The most rational social system.

[Sage]

Trevor:
Basically, what I'm saying is that if someone is truly dedicated to truth and reason then they must be a free market capitalist. It is the only rational position.
Now, we can prove this by several different lines of thought: -morality -utilitarianism -consistency etc.
Also, are you saying that logic is invalid because it doesn't rely on experience?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Basically, what I'm saying is that if someone is truly dedicated to truth and reason then they must be a free market capitalist. It is the only rational position.

...and yet, somehow, rational people have been known to hold positions other than a firm belief in the singular benefits free market capitalism. Are the politicians of countries like Canada and Sweden, which balance free market capitalism with socialism, thereby less dedicated to truth and reason than those in the United States?

Now, we can prove this by several different lines of thought: -morality -utilitarianism -consistency etc.

The only one of these that would give you the certainty you claim is consistency: if all other positions are inconsistent, then you have a case. Moral positions (utilitarianism being one among many) do not give certainty.

Also, are you saying that logic is invalid because it doesn't rely on experience?

Not quite: this was specifically directed at the standard of living argument. Standard of living is a quantified feature of a state. If you are going to claim that free market capitalism improves standard of living, you best have an almanac handy. I think the arguments in The Crucible are meant to shy from quotations from outside sources, so this particular line of thought may not be appropriate.

[Sage]

...and yet, somehow, rational people have been known to hold positions other than a firm belief in the singular benefits free market capitalism. Are the politicians of countries like Canada and Sweden, which balance free market capitalism with socialism, thereby less dedicated to truth and reason than those in the United States?

I'm arguing that these people are wrong. They may be rational in other areas (e.g. atheism), but they cannot hold a rational position in economics or politics and be socialists at the same time. It is a contradiction in terms. I want to have a debate to prove this point.

If you are going to claim that free market capitalism improves standard of living, you best have an almanac handy.

I'm saying that this can be proven through deductive logic e.g. a thought experiment.
Under statist socialism, the public is extorted of half of their income (taxation). Under a free market, the public is not extorted of half of their income. They are allowed to keep it. Thus, in a free market, people have twice as much money and so the standard of living is twice as high.
You may argue that the government is providing services in exchange for taxes. However, this cannot create the same amount of wealth because only the individual knows how to best spend his money- he will do so in order to maximize satisfaction of wants. No bureaucrat can do such a thing.
This is like gift giving. You can give someone a gift, but you can't be sure if that is exactly what they would have wanted. If you give them money, they can satisfy their wants better than you could. The same goes for government.
Furthermore, because government does not operate as a profit/loss system and is not subject to competition, it is inevitably more inefficient than the private alternative.
Thus, because people are not robbed, can spend their own money, and can patronize efficient private businesses, free market capitalism provides a higher standard of living. Almanac not included.

[Shahrazad]

Sage,

Victor Danilchenko would be a good opponent for the debate you want.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Shah, let's not forget Unidian. He has a website (I can't remember the URL off the top of my head) with many articles arguing in favour of socialism. This debate sounds like something up his alley.

I'm not sure about the moderators: although David, for instance, lives off of a government pension, I don't know how far his interest in politics goes.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Found it.
Unidian on Capitalism

[Shahrazad]

Trev,

Shah, let's not forget Unidian. He has a website (I can't remember the URL off the top of my head) with many articles arguing in favour of socialism. This debate sounds like something up his alley.

True. We'd have to find out if he'd go for it. The last months he hasn't seemed to be in the mood to argue with free marketers, but he may be now.

I'm not sure about the moderators: although David, for instance, lives off of a government pension, I don't know how far his interest in politics goes.

David is a bad choice for politics.

-

[Leyla Shen]

“Government” is where/with whom and/or what political power (the power to effect actual change encompassing societal influence) lies. One must establish first that the state represents a democracy and not an oligarchy before one can propose what one has manifest in its form of government is, in fact, “statist socialism.” That is, one must be able to show, as a “thought experiment,” that the system of taxation, for example, is the direct result of democracy and not the consequence of oligarchic power (whether autocratic, aristocratic or plutocratic).

[Sage]

David is a bad choice for politics.

Why is that? How can you be dedicated to truth and reason, and yet ignore politics and economics? I think that we can apply reason to the realm of social organization.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Dan Rowden]

What do you want to argue? That a free market capitalist system is the most rational way to socio-economically organise a society? If you want to argue that, I'm game. I'm happy to argue that it isn't, but I'll be coming from the perspective of enlightened people, since they are by definition the most rational.

[Shahrazad]

Sage,

Why is that? How can you be dedicated to truth and reason, and yet ignore politics and economics?

You can't expect a philosopher to be an expert on economics. Nobody is an expert on everything.

I think that we can apply reason to the realm of social organization.

Well yes, of course. But philosophy will not solve the problem of how to run an economy.

