"Atlas Panted"

Hey, natural rights is what we (USA) are founded on, whether you like it or not. They are found notably in the Declaration.

Now, some socialists and communists out there may deplore property (and no, its not simply using buzzwords; this has always been a core belief of far left ideologies), but George Washington and company felt it was a God-given right. Rather than trying to throw out natural rights (in terms of structure, at least, if you don't believe they actually "exist") and attempting to make America a clone of Europe (whom we separated from and swore never to get entangled with - whoops), said socialists and communists can always go back home with their Torryism (that is a buzzword, I suppose). :bowdown:
 
Whlle I am an admirer of your Founding Fathers they weren't bringing up anything new in "natural rights". But that's okay, they knew what they were and they were determined not to let government unreasonably infringe on them and I reckon that's a damn fine idea.

Socialists and communists aren't opposed to "property". The issue is with the means of production.

The United States didn't fall out with Europe (remember the French navy?) it fell out with Britain and no wonder.

"Toryism" relates to the values of the political party which existed in Britain about the same time as the Whigs (the current Conservative Party of the UK is labelled "Tory" by its opponents).
 
Torryism used to mean being sympathetic to Britain. It was essentially the same thing as being a Loyalist (here in the US).

And my point is that the Founders were affirming and protecting Natural Rights, and that is the basis of this country. Midcan attacked them as unreal and quoted a guy who thinks property (NR #2) is evil.

And communists certainly think property is evil. Marx identified it with the means of production, it the hostility grew from there.
 
Threedee said:
Torryism used to mean being sympathetic to Britain. It was essentially the same thing as being a Loyalist (here in the US).

And my point is that the Founders were affirming and protecting Natural Rights, and that is the basis of this country. Midcan attacked them as unreal and quoted a guy who thinks property (NR #2) is evil.

And communists certainly think property is evil. Marx identified it with the means of production, it the hostility grew from there.
Click to expand...

Marx wrote about the ownership of the means of production, he didn't decry property itself. Communists don't think property is evil, following Marx they believe in the social ownership fo the means of production, not its private ownership.
 
midcan5 said:
Sorry, but I found it unreadable, also found Skinner's book unreadable, they are both ideology cloaked in so called literature.
Click to expand...

Ummm, DUH! They aren't trying to dupe into buying into their ideology via a fictitious story. If you have even a hint of who Ayn Rand is before reading it, you know, whether fictional or not, that what you are about to read will be mostly ideologic commentary.

midcan5 said:
Read Sinclair or Steinbeck instead. Galbraith's quote pretty much sums it up, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." Anyone who lives and works in corporate business know the premise that they do conscious good work is complete hooey. Think Enron. If you want a real challenging (but easy) read in this area, and it is contemporary, check out Derrick Jensen's, "The Culture of Make Believe." I am just over a hundred pages into it but it questions so much of modern economics BS.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Galbraith is simply wrong. You don't think there is a shred of his own bias in that statement? The characters aren't trying to justify selfishness. As an Rand said in the book via Hank Rearden, "I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist." That isn't trying to justify anything. It is simply saying that the fact he is successfull in of itself is not some obligation to be generous. True it is not the goal of corporate business to do good work. A corporate businesses job is to make money. To have anything else as a goal is stupid for a private business. You can't argue however that good works (jobs, innovation, increased tax revenue, etc.) aren't a bi-product of that pursuit.

And yet still this group of people is constantly pissed on for their perceived greed, instead of being recognized for what they have contributed to society via their pursuit to acheive whatever they hell they want (which is their right in this country). The problem is the left in this country wants Enron to be synonomous w/ corporate america, when they are the exception instead of the rule. The best way I can describe is to say that the book is essentially about what happens when the perceived 'greedy', take their ball and go home.
 
All that is true. The question is, who wants a system where the good is just a by-product of economic activity? I think one of the reasons that capitalism is coming to the end of its reign is that it is sociopathic in its approach. That's worked for several hundred years and it's worked well. This is why the hysterical denialists are jumping up and down when scientists prove the deleterious effects of human-influenced global climate change. Unfettered capitalism has to be slowed and eventually replaced with an economic system that not only produces good as a direct result of its activity but also has a conscience.

I know, I know, the objections will be myriad, just my thoughts that's all.
 
Diuretic said:
All that is true. The question is, who wants a system where the good is just a by-product of economic activity? I think one of the reasons that capitalism is coming to the end of its reign is that it is sociopathic in its approach. That's worked for several hundred years and it's worked well. This is why the hysterical denialists are jumping up and down when scientists prove the deleterious effects of human-influenced global climate change. Unfettered capitalism has to be slowed and eventually replaced with an economic system that not only produces good as a direct result of its activity but also has a conscience.

I know, I know, the objections will be myriad, just my thoughts that's all.
Click to expand...

