle you subscribe to. We get it. The government is the problem. Yawn.

Property is a right granted and enforced by states. The fact that some people (mostly businesses) hire security guards (many of whom are ex cops) on their own is completely irrelevant. Besides, our military, which protects the entire country (and all property within it), is not a private entity— in fact, we all spent 700 billion dollars on it this year alone.
— Xtrix

I don't care if it's enshrined in law, it is protected exponentially more often by private owners. — Garrett Travers

Which is, again, irrelevant. “I don’t care if property rights are enshrined in law.” Excellent argument.

I “protect” my grill and shoes more often than the state. Ditto my street. Cops and FBI rarely come around. What does this have to do with property rights? Ah yes: nothing.

90 pound Russian lady single-handly destroyed your political framework — Garrett Travers

:lol:

Gotta love the objectivist cult. Nothing if not predictable.

Come back to the thread when you have arguments that can withstand scutiny. — Garrett Travers

:yawn:

Yes, sorry I can’t live up to the standard of “I don’t care.”

There are no “rights.” People functioned just fine for thousands of years without this concept. It’s a useful construct, but nothing more.

Now you just need to organize with others who do the same and on a grander scale. — NOS4A2

And push government to do more, which is its proper function.

I recommend you organize with others and build your own roads, in the meantime.



:100:

I actually promote this idea. — Garrett Travers

You’re not promoting anything except plagiarizing Ayn Rand books.

This is objectively false and I have provided you a small article on it. — Garrett Travers

Private property is a gift from the state. I don’t care how many private security guards one has. For the millions who can’t afford bodyguards and private security, this is irrelevant. It’s also irrelevant to the law and to rights. Private property rights don’t come from the tooth fairy— they come from the state. No matter how many security guards you can afford. (Legal rights. Whatever else we mean, whether God-given or whatever, I’m not interested in.)

Private property is not a gift from the state, it is a demand from the people — Garrett Travers

It’s a right. But the right to healthcare and something to eat? Guess it’s not “demanded” enough.

It wasn’t demanded by the people. It was enshrined in law — in the US’s case, in the constitution. By landholding slaveowners.

You have the right to eat and live, you do not have the right to my labor to ensure that you do. And no, taxation is never required for any of this. — Garrett Travers

Property rights are enforced by the state, which is funded by taxes. Providing for the poor can be done by the state, funded by taxes. When you say “my labor,” if not your taxes I don’t know what you’re fantasizing about. Go clutch your gun if you need to— but no one is coming for “your labor.” No one cares. What I’m talking about is TAXES and how government spends those taxes. If they can spend trillions on defending your private property, they can spend some on starving children.

The government purports to fund this, while also sending billions to foreign countries and funding, again, murderous wars all over the world for decades. — Garrett Travers

Purports to, and fails to.

And no, my property rights don't vanish because the state stops stealing my money. Come to my home and attempt to steal my property, I'll show you how property rights are ensured. — Garrett Travers

Oh how impressive. How heroic.

Sounds like every other wannabe tough guy who clutches their guns like little squirrels clutch their nuts. Conservative paranoia.

Your property “rights” do indeed vanish without government. Call it whatever you want at that point, but it’s not legal. At that point anything goes. Defend it if you can. Based on what you say, my guess is you’d last about five minutes.

What’s slavery is being essentially forced to work for wages. It’s called wage slavery. I have a little say in government — I have zero say when it comes to the profits I generate for the owners I work for. Sociopaths usually have little to say about this dynamic, oddly. I guess it’s really “freedom.” Government is also the real problem, in this fantasy.
— Xtrix

You aren't forced by any other entity than the state which encloses the entirey of this section of the continent, thereby guaranteeing people of your philosophical leanings cannot erect commons on which you can escape the Free Market and private property. It is not employers forcing you into the market, it is the state. — Garrett Travers

The state is currently an instrument for the employers. They own the state because the people who run the state are beholden to them. Lobbyists write laws, not the people.

True, we can blame everything on governments— but for anyone not caught in the fantasy, this is a convenient cover for the ruling class. “Government is the problem.” And people like you parrot it forever. The one guiding principle. Predictable and, for those willing to give the matter more than 5 minutes attention, completely wrong.

But you demonstrate nicely how effective that propaganda is.

Again, private property is not by and large protected by the state, it is predominantly, and it isn't close, protected by individual property owners. — Garrett Travers

Most property doesn’t need “defending.” No one cares— your paranoia aside.

Property is a right granted and enforced by states. The fact that some people (mostly businesses) hire security guards (many of whom are ex cops) on their own is completely irrelevant. Besides, our military, which protects the entire country (and all property within it), is not a private entity— in fact, we all spent 700 billion dollars on it this year alone.

But I’m glad you’re able to play make believe with your guns. Keep protecting that private property from those ‘injuns and robbers.

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology — Garrett Travers

Predictable. :lol: Called that one.

Ayn Rand’s political philosophy is a joke. Logically coherent, no doubt — but a complete fantasy. And one used to do untold harm.

And yes, I’ve unfortunately read a number of her works, fiction and otherwise.

who thinks everything can be reduced to “trade.”
— Xtrix

Only a sociopath would use objectively true statements as a means to describe someone as a sociopath — Garrett Travers

:rofl:

It’s objectively true that everything can be reduced to trade. Imagine that.

Goes to show objectivism isn’t a philosophy, it’s a sickness.

And I would never help someone on the side of the road as if it were some duty, but only to be kind. — Garrett Travers

More Ayn Rand bullshit, as always.

“I feed my kids because I want to — not because it’s the law!”

Yeah, no shit.

I don’t help people because it’s a “duty.” It’s because I’m not a sociopath who thinks everything can be reduced to “trade.”

Would you extend the same kindness to the homeless in your community, as you would someone who cannot fix their car? — NOS4A2

Yes, and often do. But I’m one person. I know others who do far more than me — and shouldn’t have to, in a country of such enormous wealth and resources. Which is why we should call on our government — and our tax dollars — to help our fellow citizens. I think if we can spend trillions on defense contracts and bank bailouts, we can spread some around to the millions in poverty.

But maybe that’s because I’m not well versed in sociopathic philosophy.

No, private property is almost exclusively protected by individual owners — Garrett Travers

It is not. The rights of private property are gifts from the state. Those rights are also protected by the state. If a bum is on your property, you can call the police. Most people wouldn’t open fire. If a group with greater numbers or greater weaponry wants your land — the state, with their law enforcement and military and technology, will protect you — because the law says you’re the owner.

You’re living in a fantasy.

The "private property requires a state," argument — Garrett Travers

It doesn’t require a state. I never once said that private property is exclusively a product of the state. But I’m not talking about Rome — I’m talking about the world we currently live.

The state has quite literally NEVER protected any peice of my property. — Garrett Travers

But they would if you needed it. As would the courts.

The state has never protected my property from raccoons either— so what?

If having enough to eat and live isn’t a right, neither are property rights.
— Xtrix

This is where you're having serious trouble. You have a right to live, you do not have a right to my labor so that you may live. It is not your right to dictate that my body to be used as your giver of sustenance, that's called slavery. — Garrett Travers

The right to eat and live is just as much a right as property rights — which also requires taxes to support. If we support one, we should support another.

I’d prefer my money go to a starving child, yes. That’s the greater good, in my view. The government, which I fund through taxes, should do this. Not in agreement? Fine — then give up property rights as well, which is also a state supported gift.

What’s slavery is being essentially forced to work for wages. It’s called wage slavery. I have a little say in government — I have zero say when it comes to the profits I generate for the owners I work for. Sociopaths usually have little to say about this dynamic, oddly. I guess it’s really “freedom.” Government is also the real problem, in this fantasy.

You canot have your right to property recognized, without also recognizing my right to property, which ensures that you don't get to eat my food, which I accrued through my labor, without my permission. . — Garrett Travers

I don’t consider food or water “property”.

No one is asking anything from you. If you want to live in a cave, go do it. If you want to be part of society, and contribute to it through taxes — then those resources should go to more than protecting property rights. They should also go to helping children who are starving. Especially in a country of abundance. Most people don’t own property anyway.