-

[maestro]

What do you want to argue? That a free market capitalist system is the most rational way to socio-economically organise a society? If you want to argue that, I'm game. I'm happy to argue that it isn't, but I'll be coming from the perspective of enlightened people, since they are by definition the most rational.

Dan how about if you are given power to run a country according to the best principle you can decide, then what socio economic arrangement would you prefer? Of course the country consists of unenlightened people.

[David Quinn]

David is a bad choice for politics.

Why is that? How can you be dedicated to truth and reason, and yet ignore politics and economics? I think that we can apply reason to the realm of social organization.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Samadhi and I will soon be starting a debate on causation, so, apart from anything else, that rules me out of any potential debate on politics in the near future.

In any case, Shahrazad is right in saying that I wouldn't be an ideal candidate to discuss politics. I essentially consider politics to be a superficial offshoot of psychology. In other words, my interest in politics only exists to the degree that it involves psychology. I'm of the view that it doesn't really matter what political system we have - capitalist, socialist, anarchistic, whatever - it will always be flawed to the degree that the individuals comprising it are flawed. If individuals are egotistical and corrupt, then the system will inevitably be corrupt as well, no matter what form it has.

-

[Jason]

MIMO. Monkey In, Monkey Out.

[Jason]

I'm of the view that it doesn't really matter what political system we have

Surely, judging by your recent behaviour, you favour enlightened despotism. Zing!

[Sage]

Dan:

What do you want to argue? That a free market capitalist system is the most rational way to socio-economically organise a society?

Exactly.

Shahrazad:

You can't expect a philosopher to be an expert on economics. Nobody is an expert on everything.

True. But, it is reasonable not to hold ignorant views. We don't believe in a geocentric solar system, a flat earth or phlogiston. I'm saying we can add the minimum wage to that list.
A basic understanding of sound economics isn't too much to ask for.

David:

I'm of the view that it doesn't really matter what political system we have - capitalist, socialist, anarchistic, whatever - it will always be flawed to the degree that the individuals comprising it are flawed. If individuals are egotistical and corrupt, then the system will inevitably be corrupt as well, no matter what form it has.

I guess that a free society is the least flawed (or most perfect; depends on how you look at it). Furthermore, it is the only one that in congruent with man's nature: as a rational being whose existence depends on the ability (that is,freedom) to reason.

[David Quinn]

I'm of the view that it doesn't really matter what political system we have

Surely, judging by your recent behaviour, you favour enlightened despotism. Zing!

As I say, it depends on the quality of the individuals involved. For example, if everyone in a community was enlightened, then anarchy would probably be the natural outcome.

-

[Sage]

David:

As I say, it depends on the quality of the individuals involved. For example, if everyone in a community was enlightened, then anarchy would probably be the natural outcome.

Anarchy (a free society) would also be the best choice if everyone is unenlightened. Think about it: if people are corrupt and egotistical, do you want to have a huge concentration of power in a government? Surely the most corrupt and power-hungry would be driven to assume that position of power.
Whereas, under freedom, everyone is their own sovereign ruler. They cannot seek domination over others.
One more thing. In Wisdom of the Infinite, you wrote that if you are not enlightened and are experiencing reality, then it must be because of errors in your understanding.
In the same sense, how can you allow errors in understanding in the realm of social organization?
I suppose all I need to do is show that statism is irrational, and that a stateless society is based on reason.

[brad walker]

Whereas, under freedom, everyone is their own sovereign ruler. They cannot seek domination over others.

Unfortunately some people quickly seek others to dominate them and power once again centralizes.

[Sage]

Brad:

Unfortunately some people quickly seek others to dominate them and power once again centralizes.

Any reasoning to back that up?
A libertarian society is based on nonaggression. So, any violent invasion of just property is criminal and punishable by law. I define law as "a rule of action as established by reason."
Thus, violent invasion of person or property, such as kidnapping, stealing, murdering, assaulting, etc. is outlawed in a free society.
Can people dominate others without violating their property? How would power centralize without a criminal government?

[Jason]

A libertarian society is based on nonaggression. So, any violent invasion of just property is criminal and punishable by law.

Law is a form of domination and, arguably, aggression.

Thus, violent invasion of person or property, such as kidnapping, stealing, murdering, assaulting, etc. is outlawed in a free society. Can people dominate others without violating their property? How would power centralize without a criminal government?

You speak of every individual being a "sovereign ruler" with no concentration of power or domination in one breath, then society and its universally applied laws in the next. They seem incompatible.

[Dan Rowden]

One of the main reasons that the standard free market, capitalist model cannot be genuinely rational is that it has no specific purpose or goals; it therefore produces and consumes for no reason other than it's necessary for the system to function. This also necessitates diversity for its own sake, which necessitates redundancy which necessitates the marketing of needless items which necessitates a population being conned into valuing that which it doesn't really need.

