Moved from D1 forum

[eppie]

Hi,

How are the costs for land, oil, water not built into the price?

I think what he's looking at is the tragedy of the commons. Unrestrained fishing destroys the fish populations. Unrestrained timber harvesting destroys the forests. Unrestrained slash and burn farming destroys the land. Etc.

There are two things being overlooked: First is that those same practices can (and have) occurred under every economic system to date. Second is that those practices have been harshest where the resource is either "unowned" (e.g., fishing areas in international waters) or owned by the government.

The private ownership of fish farms changes the attitude from "how many can I catch today" to "how can I maximize the long term viability". The private ownership of tree farms leads to the consideration of the costs, other than monetary, of clear cutting. The private ownership of farms leads to the consideration of long term sustainability.

Indeed, the history of commonly held resources compared to privately owned resources indicates that, most often, private ownership leads to better stewardship.

If no one owns something, then everyone wants a piece of it for short term gain and nobody can be bothered to preserve it for the long run. However, if someone does own it, then intelligent self interest will lead to consideration of both short and long term gain.

--Pete

Thank you. And I agree with this. This is a problem not only in capitalist societies but in all societies in which overconsumption occurs.

Most humans in the western world, and probably also in several asian and south-american countries have diets with many times the necesarry amounts of animal based protein required for a healthy life. In some, (US; the northern european countries, Canada, Australia) most people even eat so much that it affects their health (obesity, cancer, heart problems, diabetes etc.).

The point I am making is that our free societies just are not able to cope with these dilemas. Even though we know that health care costs are through the roof etc. Telling someone not to eat so much that he dies of disease apparantly is against their personal freedom.
Heavily taxing meat and fish (with breaks for the poor) and using the income for nature conservation, and energy research to me would be an idea.

The same for transport. In many situations people don't need (big) cars to go where they need to go but telling people to drive less is a bigger taboo than gay marriage in Saudi Arabia. You see that the market is doing something (electric cars etc) but that is just a tiny drop on a hot plate. Because negative impact on climate or environment usually is not seen directly people (the market) will never 'do the right thing' on time.

The old (current?) market economy theory says the market will finally find the best way, but I am very afraid that this will not work on the timescale that is necesarry now.

And not to deny china's very big impact on the environment , nature and human rights, imagíne what china and the world would be like right now when there was no 1 child policy and communism.

[weakwarrior]

Heavily taxing meat and fish (with breaks for the poor) and using the income for nature conservation, and energy research to me would be an idea.

Just FYI:
In the U.S. the USDA is the agency that is supposed to monitor people's health, but it is also the agency that is supposed to promote farmer's products--including meat. This makes it highly unlikely that any serious adverse action against meat products, like a tax, will ever go into effect.

[eppie]

Heavily taxing meat and fish (with breaks for the poor) and using the income for nature conservation, and energy research to me would be an idea.

Just FYI:
In the U.S. the USDA is the agency that is supposed to monitor people's health, but it is also the agency that is supposed to promote farmer's products--including meat. This makes it highly unlikely that any serious adverse action against meat products, like a tax, will ever go into effect.

I totally agree. On a national level in eg the Netherlands several of the bigger political parties have strong ties with farmers and fishermen (even though a small country like NL should focus on more knowledge intensive sectors in my opinion).
Same goes for Europe where it seems impossible to arrange any measure against overfishing etc. There are strong ties between christian political parties and farmers and fishers making this group that is small innumber, very powerfull.

[kandrathe]

This is a problem not only in capitalist societies but in all societies in which overconsumption occurs.

Ok, so you are ready to embrace capitalism, as long as the laws protect the commons.

Most humans in the western world, and probably also in several Asian and south-American countries have diets with many times the necessary amounts of animal based protein required for a healthy life. In some, (US; the northern European countries, Canada, Australia) most people even eat so much that it affects their health (obesity, cancer, heart problems, diabetes etc.).

This is your opinion? Eating bits of red meat, fish, or poultry is actually easier for the human to metabolize (than constructing amino acids from carbohydrates), although it requires more water. Mammals can only create about half their required amino acid strands, so the remainder must be obtained from their food. The other factor is exercise, so would you mandate that too?

