Global capitalism has written off the human race

Post Reply New Topic

What "duties"?

ruveyn

Some are love for your fellow man, helping those when they're down, seeking better truths, questioning your own assumptions and other people's assumptions, help to improve society as a whole, raising children with love, virtue and wisdom, etc.

Unless you are American you shouldn't be passing judgement on us as a country.

1. I am an American
2. Why is no one allowed to pass judgment on the USA? Are we above any kind of reproach at all as a culture? Can we as Americans do no wrong at all? This is our problem, we see ourselves as perfection, the new Jerusalem and not open to criticism and critique. I'm not talking just about the government. I'm talking about the culture? No, we're not gods that are above mere mortals. Our pride and our arrogance shall be our shame and our fall.

Shelley's Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.[4]

That's an excellent way to put it! I totally agree.

@Iuanqibazao,

to continue with the Roman example... Do you think those guys agreed 100% on anything? Ever hear of a little tiff known as the struggle of the orders? There was plenty of conflict and disagreement to go around, but they could at least agree that they were better off together than apart. And that is was better to work together in an effort to perfect their union, than to simply go each to his own way following self interest alone.

There's never been, that I can tell, a successful civilization made up of people who only pursued self interest, and self interest alone.

If I'm overlooking one, name it.

I hope we are not that far gone, but I certainly understand why you see things that way.

PS

That's a great poem...

So you acknowledge that you are the aggressor. You believe it's justified to use violence to enforce your moral code. Am I not justified, then, to use violence to enforce mine?

I don't agree that violence needs to be prevented by a government threat of violence. I think violence can be mostly eliminated by ceasing to force other people to conform to social contract. In other words, threatening people with violence encourages those threatened to become violent.

If you leave people alone, they are not inclined to interpersonal conflict. This is well established by research in military psychology (this is part of what I do professionally). Mad Max is fiction with little basis in reality. Interpersonal conflict is usually the product of politicians.


One of the fundamental values in science is objectivity. Subjectivity is a failure. I don't understand why you are arguing this. No scientist is going to agree that scientific study should be subjective.


Whether or not the experiment is moral or immoral has no bearing on the truth of a scientific principle.


You didn't show me anything. You are trying to claim that the morality of an experiment affects scientific principles.


No, but what does my desire have anything to do with the scientific principle?


My moral system doesn't lack empathy. It's just not empathy that is consistent with your empathy. I have empathy for people who are treated unfairly under the law. I have empathy for people who face unfortunate circumstances. My empathy fades for people who think that those who produce should be forced to support those who don't.


We were originally discussing economics and transactions, not life in general. You're going off the deep end.


Order doesn't require government or coercion. In my ideal society, participation in any social grouping would be voluntary.

But again, I understand the difference between this ideal and what really happens in the world. Aristocracy is the only real political system. You've just been indoctrinated to support a big government that the ruling class can (and does) wield against the working class. If I get to a point where I'm in the ruling class, I'll probably decide to encourage your worldview. But I'm still a few years away from that.

I did not say violence. I said force, as in subjected to the force of law.

Hey, you know what? I will go ahead and quote Edmund Burke because he talks so much more prettier than me...


Just in case you don't know Burke is an O.G. Libertarian and I don't agree with a lot of his thinking, but he's dead right about this. This is a big, important part of the social contract. It's also something modern, Ayn Rand brand libertarians don't understand.

So, you are free behave in a responsible, benevolent way toward society and your fellowman of your own freewill, or don't and society will be forced (and justified) to enact laws to compel you to ACT like a decent human being.

I don't really see a difference. The force of law is through threat of violence. If I fail to comply, violence is employed to force my compliance.


I didn't know who he was. Thank you for informing me.

I believe the nature of the free market can provide that temperance. For example, I follow certain business practices because it appeals to my customers and employees. Many of these practices reduce my direct profitability, but they enhance it in the long term through customer and employee retention.

What I don't believe is that other people are more qualified to make decisions for me than I am. I don't really have a problem with people who feel that other people should make decisions for them, but I don't think that justifies them forcing me to accept the same.

You're welcome. You should really get to know him along with Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.

Yesterday's thinkers rarely warrant today's labels. Burke was a liberal in his day, but his admiration for order, authority, and established social classes has made him a hero to the Kirk/Buckley strain of modern conservatives. I don't think "libertarian" fits him at all.

So you believe in something called the social contract, but are unwilling to define it in concrete terms or to explain exactly who is entitled to name its requirements and enforce them upon others. Minorities may be oppressed if society (i.e., the ruling power) finds it "necessary." Individual rights are of no importance so long as a society is "successful" – also not defined, but apparently stability and longevity are desirable. About the only thing you're crystal clear on is that those who defy the social contract deserve to be met with violence. Thank you for your time.

I've been extremely clear. I'm sorry you don't like my answers and don't have a substantive counterargument.

Cling to your perverse reverence for personal "freedom from responsibility" if you must... But it doesn't change the fact that your ideal society would degenerate into a Hobbesian nightmare in short order.

adb, I will respond to your post later. I think I may know why we're getting our wires crossed and why you become confused about some of the things I say and ask.

I am going to try to describe my thought process to you. What you seem to do is compartmentalize your thoughts, concepts and ideas. My brain does not naturally do this. Consider that there are file cabinets that are supposed to be compartmentalized and contain my thoughts. Consider that there is supposed to be a central directory that states what thoughts go with what.

For me, my thoughts are scattered because I do not have a central directory. Consider that papers are just shoved in the cabinets. This enables me to interrelate my thoughts with other thoughts therefore I interrelate concepts and ideas as well and that for whatever reason others don't seem to do this. You seem to compartmentalize your thoughts and concepts. I don't know how to do that or conceive of a way to do that.

My natural way of thinking is that everything is related to each other in some way. Examine the Law of Fives in the Principia Discordia. It is the way my mind works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism#Law_of_Fives

^^^ @luanqibazao

Just to clear things up a bit more....

I'm not arguing for a specific ideology. I'm arguing AGAINST a rejection of the social contract. As I've pointed out with my Roman example, for 2500 years and longer, people have been forming societies around some sort of social contract--which is the acknowledgement that people have certain moral/ethical obligations to one another/society (whatever they might be). That's it.

I maintain that all successful societies require some kind of social contract. You have disputed this. So, provide an example of a society based solely on individuals pursuing self-interest and self-interest alone.

I don't think you can do this, because there's never been a society like that, as far as I know. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

I only say this is because the USA is not the ruler of the world, nor is any other man, country, alliance, or king. As they are not to us.
No one can make such judgements without knowing that country. Has Israel harmed your family, your life, or disrupted your pursuit of happiness? I doubt it, and they shouldn't get the aid we give them either.

You misinterpret my meaning, I pretty much agree with you. I just don't like saying stuff about entire countries before I've been mistreated or harmed by that country. I'd even say it would have to be their government; if one Afghan shoots me, I'm not going to hate all Afghanis.

Besides, you are right about the economy, but to say America (as in all Americans) are failing on being decent people is a tad generalizing.
Note, I'm sorry for the backlash, if your American, I guess you should be able to say we are all that way if you want.