07-16-2017, 02:51 AM
(07-15-2017, 05:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(07-15-2017, 02:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, some people deserve no attention. The lunatics incapable of expressing a coherent thought probably can't understand my response, either. Internet trolls draw attention for all the wrong reasons. I do not want to discuss my sexuality and especially not what someone wants to believe about me because of one of my stances. (I became resolutely for gay rights once I was gay-bashed because what makes life safer for gays makes my life safer in case someone gets my sexual orientation wrong). I have no desire to debate people who have cruelty and destructiveness as cornerstones of their thought. And, yes, there really are people who are just simply wrong and they cannot accept after finding out that they are wrong that they cannot accept the reality.
The real problem isn't some lunatic howling at the moon. The problem is the person schooled in the wondrous product of three millennia of achievement can still believe in catastrophically-failed patterns of thought even after one can express clearly the consequences of such thought. That is where Galen and I have a problem. He believes that unrestrained greed is the fount of all achievement, something to be cultivated irrespective of the human cost.
I have noted that Galen isn't exactly restrained in what he says, but did Galen really say the above in bold? It sounds more like a straw man, a vile lie misstating what the other guys are trying to say.
The mainstream opinion is that a State that forces a massive empowerment of economic elites by cutting taxes on the economic elites with a corresponding abolition of air to the poor culminating in the removal of the safety net will lead to much more human suffering than to any economic growth. This also comes with destruction of workers' rights. There would have to be extreme growth in the economy to offset the harm that such policies do to the non-rich.
it would be one thing if he could express a coherent argument that economic growth would compensate for early harm. Maybe if workers were sweated more on the job there would be more productivity. Maybe people would be motivated to work harder while expecting the fruit of their toil going to more investment in business as compensation for intense hardship. Maybe hunger, cold, and fear of superiors are excellent motivators of people. I understand his defense of his ideology against the harm that I see in it is essentially the trivialization "So what?"
Quote:Mind you, it is not far from a similar characterization I have made of the general red ideology. Advocating greed is an element of tribal morality. If one has something good going on for one and one's group, it in no way implies that the good should be shared by folks outside one's on group. I've been using the catch phrase, "I've got mine, up yours." I've been identifying narrow tribal morality as real, but a character flaw to be fought against rather than a worthy excuse for superiority and oppression. Other than Kinser a while ago, I've found most are unwilling to admit to tribal thinking. They just cut taxes and services and pretend there is no consequence.
"Tribes" can be ethnic or religious groups, regional groupings, occupational groupings, or social classes, among other things. Tribalism is one of the more questionable forms of collectivism, one that says that one group of people rightly have first choice of educational, vocational, and business opportunities. If it makes no sense in theory and gets suspect results in practice. tribalism is an ethical failure to be rejected.
Quote:In the clash of world views, again, tribal morality clashes with positive rights such as Freedom from Want and UDHR 25. Red partisans will seldom acknowledge or endorse such positive rights. It seems they are slippery ideas which shouldn't be acknowledged, respected or even mentioned. I strongly suspect that tribal morality conflicting with Freedom from Want is a great core of the red - blue conflict. As long as we have a huge division of wealth, there need not be and should not be Want, at least from basics like food, shelter and clothing. In a time where jobs are getting harder to find, we ought to strive towards living wages.
It may be that in the post-scarcity era (which sounds much like Marx' description of Communism) certainty of income has a justification in that not all people can be producers as a market dictates. The big money comes from meeting scarcities, which means discovering new markets or filling neglected niches.
Quote:Anyway, if there is a balance to be found between red and blue, it might have to be in part Freedom from Want against Freedom to be Filthy Rich. One proposal might be for UDHR 25 to be acknowledged as a worthy and moral goal, but beyond that attempts to impose coastal culture on the middle of the country should be minimized or eliminated. Economic competition should be recognized and allowed while the need for a floor is acknowledged.
We may be at the point at which guaranteed income is a necessity. We cannot simply produce more stuff to get a better world. Many people downsize, which implies a great quantity of former middle-class possessions in thrift shops. Good question: what would you do with $1.5K of guaranteed income (including health insurance and food aid)? Would you volunteer? Would you put your creative talents to use?
Most of us have all the manufactured goods that we need.
Quote:Now, I have been pushing for Franklin's Freedom from Want as made specific by Elanor's UDHR 25. These seem like classic blue positive rights from infamous progressive figures. Can you endorse them? When I advocate for those ideas, can I speak for fellow progressives, or am I fairly unique? I'd like to hear some basic acknowledgement of the ideals from anyone who believes in them, or open rejection of them from those that don't.
Freedom from want is the proof of the success of an economic order, whether capitalist or socialist.
***
Quote:I've another tangent on positive rights, nothing to do with your comments, but tying in with the discourse on positive and negative rights. In this case, a positive right to a decent environment.
I can see where different attitudes might develop. I grew up in a crowded suburban environment with the associated high population density. There were enough people around that if we all abused the environment we'd soon destroy it. On the other hand, I spent some time in Colorado Springs, Great Falls and elsewhere working for the Military Industrial Complex. Less people. More land. You could ride through the mountains and see nigh on untouched beautiful territory, then pass by an old mining complex where people just walked away and left everything to rust. Overall, there was enough wild to be taken for granted traversed by a people who did indeed take it for granted. With a lower population density, they would make less effort to preserve what they had.
Is there a positive right to an intact environment? Does the land belong to those who live on the land, or to government bureaucrats living far away on the coast? To what extent should the blue and faraway attempt to impose their standards and values on those living in God's country? In addition to trash and exploitation, do we add global warming?
It's easy to see where different values are drawn deep. In an unspoiled land, why not spoil things? I've no easy answers. I'm just throwing another aspect of the red - blue divide on the table.
Let's start with this self-evident right: people do not deserve to be rendered homeless and otherwise destitute because of inundation of their farmland. The sorts of people that global warming will first and most severely hurt will be peasant farmers in low-lying areas For an affluent American, some peasant farmer in Bangladesh is someone worthy of legitimate concern. Likewise some campesino in Latin America who dehydrates more frequently and more severely with resulting damage to the kidneys that shortens his life. Global warming of human origin could kill as many people as World War II and the genocides that happened under the fog of war. But there will be no Hitler, Tojo, or Stalin upon which one will be able to place culpability through evil designs.
The urban-rural divide is often one between those who get to enjoy nature with little difficulty, those who must plan and spend to do so, and those priced out of the enjoyment of nature. Damage is a different question. One can burn off huge amounts of fuel in off-road driving if one lives in parts of the desert Southwest. That's practically impossible in the corridor east of Interstate 81. People living in costly, cramped apartments use much less energy and generate much less trash than people with similar income in more spacious housing. One may not enjoy nature as much if one lives in the Bronx as one can if one lives in Billings... but I can tell you who is more likely to compact garbage, recycle soft-drink containers, and not go on Sunday drives.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.