And, your facts are a bit shaky. "Many times"? According to the brief research into global food security, (Science) people in underdeveloped nations get as little as 80 grams of protein per day, while people in the wealthy western countries may consume as much as 400 grams / day (Denmark). The USDA RDA is about 160 grams per day. So two times does not equate to many, but it does infer that many nations could cut down on their meat consumption.

For transparency, I put myself though college by raising grade AAA prime beef cattle on our little farm. I may have mentioned this before, but I had discovered Joe Wieder's bodybuilding book to help me beef up a bit, and I applied the same principles to my cattle. The general principle is daily exercise to get muscle breakdown, and diet of moderate carbohydrates, and low fat with high availability of protein. I used vitamin/mineral enriched mixture of 50% soybean meal, 25% corn meal, and 25% oats, plus range feeding in the summer and alfalfa hay in the winter and spring. The average yearling dressed weight is about 700lb's, and mine were minimum 1200lb's and not fat either (the price was just over 1$/lb back then, now its over $2.50/lb). To teach them to lead, I'd pull them along behind the tractor and eventually they would just follow me for a daily muscle building hike while I rode on horseback. The other trick we used was to buy Hereford/Holstein crossed females who expressed the Hereford (beefy) body, but the Holstein (milk cow) udder. This way one female could easily nurse four calves. We'd purchase cheap un-weaned winter beef calves at auctions for $30 to $50 each, and raise them in a heated calving shed until they could be introduced to our calving heifers. Were we more "with it" we'd have milked the cows after the calves were weaned, over the late spring, summer and winter, and maybe made cheese. It was always a pain dealing with manually milking out the cows enough to prevent mastitis, but letting them dry out every year. A consequence of my success was that I was barred from showing my cattle at the county fair, as they were double the size of my competitors in the yearling class.

The point I am making is that our free societies just are not able to cope with these dilemmas. Even though we know that health care costs are through the roof etc. Telling someone not to eat so much that he dies of disease apparently is against their personal freedom.

Ergo, the implication is that you don't believe in freedom, or free societies. The other solution would be to burden the obese with more of their own health care costs. This is a trend I've read is occurring now, where many clinics are refusing to take patients until they reduce their weight.

Heavily taxing meat and fish (with breaks for the poor) and using the income for nature conservation, and energy research to me would be an idea.

So, the poor get to be over consuming lard butts? Now you bring in Nature Conservation... Is that your real beef? If you are against exploitation of nature, then we should push for protecting nature. It is a slightly different topic than regulating how much people eat and exercise to remain healthy.

The same for transport. In many situations people don't need (big) cars to go where they need to go but telling people to drive less is a bigger taboo than gay marriage in Saudi Arabia. You see that the market is doing something (electric cars etc) but that is just a tiny drop on a hot plate. Because negative impact on climate or environment usually is not seen directly people (the market) will never 'do the right thing' on time.

However, that person has chosen stupidly to convert their treasure into wasteful transportation. It's their problem, not yours. They paid the going rate for the expensive transportation, as opposed to the more frugal among us who would opt to be more economical. In the long run, we win and they lose. If you get government out of the vehicle industry, you'd see more equity. Ask yourself... Why do light duty trucks and vans have different CAFE standards from cars, and what impact did CAFE standards have in promoting mini vans and SUV's?

The old (current?) market economy theory says the market will finally find the best way, but I am very afraid that this will not work on the timescale that is necessary now.

But, that is due to politics and government interference, rather than free market fluidity.

And not to deny china's very big impact on the environment , nature and human rights, imagine what china and the world would be like right now when there was no 1 child policy and communism.

Well, they've created a time bomb for themselves making our baby boom look like a party popper.



That, and with gender based abortions, their gender gap will leave them with in excess of 24 million bachelors by 2020. They may not recover from this horribly engineered society. I'm really not that supportive of tyranny, suffering, and democide so no, the ends do not justify the means.

[Nystul]

This thread reminds me of junior high.

Thank you. And I agree with this. This is a problem not only in capitalist societies but in all societies in which overconsumption occurs.

Which would be all societies. We crossed that line with campfires or furs or something back in the day. So it becomes a purely subjective issue, as to what is good and what is outrageous. To me that is neither here nor there with regards to capitalism vs. communism. Somehow it needs to be decided what jobs need to be done, what goods and services need to be provided, who does what, who gets what, etc. And there is great power behind that. The free market is our collective will influencing that. Any socialist system will bend to that will in great degree unless the government pushes back through sheer might. We can talk about ideals but in the real world the market influence simply cannot be ignored.

[ShadowHM]

However, that person has chosen stupidly to convert their treasure into wasteful transportation. It's their problem, not yours. They paid the going rate for the expensive transportation, as opposed to the more frugal among us who would opt to be more economical. In the long run, we win and they lose. If you get government out of the vehicle industry, you'd see more equity.

I have to nit-pick on this one. If the 'going rate' for fuel actually represented something like replacement cost and included the 'cost to the commons' of the air pollution and carbon emissions that go with high fuel usage, you might get some agreement from me.

But we in North America, and you, particularly, in the U.S. of A. do not pay anything like that in fuel costs. So, unfortunately, it is my problem and yours. Our commons are being used up.

Oh, and on this:

That, and with gender based abortions, their gender gap will leave them with in excess of 24 million bachelors by 2020. They may not recover from this horribly engineered society. I'm really not that supportive of tyranny, suffering, and democide so no, the ends do not justify the means.

I didn't notice eppie suggesting that the end did justify the means regarding China's attempts at population control. All he said was that we could already be in worse shape if they had not.

/lurk mode

Carry on!

[--Pete]

Hi,

... the ends do not justify the means.

This is one of my pet peeves. Both the statements: "The ends justify the means" and "The ends do not justify the means" are logical nonsense and reflect a lack of thought.

If the means don't need justifying, then both statements are moot and best dropped from the conversation.

If the means need justifying, then it is *only* the ends which can justify them. For instance, cutting someone is not a good means; removing an infected appendix is a good ends. In this case, the ends justify the means.

The point is that in each case where the means need justifying, the ends must be examined. The only reasonable statement is "Sometimes the ends don't justify the means, sometimes they do" -- and as with most reasonable statements, it just doesn't have enough shock value for people to quote it.

This thread reminds me of junior high.

Nah, we were much more mature back then.

The free market is our collective will influencing that. ... We can talk about ideals but in the real world the market influence simply cannot be ignored.

Don't overlook the importance of propaganda (call it advertising, brainwashing, imprinting -- it's all the same thing). Look at the history of smoking from the '40s to the present. Look at the attitude toward nuclear power. Look at how we dress, the houses we live in, the cars we choose to drive, the food we eat, the people we vote for, etc. Individually, some of us make up our own minds on *some* issues. Collectively, Mad-Ave tries to (and often does) make up our minds for us.

So, the free market is indeed very powerful. I'm just not sure how much of it is *our* collective will and how much of it is *their* collective propaganda.

--Pete

[Kevin]

The free market is our collective will influencing that. ... We can talk about ideals but in the real world the market influence simply cannot be ignored.

Don't overlook the importance of propaganda (call it advertising, brainwashing, imprinting -- it's all the same thing). Look at the history of smoking from the '40s to the present. Look at the attitude toward nuclear power. Look at how we dress, the houses we live in, the cars we choose to drive, the food we eat, the people we vote for, etc. Individually, some of us make up our own minds on *some* issues. Collectively, Mad-Ave tries to (and often does) make up our minds for us.

So, the free market is indeed very powerful. I'm just not sure how much of it is *our* collective will and how much of it is *their* collective propaganda.

--Pete

Which oddly is one of the points I think FireIceTalon was trying to make but got lost in transmission.

Of course that can be pushed by Madison Ave, or it can be pushed Big Brother, or by anyone with power. I don't think it is market dependent, it is human power craving driven and whatever system they can bend to do so they will.

[kandrathe]

I have to nit-pick on this one. If the 'going rate' for fuel actually represented something like replacement cost and included the 'cost to the commons' of the air pollution and carbon emissions that go with high fuel usage, you might get some agreement from me.

But we in North America, and you, particularly, in the U.S. of A. do not pay anything like that in fuel costs. So, unfortunately, it is my problem and yours. Our commons are being used up.