The answer to the question of your first question is very simple and has historically been shown to be true over and over again. More good is done as a bi-product of people's pursuit of self improvement (which is all business really is) then by pursuing 'good' as a collective.

Do some reading about William Bradford (he came over with the Mayflower). It essentially tells the story of how inititally the pilgrims did try to use socialism to sustain themselves. Each individual was given a plot of land and each member of the community was entitled to an equal share of what was collectively produced. Bradford saw the problem rather quickly. The pilgrims landed in the fall, comeing to nothing but a barren wilderness and a harsh winter (half died that winter). Obviously that situation would require everyone giveing there all. The problem? Everyone wasn't giveing their all for the simple reason, why would the most intelligent, ingeneous and bright give any more when their extra work yields nothing? Why would anyone work hard when they know if that whether they give 100% or 0% everyone is gonna get an equal share. The person that did nothing is still gonna get as much as the person that does everything. Bradford recongized a basic part of human nature that people work to self-improve. Bradford was also the governor of the first colony, so he changed the system such that everyone could own their own plot and provide for themselves. This lead to people producing more than they could use so they set up trading posts to gain better goods.

The point is you and I have seen over and over that collectivism doesn't work. It leads to mediocrity at best and does not take human nature into account. You may not look that good is not the ultimate goal of business, but if it were, we would be worse off.
 
I'm not arguing for a simple form of collectivism. Your examples, which are obviously valid, predate capitalism and industrialism. You could have quite easily used Soviet collectivism in the 1930s as well, Stalin's destructive agrarian collectivism which caused the huge famine in Ukraine. And underneath that could be found the quackery of Lysenko and his argument that agriculture could abide by dialectical materialism. Crackpot thinking but it fitted Stalin's idea of Marxist thought. It was immensely destructive.

I'm not arguing for utopian socialism. I'm not arguing for anything specifically (going easy on myself you may think), I'm simply arguing that unrestrained capitalism has now got to the point where it's good is exceeded by the harm it does and a new model has to be invented.
 
Diuretic said:
I'm not arguing for utopian socialism. I'm not arguing for anything specifically (going easy on myself you may think), I'm simply arguing that unrestrained capitalism has now got to the point where it's good is exceeded by the harm it does and a new model has to be invented.
Click to expand...

And what harm do you believe it is causeing?
 
Diuretic said:
I haunt second hand bookshops so I'll keep an eye out for it.
Click to expand...

No wonder you're a filthy atheist and a :omg: ....work ethic denyin' CommUNIONIST! ;)

You won't find evangelical Christians in first hand, let alone second hand books shops....unless they are looking for free-thinkers books for the fire at tonight's torchlight rally.
 
Threedee said:
Torryism used to mean being sympathetic to Britain. It was essentially the same thing as being a Loyalist (here in the US).

And my point is that the Founders were affirming and protecting Natural Rights, and that is the basis of this country. Midcan attacked them as unreal and quoted a guy who thinks property (NR #2) is evil.

And communists certainly think property is evil. Marx identified it with the means of production, it the hostility grew from there.
Click to expand...


You mean proitecting their "Natural Rights" to slave *******?
 
Chips Rafferty said:
No wonder you're a filthy atheist and a :omg: ....work ethic denyin' CommUNIONIST! ;)

You won't find evangelical Christians in first hand, let alone second hand books shops....unless they are looking for free-thinkers books for the fire at tonight's torchlight rally.
Click to expand...

I'm watching the ABC and hoping for a Labor win....I can't begin to think that the bastards will do if they get back in :eusa_silenced:
 
Antony Green made his prediction :D

I'm still crossing my fingers!

I'm in Makin, it's gone back to Labor and Tony Zappia is in :D

Now I think I'll join the Greens, Labor's too conservative for me now ;)
 
Chips Rafferty said:
I think the pseudo American "Family First" party vote is up though. :mad:
Click to expand...

I can't understand the FF vote, got me absolutely bamboozled, probably a haven for the ultra-conservatives and the would-be DLP vote. I think the counter is the Greens, they look like they have won an extra Senate seat which is good news.

I'm just very glad Labor is going to form government. I thought I'd be triumphant, strangely I'm not, I'm just relieved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

end of democracy

< Previous Thread

The Taffeta Girl

Next Thread >

Similar threads

justoffal
Jasmine is destroying the Dems...
2
Replies
37
Views
356
Hollie
H
Mac-7
Man keys Tesla and gets caught
Replies
13
Views
190
RoshawnMarkwees
RoshawnMarkwees
Ringo
Human, all too human.
Replies
0
Views
310
Ringo
Ringo
Independent thinker
If You Want Me Back I'm Not Changing
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
740
Dragonlady
Dragonlady
0
State AG Announces Legal Action After Elon Musk Says He Will Talk In Wisconsin And Give Two Million Dollars To Petition Signers.
2
Replies
35
Views
378
scruffy
S

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom