I'm interested in your use of the term 'impose'. Are you suggesting that when the strong impose upon the weak that this is not natural and/or not a force?
Alex.
Alex.
In a market transaction (black market or free market) between two parties nothing is imposed in any way.
In a government collective (the only real collectives we've ever seen) some portion of the population will always be completely opposed to participating but legally will not have a choice in the matter.
Doc wrote:
Given division of labor -- Collectivism inherently is not a force of nature in that it is more about cooperation between individuals. The draw back is that it leads to people that are good manipulators getting ahead in the collective on those skills rather than the skills to do their particular job. If it is someone that brings higher moral to the collective that is one thing. If it is someone that is simply taking advantage of others in the collective that is another. These are things that are not easy to quantify one way or the other. So they need to be evaluated subjectively. As opposed to capitalism if someone puts out 5 widgets per hour they get paid for putting out 5 widgets per hour. In economies that work on division of labor capitalism, while not perfect, has a much better chance at being efficient. That efficiency can be the difference between a successful economy and a failing economy.
Doc,
There are a number of interesting issues in your post, although I would like to remain focussed on the 'force of nature' question.
I can see no convincing reason why an army is not an example of a force of nature. In WW11, the Wehrmacht came up against the Red Army and a momentous conflict ensued, with the Russians winning. Now, we can argue fine points about the configurations and politics in the opposing armies, but I don't see how one army would be a 'force of nature' and the other not. When the enemy front line are coming at you with fixed bayonets, such logic chopping seems hardly relevant IMHO.
I'm interested in your use of the term 'impose'. Are you suggesting that when the strong impose upon the weak that this is not natural and/or not a force?
Alex.
Alex.
In a market transaction (black market or free market) between two parties nothing is imposed in any way.
In a government collective (the only real collectives we've ever seen) some portion of the population will always be completely opposed to participating but legally will not have a choice in the matter.
Mr P,
So, when the strong impose on the weak is this not natural and/or not a force?
Doc wrote:
Given division of labor -- Collectivism inherently is not a force of nature in that it is more about cooperation between individuals. The draw back is that it leads to people that are good manipulators getting ahead in the collective on those skills rather than the skills to do their particular job. If it is someone that brings higher moral to the collective that is one thing. If it is someone that is simply taking advantage of others in the collective that is another. These are things that are not easy to quantify one way or the other. So they need to be evaluated subjectively. As opposed to capitalism if someone puts out 5 widgets per hour they get paid for putting out 5 widgets per hour. In economies that work on division of labor capitalism, while not perfect, has a much better chance at being efficient. That efficiency can be the difference between a successful economy and a failing economy.
Doc,
There are a number of interesting issues in your post, although I would like to remain focussed on the 'force of nature' question.
I can see no convincing reason why an army is not an example of a force of nature. In WW11, the Wehrmacht came up against the Red Army and a momentous conflict ensued, with the Russians winning. Now, we can argue fine points about the configurations and politics in the opposing armies, but I don't see how one army would be a 'force of nature' and the other not. When the enemy front line are coming at you with fixed bayonets, such logic chopping seems hardly relevant IMHO.
Alex.
An Army is a force based on training, organization, weaponry, morale, and emotion. It takes its legitimacy from the citizenry and/or government that stands behind it. Its solders are authorized to do what would be overwhelmingly in most cases illegal -- kill None of which implies force of nature. Except to say that humans self exclusion from nature is based on the construct of the word nature. Which for most means things other than human.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Mr. Perfect wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. You asked what I was suggesting and I provided clarification.
Mr P,
I am interested in your claim that capitalism is a force of nature. I also see capitalism as a force of nature, along with collectivism. You have presented some differences in these forces, one of which is 'imposition'. Leaving side the issue of whether capitalism involves imposition, I have asked if you see an imposed force as not a 'force of nature' and await your reply.
Doc wrote:
An Army is a force based on training, organization, weaponry, morale, and emotion. It takes its legitimacy from the citizenry and/or government that stands behind it. Its solders are authorized to do what would be overwhelmingly in most cases illegal -- kill None of which implies force of nature. Except to say that humans self exclusion from nature is based on the construct of the word nature. Which for most means things other than human.
Doc,
I understand that you do not agree that an army is a 'force of nature' based on the axiom that humans are self excluded from nature and thus what they do is not natural. It would follow from this that you believe other human activities, such as capitalism, are not 'forces of nature'.
Mr. Perfect wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. You asked what I was suggesting and I provided clarification.
Mr P,
I am interested in your claim that capitalism is a force of nature. I also see capitalism as a force of nature, along with collectivism. You have presented some differences in these forces, one of which is 'imposition'. Leaving side the issue of whether capitalism involves imposition, I have asked if you see an imposed force as not a 'force of nature' and await your reply.
Alex.
Would you mind if I referred you to list of books that already discuss these subjects exhaustively? It is called "Natural Law" and is one of the leading if not the leading Western political philosophies.
Doc wrote:
An Army is a force based on training, organization, weaponry, morale, and emotion. It takes its legitimacy from the citizenry and/or government that stands behind it. Its solders are authorized to do what would be overwhelmingly in most cases illegal -- kill None of which implies force of nature. Except to say that humans self exclusion from nature is based on the construct of the word nature. Which for most means things other than human.
Doc,
I understand that you do not agree that an army is a 'force of nature' based on the axiom that humans are self excluded from nature and thus what they do is not natural. It would follow from this that you believe other human activities, such as capitalism, are not 'forces of nature'.
Alex.
I think the idea is that capitalism is based on nature. The same could be said of war. Capitalism puts value on things in a relative way. Which much more often than not works. The problem with capitalism is when the game is rigged. That can only happen if the government is induced to regulate it that way, look the other way, or there is no government at all. The former two of course being the opposite extremes of each other.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Doc wrote:
I think the idea is that capitalism is based on nature. The same could be said of war. Capitalism puts value on things in a relative way. Which much more often than not works. The problem with capitalism is when the game is rigged. That can only happen if the government is induced to regulate it that way, look the other way, or there is no government at all. The former two of course being the opposite extremes of each other.
Doc,
Yes, your view makes sense.
I'm not looking for problems of capitalism on this thread,or indeed problems of war. I am interested in the claim that some human activities are based on nature and some are not. The 'based on nature' argument is used very often by those on the right. Personally, I don't think it follows but it's a great soundbite.
I think if you were to read some of the supporting literature (of which there is an abundance) you would probably begin to agree with us. It is highly persuasive philosophy. One might say liberating.
Doc wrote:
I think the idea is that capitalism is based on nature. The same could be said of war. Capitalism puts value on things in a relative way. Which much more often than not works. The problem with capitalism is when the game is rigged. That can only happen if the government is induced to regulate it that way, look the other way, or there is no government at all. The former two of course being the opposite extremes of each other.
Doc,
Yes, your view makes sense.
I'm not looking for problems of capitalism on this thread,or indeed problems of war. I am interested in the claim that some human activities are based on nature and some are not. The 'based on nature' argument is used very often by those on the right. Personally, I don't think it follows but it's a great soundbite.
Hitler didn't call himself 'Wolf' for nothing.
Alex.
Think of capitalism as evolutionary adaptations to the way things are, including regulations. Regulations can be created or existing regulations can be exploited. Chances are in either case they can and will be taken advantage of. Which is what natural systems do. However the difference between human systems and natural systems is that natural systems(just one way of multiple ways to look at it) are brutally just. The strong survive. If a deadly disease comes along then what ever has a strong resistance to the disease is the most likely to survive. Somewhat arbitrary thing, maybe the type of weather going on, with say when an animal gets infected. That can easily determine in many cases the question of survival or not. Human on the other hand tend to develop emotional ties Sorr if I am munging this up I just came from the eye doctor The drops they gave me are making it hard to see at the moment. Anyway that is genneral the difference between being human or not. Some oof course take advantage of the emotions while others are victims of their emotions. So not so unnatural after all.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Mr. Perfect wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. You asked what I was suggesting and I provided clarification.
Mr P,
I am interested in your claim that capitalism is a force of nature. I also see capitalism as a force of nature, along with collectivism. You have presented some differences in these forces, one of which is 'imposition'. Leaving side the issue of whether capitalism involves imposition, I have asked if you see an imposed force as not a 'force of nature' and await your reply.
Alex.
Would you mind if I referred you to list of books that already discuss these subjects exhaustively? It is called "Natural Law" and is one of the leading if not the leading Western political philosophies.
"Natural law" has always been a vague and ill-defined concept. There is no firmly agreed upon basis of what natural rights humans have. There is no consistent way to derive natural laws or to test for conformance. Property is a particularly problematic point for natural law because property rights are generally derived from one's ability to employ force to occupy territory and dispossess others, against their will. Property rights require agreement and cooperation or they are meaningless.
Zack Morris wrote:
"Natural law" has always been a vague and ill-defined concept. There is no firmly agreed upon basis of what natural rights humans have. There is no consistent way to derive natural laws or to test for conformance. Property is a particularly problematic point for natural law because property rights are generally derived from one's ability to employ force to occupy territory and dispossess others, against their will. Property rights require agreement and cooperation or they are meaningless.
You have no idea what you ware talking about. You just discovered Natural Law a few months ago.
The United States was founded on Natural Law. The Founders couldn't stop talking about it.
Last edited by Mr. Perfect on Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Zack Morris wrote:
"Natural law" has always been a vague and ill-defined concept. There is no firmly agreed upon basis of what natural rights humans have. There is no consistent way to derive natural laws or to test for conformance. Property is a particularly problematic point for natural law because property rights are generally derived from one's ability to employ force to occupy territory and dispossess others, against their will. Property rights require agreement and cooperation or they are meaningless.
Zack and folks,
A man was walking across a field. Another came towards him.
Ok, I think we're coming to some agreemnet. Socialism is clearly the strong elites (Dominic Strauss Kahn, the 1%) against the weak plebes (blacks under obama).
But why would you be for that? I struggle to see why you guys like making white people who are already rich even richer, while people like the black community are languishing. I just don't understand you guys.
Yes, I think this is why we have socialism. Socialism is not some bleeding heart liberal ideal, it is the application of strength against weakness.
Alex.
PS - Hope your eye problem is OK.
I disagree. It in theory can be anything. In the case of Europe it is the means of the elites staying in control as Mr. P has pointed out.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
We don't have enough resources to support unwanted children, so abortion is justified.
We should provide amnesty to illegal immigrant children.
Liberal "logic."
We want to raise the minimum wage.
We should allow illegal immigrants to enter the US and work for low wages. That way American businesses won't have any motivation to raise wages to attract legal workers.
Liberal "logic."
It would be silly to blame any of the current problems on Obama. These problems have been around for decades.
It's all Bush's fault."
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Zack Morris wrote:
"Natural law" has always been a vague and ill-defined concept. There is no firmly agreed upon basis of what natural rights humans have. There is no consistent way to derive natural laws or to test for conformance. Property is a particularly problematic point for natural law because property rights are generally derived from one's ability to employ force to occupy territory and dispossess others, against their will. Property rights require agreement and cooperation or they are meaningless.
You have no idea what you ware talking about. You just discovered Natural Law a few months ago.
The United States was founded on Natural Law. The Founders couldn't stop talking about it.
Natural Law is an abstract guiding principle that is subject to a huge amount of interpretation. It is not universal and it cannot be codified. This is a serious problem for Constitutional literalists. Theories of Natural Law vary considerably and are dependent on subjective beliefs about human nature and morality. No one can devise any "test" to determine whether or not a right is protected by Natural Law, so therefore it's all bullshit.