Noted. I would say due to fuel tax, and the licensing taxes on vehicles and drivers, the commons is compensated. However, is it enough to pay for more than the wear and tear on the roads? Since it is a fixed price, rather than a percentage of the purchase, it becomes less of a factor as the price increases. What would work better would be to gather a federal 10% tax for fuel into a commons fund, then rebate the fund per driver* according to an average miles driven. If you drive less with a fuel efficient vehicle, then you'd be money ahead, but if you drove more than average or in a gas guzzling SUV, then you'd pay more in the tax than the rebate.

* definition of driver would need to be strict to prevent gaming the system.

I didn't notice eppie suggesting that the end did justify the means regarding China's attempts at population control. All he said was that we could already be in worse shape if they had not.

Oh, it felt to me like he was suggesting we should condone their population control policies since it has reduced the consumption burden.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Of course that can be pushed by Madison Ave, or it can be pushed Big Brother, or by anyone with power.

I agree. I was using "Mad-Ave" as a generic term for all sources of propaganda. Had I used "Goebbels", I'd get a time out for playing a Godwin card.

--Pete

[LennyLen]

Although I'm curious about just who I've driven away.

I have no idea who these people are, but I think I know why they might be offended by you. You write in a concise manner, saying exactly what you mean in logical, impersonal terms. This is a manner which (probably) to many here is appreciated, but which, if it were used in conversation, would seem rude and abrupt, and there are some people who treat all communication as if it were verbal.

Had I used "Goebbels", I'd get a time out for playing a Godwin card.

Or for making turkey noises.

[FireIceTalon]

The free market is our collective will influencing that. ... We can talk about ideals but in the real world the market influence simply cannot be ignored.

Don't overlook the importance of propaganda (call it advertising, brainwashing, imprinting -- it's all the same thing). Look at the history of smoking from the '40s to the present. Look at the attitude toward nuclear power. Look at how we dress, the houses we live in, the cars we choose to drive, the food we eat, the people we vote for, etc. Individually, some of us make up our own minds on *some* issues. Collectively, Mad-Ave tries to (and often does) make up our minds for us.

So, the free market is indeed very powerful. I'm just not sure how much of it is *our* collective will and how much of it is *their* collective propaganda.

--Pete

Which oddly is one of the points I think FireIceTalon was trying to make but got lost in transmission.

Of course that can be pushed by Madison Ave, or it can be pushed Big Brother, or by anyone with power. I don't think it is market dependent, it is human power craving driven and whatever system they can bend to do so they will.

Indeed. Propaganda ultimately having an negative impact on the direction social discourse takes, as well as influence on our culture in general, was one of my original points. But this is probably more along the lines of Adorno, rather than Marx

[GhastMaster]

Ive talked to more than a handful of individuals on Bnet that no longer post here specifically because of him. Anyways....

I've talked to two people who no longer frequent Diablo LE because of you.

I usually do not post(This is the LurkerLounge), as Pete would most likely tear my words apart, but this obnoxious display warrants a reply. I do hate replying to your rant. It simply adds fuel to the fire.

I wonder how many people are not playing Diablo on b.net because you ruined the atmosphere in one of the last, popular "legit" channels. Do you wonder the same thing FIT?

[Jester]

This essay displays exactly the same problems that make your posts so difficult to swallow. Whatever you thought this was supposed to prove, it merely reinforces my poor opinion of your critical engagement skills.

Rather than engage with actual opponents, you assign opinions to vague strawmen and specious formulae: "Most Americans," "How many of us know ..." "We wish(/know/dislike/whatever)" "the western world thought" and so on. If you don't attack and defend specific ideas from specific people, you don't have to worry about your opponents beating you - anyone can argue with straw men. It's very easy to argue with someone who "completely ignore[s] invisible structures beyond their control", because such a person would be a complete idiot. Unfortunately, there is nobody who actually believes this proposition (or if there is, you certainly haven't cited them.)

You pose bold, entirely rhetorical questions, many of which have quite reasonable answers, but you do not appear to even consider potential criticisms of your arguments. Many of your rhetorical questions are of the "did you enjoy beating your wife" variety, for instance: "Can a system that seeks to create competition but defeats its very purpose by eliminating competition be considered fair and just?" Well, no, but you haven't done anything more than merely assert that capitalism is a system that eliminates competition, so how are we supposed to judge?