[Sum Contrapositum]

Let's take a step back and view this subject on more fundamental terms. Meaning if we want to be enlightened to the true nature of reality, then look at nature itself.

What "system" does nature use? Why? I would argue that nature is socialist. We are after-all social organisms--social at all levels.

From the very beginning of the universe nature followed social tendencies. It seems that by nature "things" want to work together. In fact nature requires it. A proton without it's countercharged electron can't be stable. As protons and electrons follow their true nature they work together to achieve a greater rung in the social hierarchy - elements. So too do elements so easily want to be with other elements that compounds are easily formed, and not so easily separated.

Compounds and molecules work together to become the building blocks of life. They will form the nucleic acids, nuclear membranes, cell walls, and proteins. The communities of proteins work together and form enzymes. And so forth up the social ladder until you have an entire world filled with various "creatures" all going about their "lives", and when you take a step back the full picture is a working cell. Should these things not work together and function as free do-whatever-they-like individuals the cell would die.

Individual cells when separated from their brothers too will cease to function and will die. You can see this trend repeat itself throughout the social hierarchy of nature.

For instance look at the sponge. Take a living sponge and run it through a sieve into a bucket, and the sponge breaks up into a muddy liquid that clouds the water. That cloud is a mob of self-sufficient cells, wrenched from their comfortably settled life between familiar neighbors and set adrift in a chaotic world. Each of those cells has theoretically got everything it takes to handle life on its own; but something inside the newly liberated sponge cell tells it, "You either live in a group or you cannot live at all." The microbeasts search frantically for their old companions, then labor to reconstruct the social system that bound them together. Within a few hours, the water in your bucket grows clear, and sitting at the bottom is a complete, reconstituted sponge.

Remove the sponge cell from the sponge, prevent it from finding its way back to its brethren, and it dies.

Scrape a liver cell from the liver, and in its isolation it too will shrivel and give up life.

Similarly, you and I are parts of a vast population whose combined efforts move some larger social creature on its path through life. What is that creature? Does a the sponge cell realize it is a part of a greater organism, a living sponge? Are we the cells of Humanity?

What happens if you remove a human from his social bonds, wrenching him from the superorganism of which he is a part? When someone feels they are no longer needed in society, they become depressed. Slowly they too, like a cell, will begin the journey from life. It is scientifically shown that ones mental health can effect their physical health. A person who's livelihood has been lost will mysteriously become prone to illness, their immune system failing. With time they will also die. That is if suicide doesn't greet them first.

Nature, it seems, demands a social relationship.

So what is it? Do we want to defy nature and risk extinction? Are we so selfish that we care not for the social organism of which we are a part?--Humanity. Will nature even allow for us to deviate from this path?

What do you think? Does this provide any new insight on your discussion?

[Ryan Rudolph]

David wrote:

In any case, Shahrazad is right in saying that I wouldn't be an ideal candidate to discuss politics. I essentially consider politics to be a superficial offshoot of psychology. In other words, my interest in politics only exists to the degree that it involves psychology. I'm of the view that it doesn't really matter what political system we have - capitalist, socialist, anarchistic, whatever - it will always be flawed to the degree that the individuals comprising it are flawed. If individuals are egotistical and corrupt, then the system will inevitably be corrupt as well, no matter what form it has.

David,

Here is the major reason I take the subject of choosing a political system seriously – A thought experiment: Compare the economic affects of a country dominated by capitalist political philosophy and a country dominated by more socialist political philosophy, and the difference is noticeable – For instance: The more government control and unnecessary social programs there is in a country towards businesses, the lower the rate of scientific progress and innovation. For instance: Japan and the United States tend to be much more capitalist compared to countries such as Canada and France, and they are leaders in R&D as a result. The greatest masculine innovation in science and technology has occurred in more free market capitalist centers.

And then you have extreme cases of socialist dictatorships as is seen in countries such as China and Russia, and such a system is obviously inferior. It is obvious to me that an out of control government is much more devastating to a nation than the odd out of control business. For instance: Enron has had much less of an impact on the global economy than the out of control US government.

And anarchy doesn’t work because some services need to be provided, but people are not motivated enough to pay into them. IE: fire department, coast guard, library, lighthouse services for ships, police department, and so on…

[Jason]

A thought experiment: Compare the economic affects of a country dominated by capitalist political philosophy and a country dominated by more socialist political philosophy, and the difference is noticeable – For instance: The more government control and unnecessary social programs there is in a country towards businesses, the lower the rate of scientific progress and innovation. For instance: Japan and the United States tend to be much more capitalist compared to countries such as Canada and France, and they are leaders in R&D as a result.

What measures and figures do you use to show the level of scientific progress and innovation by country? What measures and figures do you use to decide the socialist or capitalist political leaning by country? Lastly, assuming there is a correlation in that data that might allow support for your "thought experiment", what is the proof that there is a direct causal link between these factors?