There is nothing about your conditions, or anyone else's, that will ever create a warrant on me to provide you with any sustenance. — Garrett Travers

Awesome — so first and foremost let’s abolish private property, which is created and protected by state power. There’s nothing about your condition — or anyone else’s — that will ever create a warrant on me to provide you with these protections.

If having enough to eat and live isn’t a right, neither are property rights.

Sociopaths — I mean so called libertarians —usually miss this point, of course.

Government’s purpose: protect private property. Protect private property from foreign and domestic threat. Provide law courts to settle distributes for property owners. The Ayn Rand wet dream.

Then what do you do? — NOS4A2

I stop and help them. If that’s too hard for you, perhaps a lost child is an easier example. Maybe you struggle with leaving it to the government because you pay taxes— but I don’t.

I wonder what Donald Trump would do.

But this is an individualist, laissez faire system, such as the one theorized by the founders, but betrayed by everyone henceforth. — NOS4A2

What founders "theorized" about this? Certainly not Madison.

Worth remembering that the "founders" were also slave-owning, generally wealthy individuals -- many planters. The Constitution reflects their interests rather well.

Has nothing to do with libertarian revisionism.

The worry for me is, if you limit caring to paying taxes, why should anyone care for those who cannot take care of themselves if they’ve already done it? — NOS4A2

Indeed a "worry for you."

People care about one another. They want their government, the people they elect and the institution they pay taxes to, to give services they cannot individually provide. Just as sensible as infrastructure or a corporation. This is no way negates individuals caring. I don't look at someone on broken down on the road and say "Eh, I pay taxes -- let the government help."

I'm sure people do think this way. It's the same sociopaths who want to generalize their sociopathy to everyone -- attributing it all to "human nature."

I don't believe that religion ought to be accorded any respect whatsoever — StreetlightX

I disagree with this in general.

Regarding Chomsky's work as "religion" or "pseudoscience," I have yet to see any substantiation from you. Again, parroting a handful of experts doesn't prove anything except that you have -- for whatever reason -- chosen to believe that this is "the" truth. What it is, in reality, is a genuine scientific debate, so far as I can see. I've often heard Chomsky use "dogma" to describe gradualism in evolutionary theory, which is also not too helpful. But I wouldn't consider traditional Darwinists to be on the level of creationists.

Ironically enough, you're using the same tactics actual creationists use against "evolutionists" -- and with the same conviction. They also gladly seize upon genuine scientific debate as a means to paint it all as religious.

After fifty years of research, all that is left is the original assumption of infinite generativity

Hardly true. Which you'd know if you read anything outside of Tomasello, Dor, and Everett.

the idea that everything we ever do and experience, which is finite by definition, is always an arbitrary obstacle on our way toward the fulfillment and understanding of our infinite linguistic potential. This is a philosophical assumption, actually a religious assumption

Maybe. But unfortunately for Dor, this has nothing to do with digital infinity or recursive enumeration. I doubt Dor himself knows what "infinite linguistic potential" even means. You won't find any such claims in Chomsky.

This is why I think this discussion -- and most discussions with you -- are pointless. Unfortunate, given that we share similar interests. So it goes.

Ah right so you're just restating your claims without addressing anything I said. — StreetlightX

Yes, because you haven't demonstrated a great understanding of what's being claimed, nor displayed a tone of openness to the ideas.

The authorities you cite may very well be correct, but in order for me to really know I'd have to read responses from Chomsky and proponents of his theory, see if what they say makes sense, cite them, etc. This then becomes a game of two internet forum members trying to out-do one another by citing works from a field they're not themselves experts in. We could do the same thing with quantum mechanics as well. I'd rather not play that game, as interesting as it may be.

I'm not a linguist, and frankly don't care very much whether Chomsky is right or wrong on this issue -- I'll let the experts in that field work that out with new evidence and new theories. What I object to specifically in your claims, is the characterization of his work as "creationist" and "theological," which still strikes me as completely unsubstantiated, and pretty clearly motivated by other factors.