You smash history up into bits and reform it as you please, with no regard for chronology, or even basic sense. For instance: "We are also a nation of patriots and dislike terrorists, yet we condone counter terrorism in the name of imperialism and Manifest Destiny – something we fought against England in the American Revolution." What on earth does this mean? The American Revolution had absolutely nothing to do with counterterrorism, or manifest destiny, which is in any case a doctrine born 60 years after the American Revolution. And America does nothing "in the name of" imperialism, since whether one thinks of America as an empire or not, they do not call themselves such. Perhaps you mean "in service of"? But that would require using words to mean specific things, which is a difficult business. It would prevent you, for example, using the word "paradox" to describe whatever strikes you as vaguely contradictory, the word "fallacy" to mean a misconception, or the word "paradigm" to mean... whatever on earth you think it means. ("paradigm of illusion? What the heck is that?)

You make bold declarations of false propositions, accompanied by neither citation nor defense. America is not the most unequal democracy - it isn't even close (Brazil? Argentina? South Africa?). Capitalism is not based on Social Darwinism - indeed, it predates Darwin by at least a century, depending on definition. The United States has dozens of active political parties that contest national elections, not just the two most successful ones. (See: Duverger's Law)

Your use of Rawls is practically trivial. You don't quote him, you don't try and apply his ideas in any careful way, but instead just glance in his direction during pauses in your ranting, and claim his support. John Rawls is not a Marxist, but you don't make any relevant use of this distinction between equality of opportunity and distributional equality, or deal with the Pareto criterion for acceptable inequalities. Rawls' ideas have interesting implications for liberal egalitarianism - but you don't get there.

This is really just the surface. The piece is riddled with confusing, nonsensical, rambling sentences and paragraphs. The whole thing is strung together on almost no evidence. But most worryingly, it is an argument against no-one, which is precisely what we are complaining about here on the lounge. You are not debating with actual people, using real evidence and detailed arguments. You are yelling at strawmen, and when they do not yell back, you declare the brilliance of your argumentation and the clarity of your writing. But we do yell back, and if you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to get off your soapbox, and step up the quality of your arguments.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Ive talked to more than a handful of individuals on Bnet that no longer post here specifically because of him. Anyways....

I've talked to two people who no longer frequent Diablo LE because of you.

I usually do not post(This is the LurkerLounge), as Pete would most likely tear my words apart, but this obnoxious display warrants a reply. I do hate replying to your rant. It simply adds fuel to the fire.

I wonder how many people are not playing Diablo on b.net because you ruined the atmosphere in one of the last, popular "legit" channels. Do you wonder the same thing FIT?

Ok, 3 things.

Firstly, most of the people who didnt like me at LE were douche's themselves, in particular Drew, Astra, Mir, etc. You've talked to two people that dont go to LE because of me? Well ive talked to a much larger amount than that (Ive lost count at this point) that dont go there because of Drew, and there was another number (if smaller but certainly more than two) that didnt like Astra. So your first point is without merit.

Second, Deu-1 is more popular nowadays than LE has been in probably the last 6 years, and guess what? I get along with everyone there fine. Maybe you need to rethink that whole tidbit of people not playing d1 anymore because of me, or at least recognize that im certainly not the only problem for LE's demise, especially considering I have been fairly inactive there for over the past year. Primarily because I've had more important obligations in real life than arguing with a bunch of imbeciles in Diablo friggin LE.

And lastly, I've helped to do more in the last 3 years (prior to the past year since as I said before Ive had other obligations) or so to keep the D1 community alive and active via the Fresh Meat site than anyone in LE has. Yes, it is Shade's site, but whose idea do you think it was (at least in part) to host organized PvP events that brought many old school players BACK? Yep, that was partially my idea as well. In fact, when I first met Shade in 2008, it was me who suggested we start something like this. Shade had the platform to do it already, but it was ME who created the spark so it could happen. No one else in LE even thought of suggesting the idea let alone help organizing it. So to answer your question, no, I dont wonder. If they are choosing not to play a 15 year old game because they don't like me (or any other individual), that is their problem not mine. That would be like me quitting D1 cause I hated Drew and his antics (which were the cause for probably 95% of the drama in LE anyway). Think how silly that would be of me.

Because low and behold, FireIceTalon has the ability to control and influence the free will of others playing online games in the vast virtual reality that is b.net

[kandrathe]

Your use of Rawls is practically trivial. You don't quote him, you don't try and apply his ideas in any careful way, but instead just glance in his direction during pauses in your ranting, and claim his support. John Rawls is not a Marxist, but you don't make any relevant use of this distinction between equality of opportunity and distributional equality, or deal with the Pareto criterion for acceptable inequalities. Rawls' ideas have interesting implications for liberal egalitarianism - but you don't get there.

This is where I was hung up. The paper was ostensibly written as an exploration of Rawls, and how to apply him to modern society.

As promised, here is my research paper on John Rawls and his theory of "Justice As Fairness". For this paper, we were required to pick a political thinker we covered in the course, discuss one or two of his theories, and then apply them to modern society.

In any Bachelors level paper for social sciences, (e.g. economics, psychology, philosophy, etc.) it is expected that one provide references to support their arguments. A research paper should be all the more expository and cite multiple sources, including the Utilitarian philosophers (David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill) to whom Rawls was challenging. Throughout this paper there are unsupported claims, and unreferenced sources.

Many economists (e.g. Arrow, Harsany, Buchanan), noted that Rawls has neglected to consider the market forces unleashed in a capitalist society where seeking one’s self-interest is arguably the primary motivating principle. They argue that even the least advantaged, if motivated, can take advantage of the benefits of our society by virtue of citizenship. Through education, dedication, and hard work, the disadvantaged will participate more fully in the benefits as well as bearing the burdens of membership in society. He references this vaguely, but offers zero evidence of social mobility or the lack of it. This would have been the perfect place to introduce the critique of Rawls by these economists, and then defend Rawls with evidence. Rather, there is more hand waving and unsubstantiated claims.

He attempts to take on capitalism, but again does a bunch of hand waving, generalizations, and vague references, such as "In short, capitalism manifests its own demise through a multitude of paradoxical elements, as Marx observed." In short, citation needed. What are the multitude of paradoxical elements? In essence, the argument against capitalism is the economic downturn of 2008, wealth disparity, and whatever other kitchen sink tossed at it without any exploration to root causes. If man were meant to fly, he'd have been born with wings. Or, in context, if capitalism were meant to be we'd never have downturns or inequity.

So fundamentally I would ask, how well did FIT compare Rawls theories of Justice to our society?

If we consider a constitution as the expression of our social contract, Rawls’ two principles of justice describe what such a constitution can and cannot expect from us. Rawls’ theory of justice suggests the Kantian limits upon the forms of political and social organization that are acceptable within a just society. This paper didn't even touch on social contracts, the original intention of "Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", nor the shortcomings of that social contract over the past 200 years.

I think he bites off too much, and leaves too much of the elephant undigested. He should at least reference the giants on which Rawls theories are built, like Kant. It would have been better to focus on the two principles, and then examine them narrowly. But instead we are taken on a fly by of politics, economics, social justice, Marxism, the American Dream, etc. It is laced with buzzwords, such as the use the word "paradox" or "paradoxical" nine times. Paradigm is used four different times. Often he is introducing complicated ideas without context, such as "This problem is a result of laissez-faire racism (as opposed to traditional Jim Crowe racism), a contour of our society today." And, again this is a complicated claim without any clear linkage to Rawls, or how our modern society's social contracts have allowed such a situation to exist.

So, my critique would be that the thesis is unclear, most of the claims are unsupported, and since there is no clear thesis the papers purpose is unmet. I would have graded it lower for readability alone.

[Hammerskjold]

you are going to have to get off your soapbox, and step up the quality of your arguments.

" Hah! So you admit I am on a soapbox, and therefore of higher standing than you! Your game is lost sir, like a house of cards made of dominos! Check. Mate. GOOOOOAAAAL!!111"

Seriously, I think we're approaching a moment similar to a scene in 'Dumb and Dumber'.
(edited, found a better example. Video!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCFB2akLh4s

In anycase, your post reminded me of an article. I don't share most of the author's regular humour, and most of the time I don't share her views. But the gist and core of this particular article of hers, is quite accurate to me. (Ignore the nationalities for a sec, and just focus on the diploma mill aspect and 'students as customer' model.)

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/arti...can-t-read

ps. I once misplaced a garbage pickup calendar. The calendar told me which week was garbage day, and which was recycling day. I went on a hunch that it was recycling day, and it wasn't a big deal because I could check what all my neighbours put out on their curb.