In a related way, I find the speculation that language was originally gestural rather than vocal interesting, because vocal language also involves very precise gestures we don’t think of that way because they are done with the tongue and the mouth — Srap Tasmaner

It's hard to make up a story that starts with a sensorimotor system fully ready for speech. Whatever changed with the human brain, it's unlikely it happened to several people all at once. If some neural rewiring occurred in the brain of one person, and gave that person a selective advantage that than spread to others, then it would take time both to link this change to the sensorimotor system and for others to be able to understand any received messages. There's good reason to believe that gestures -- a kind of sign language -- was the first to develop.

Infinite expression with finite means. That seems to be the case with language -- we can express almost any thought/feeling we want, using very few tools. We see this in writing. The English alphabet consists of 26 letters, yet we see what we do with them. Likewise for phonemes. Limited in number. If we want to claim this was all acquired gradually, it always appeared to me that there's simply not enough evolutionary time -- given that behaviorally modern humans have been around for maybe 200 thousand years. What changed? Well, the capacity for language changed -- the capacity that separates us from other species. Either this took millions of years to evolve gradually, and then reached a point where creativity exploded (tools, cave art, burials, etc), or it happened very quickly (similar to the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis), perhaps even in one individual -- which is Chomsky's position.

All of it is pretty speculative, and although I find Chomsky's position more compelling, I have no solid stake in it. If it turns out language evolved gradually as a communicative tool, so be it. The evidence for this is very limited indeed.

What I'm observing is that the argument against Chomsky is that his theory of universal grammar is not a properly empirical theory — Wayfarer

Yes, that's an augment against Chomsky -- and happens to be completely wrong.

The evolution of language is mostly speculative, whether one claims it evolved for communication or for thought. To argue one theory is empirical and the other isn't (because it's largely speculative), is just asinine.

So let's examine recursion. Does it do this?:

The capacity to acquire German or Swahili or Japanese, which every human baby is already equipped with, is what's being sought to explain.
— Xtrix

The answer is a laugh-out-loud "No". — StreetlightX

Does recursion explain the capacity to learn English and Japanese? No, of course not. Recursion is a property of the human language system. Binocular vision is a property of the human visual system. So yes, exploring this won't explain everything, but it's a research goal.

To philosophize is to pose (big? small? unbegged?) questions in such a way as to make explicit the limits of questioning (i.e. reason's limits). — 180 Proof

Again a matter of definition. By "big" questions, or "perennial" questions, or "fundamental" questions, I mean essentially the same as you're saying here. "What is death? What happens when we die?" Etc. Perennial questions, and certainly at the limit of our experience (although we can make educated guesses -- a long dreamless sleep would be my answer; nevertheless).

This is very general but I actually think I like it the most! Haven't come across this way of putting it that much. — John McMannis

Thanks. I don't think it's that original, just slightly different wording of what others have said.

Do you consider YOURSELF a philosopher by this definition? What about others on the forum? — John McMannis

Good question. I've been called a thinker and philosopher from many people in my life. But that isn't necessarily saying much. I personally hate the moniker and would never identify myself this way. But, per my definition, yes I would be one -- as would probably most people on this forum.

For me this is the essence of the problem. Asking the big questions with total ignorance of the history of philosophy seems inadequate as a definition of philosopher. — Tom Storm

I guess I disagree as a matter of definition. If one is asking big questions, one is doing philosophy. That doesn't mean it's good philosophy. Having read a little is important, as is engagement with others. So take the example of children -- they ask excellent questions. They're all little philosophers, in this respect. But are their answers very serious? "Why is the grass green?" "Where do we go when we die?" etc....all good questions, but we don't necessarily take their answers seriously.

So by definition, in my view, a person is a philosopher who engages seriously with philosophy (which I further define as thinking about these particular set of perennial, universal human questions) -- and perhaps added to that, holds these questions as utmost importance and returns to them frequently. At that point I think he or she has earned the title, just as a writer would who writes often and seriously. An average person who occasionally asks philosophical questions, just as one who can write, doesn't necessarily earn the title.

None of this is supposed to be concrete. It's all rather vague -- but it's the only way I can make sense of it without resorting to the standard appeals to academic credentials.

Butare language, culture, ideas, reason thereby solely biologically determined? — Wayfarer

Not solely, no.