So I was hauling out my recylables, when I saw all my other neighbours had their garbage out. It was then I realized a great truth.

All my neighbours are idiots.

But even worse, the next morning everyone else got their garbage picked up, and my recyclables were still on the curb. I then realized a greater truth.

My neighbours, and the garbageman are idiots.

I told this to my friend, and he asked me if I had the calendar. Or if I checked what my other neighbours put on their curb. I explained the situation, and he told me I was an idiot. I realized the greatest truth of all.

Everyone but me is an idiot.

[kandrathe]

Indeed. Propaganda ultimately having an negative impact on the direction social discourse takes, as well as influence on our culture in general, was one of my original points. But this is probably more along the lines of Adorno, rather than Marx

Unfortunately, most purveyors of propaganda are true believers in the excrement they are peddling, including Adorno. I think we've beat this horse dead here before. In the Marxist state, heretics are sent to re-education camps, or slave labor camps until they repent or die. In a free society, the risks of allowing free speech are relieved by teaching people skepticism, and critical thinking skills to enable them to discern for themselves between the silk purse and the sow's ear.

[FireIceTalon]

This essay displays exactly the same problems that make your posts so difficult to swallow. Whatever you thought this was supposed to prove, it merely reinforces my poor opinion of your critical engagement skills.

Rather than engage with actual opponents, you assign opinions to vague strawmen and specious formulae: "Most Americans," "How many of us know ..." "We wish(/know/dislike/whatever)" "the western world thought" and so on. If you don't attack and defend specific ideas from specific people, you don't have to worry about your opponents beating you - anyone can argue with straw men. It's very easy to argue with someone who "completely ignore[s] invisible structures beyond their control", because such a person would be a complete idiot. Unfortunately, there is nobody who actually believes this proposition (or if there is, you certainly haven't cited them.)

You pose bold, entirely rhetorical questions, many of which have quite reasonable answers, but you do not appear to even consider potential criticisms of your arguments. Many of your rhetorical questions are of the "did you enjoy beating your wife" variety, for instance: "Can a system that seeks to create competition but defeats its very purpose by eliminating competition be considered fair and just?" Well, no, but you haven't done anything more than merely assert that capitalism is a system that eliminates competition, so how are we supposed to judge?

You smash history up into bits and reform it as you please, with no regard for chronology, or even basic sense. For instance: "We are also a nation of patriots and dislike terrorists, yet we condone counter terrorism in the name of imperialism and Manifest Destiny – something we fought against England in the American Revolution." What on earth does this mean? The American Revolution had absolutely nothing to do with counterterrorism, or manifest destiny, which is in any case a doctrine born 60 years after the American Revolution. And America does nothing "in the name of" imperialism, since whether one thinks of America as an empire or not, they do not call themselves such. Perhaps you mean "in service of"? But that would require using words to mean specific things, which is a difficult business. It would prevent you, for example, using the word "paradox" to describe whatever strikes you as vaguely contradictory, the word "fallacy" to mean a misconception, or the word "paradigm" to mean... whatever on earth you think it means. ("paradigm of illusion? What the heck is that?)

You make bold declarations of false propositions, accompanied by neither citation nor defense. America is not the most unequal democracy - it isn't even close (Brazil? Argentina? South Africa?). Capitalism is not based on Social Darwinism - indeed, it predates Darwin by at least a century, depending on definition. The United States has dozens of active political parties that contest national elections, not just the two most successful ones. (See: Duverger's Law)

Your use of Rawls is practically trivial. You don't quote him, you don't try and apply his ideas in any careful way, but instead just glance in his direction during pauses in your ranting, and claim his support. John Rawls is not a Marxist, but you don't make any relevant use of this distinction between equality of opportunity and distributional equality, or deal with the Pareto criterion for acceptable inequalities. Rawls' ideas have interesting implications for liberal egalitarianism - but you don't get there.

This is really just the surface. The piece is riddled with confusing, nonsensical, rambling sentences and paragraphs. The whole thing is strung together on almost no evidence. But most worryingly, it is an argument against no-one, which is precisely what we are complaining about here on the lounge. You are not debating with actual people, using real evidence and detailed arguments. You are yelling at strawmen, and when they do not yell back, you declare the brilliance of your argumentation and the clarity of your writing. But we do yell back, and if you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to get off your soapbox, and step up the quality of your arguments.

-Jester

There are several things wrong with this post. The essay its difficult for YOU to swallow because I question American traditions and norms that few people would have the balls to question. But I don't suffer from blind patriotism, I call things as they are regardless of the response people will have. If people are to hate me for it, I say oh well. I should have mentioned in that paper that most Americans do not accept eccentric viewpoints very well. John Stuart Mill would have been proud.

Second, this isn't an argumentative paper, but more like an analytical paper. It is a paper discussing a particular theory of John Rawls and then applying it to various aspects of American society. I wrote about some of the issues and paradoxes of American politics and economics, and applied Rawls' theory in its actual context, then tied it all together with cultural/social aspects in our society. You are missing the point entirely. Im not trying to argue ANYTHING in this paper. I am merely using the context of Rawls' theory of "Justice As Fairness" to question and look at many entrenched propositions in our society from an alternative perspective. Whether you agree with that perspective or not is another matter. I'm simply putting it on the table. Also, I did very little quoting of Rawls' because that was part of the instructions for the assignment, quoting the theorist was to be kept to an absolute minimum.

As far as me smashing history up into bits, not really. When we were fighting for our independence from England, was the control they had over us not a form of terrorism? Sure the word didn't exist yet or at least wasn't applied in the context that we use it everyday today, but in the context of the situation I think it can be argued relatively easily. And it is well documented that England was an empire that seek to colonize the world (the reasons are irrelevant), and that was THEIR Manifest Destiny. Ours of course, would come later. How many nations are we in today, whether actively fighting or stationed there?? I've friggin lost count by now. Maybe you don't consider this imperialism, but I don't see why its difficult to argue that it is. We've been acting as the worlds police now and sticking our nose in everyones business for the better part of the last century, that is a fact, unless of course you've been living under a rock or another planet this whole time. US is without any doubt a global military empire, surely you are not that blind that I need explain this?

Yes, Brazil and South Africa are more unequal than America in terms of economic inequality, but my statement was referring to the advanced/industrialized democracies of the world (which I could have made more clear perhaps, but nevertheless), of which the US has some of the largest and most distinguished disparity in social class and income. Social darwinism coming before or after capitalism is irrelevant. The principles of capitalism is based on what the very meaning of social darwinism is -- survival of the fittest -- and you cannot sit here with a straight face and tell me that is not true. Well you can, but I will laugh at you and dismiss you as being too thickheaded to have any conventional wisdom as to being reasoned with. Proponents of social darwinism use it as a justification for the continuance of capitalism, and its probably a safe bet to say that at least some proponents of capitalism justify the existence of social darwinism in an economic context. I suppose it is possible to embrace capitalism and dislike social darwinism in other contexts, but in an economic context, the two go hand in hand.

Im aware the US has more than two political parties, I even stated it in my paper but you obviously missed the point I was making entirely. Which was that only two parties have any real or substantial political power (this is not even up for debate considering both parties have dominated politics for 150 years or so, also stated in my paper) to represent the will of 310 million+ people.

[--Pete]

Hi,

In a free society, the risks of allowing free speech are relieved by teaching people skepticism, and critical thinking skills to enable them to discern for themselves between the silk purse and the sow's ear.

Where is this Utopian society? Surely not in the USA where education is based on memorization and regurgitation. Where the proof of knowledge is the ability to fill in an oval, or mark a blank with a T or F. Where the standards of teaching are determined by gaming the state and federal compliance examinations.

A school system that emphasizes the truth of authority, usually combined with a social/religious system that emphasizes the Truth of Authority, is hardly conducive to skepticism and critical thinking.

Then again, free speech in this country is seldom protected unless it echos the majority opinion. Minor dissent is tolerated, unless it irritates congress (flag burning). Major dissent is outlawed and its proponents and supporters become the object of a witch hunt (communism, the House Un-American Activities Committee).

Before we dislocate our shoulder patting ourselves on the back for how great our system is in theory, perhaps we should examine how well it is implemented in practice. Remember, the man who wrote "... all men are created equal ..." was a slaveholder.

--Pete