quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

As Lenin said. A capitalist will sell you the rope you use to hang them with. Not evil, just amoral and in love with mamon to the point of their own detriment.

The term amoral is distinct from the terms moral and immoral, and simply refers to the state of lacking any moral characteristics. An amoral act is not morally good nor is it morally bad - it simply is. An amoral man is one who has no conception of morality or moral judgments. Babies, for example, are amoral.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

Can any good come of this? No. Wether you want to call it Socialism, Marxism, Communism, etc., history has shown that collectivism is a dismal failure. Collectivism on a large scale requires totalitarianism to "work." "

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

There is nothing wrong with flying to Chile or enjoying fine whiskey.

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

There is nothing wrong with flying to Chile or enjoying fine whiskey.

Not typically, no.  But I think what was being pointed out is that meatcleaver is being hypocritical.  With his own profile stating, "I dislike luxury and waste" but in the same vein making it clear that he values his expensive cigars and fine whiskey above any woman, travels regularly, and is an art consumer, he appears to have contradictory ideologies.

Not exactly inspiring to have someone like that try to tell me that my excesses are wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Economic systems are, as far as I can think, really neutral as far as morality.  It is the structure of society around them that makes moral judgements.

This is absolutely not the case. The purpose of Government is to provide a quality of life for its citizens. The economy is a tool to provide this quality of life i.e. the econcomy is society's tool for well-being and as such is absolutely and completely bound by morality.

An issue I have with this thread is the notion that you either accept capitalism in its current form of rampant consumerism or you reject capitalism completely.

In actual fact, capitalism has proven itself (to date) to be the best generator of wealth. However, there are capitalist economies outside of the US which do a far better job of providing for the people and the Governments of these countries act like proper Governments i.e they regulate the economy while at the same time promoting enterprise.

The purpose of Government is to provide a quality of life for its citizens.

stay the hell out of our business.

In actual fact, capitalism has proven itself (to date) to be the best generator of wealth.

However, there are capitalist economies outside of the US which do a far better job of providing for the people and the Governments of these countries act like proper Governments i.e they regulate the economy while at the same time promoting enterprise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

In actual fact, capitalism has proven itself (to date) to be the best generator of wealth. However, there are capitalist economies outside of the US which do a far better job of providing for the people and the Governments of these countries act like proper Governments i.e they regulate the economy while at the same time promoting enterprise.

What we see in the the US and Britain is an extreme form of capitalism where the Government absolves itself of its responsibilities, takes a backseat and allows big business to run the show. Believe it or not we are in the minority and we are the countries in the developed world with huge wealth gaps and serious levels of drug abuse, homelessness, serious crime and child poverty.

There is nothing wrong with flying to Chile or enjoying fine whiskey. There are people in other countries such as Sweden who do exactly the same thing. The difference in Sweden is the citizens' taxes funds good quality public services, schools and hospitals for the people whereas our taxes fund invasions and the result is an underclass in our countries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

Can any good come of this? No. Wether you want to call it Socialism, Marxism, Communism, etc., history has shown that collectivism is a dismal failure. Collectivism on a large scale requires totalitarianism to "work." "

Oh. Firmhand has made the assumption I'm a Marxist because I don't believe capitalism has or will come up with the solutions for global warming. Though like everything else. Capitalists believe they have the right to a monopoly on freedom and have the right to say what freedom is. Though if freedom is simply market forces, then capitalism has devalued freedom like it devalues everything else it touches that has worth and evades monetary value.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Capitalism has been effective for 60 years but that has been because after WWII ordinary people in Europe said there was no way back to how things were before WWII so capitalism has been forced to acquiesce to regulation in most western European countries but capitalism is once again using the market to try and bring back the old practices of more for the rich and less for the poor. This is why I've always been in favour of the EU as a middle way rather than Britain's preference for the American way which means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. What does it matter if you live in a super efficient economy if you can't afford to eat and clothe yourself properly?

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

There is nothing wrong with flying to Chile or enjoying fine whiskey.

Not typically, no.  But I think what was being pointed out is that meatcleaver is being hypocritical.  With his own profile stating, "I dislike luxury and waste" but in the same vein making it clear that he values his expensive cigars and fine whiskey above any woman, travels regularly, and is an art consumer, he appears to have contradictory ideologies.

Not exactly inspiring to have someone like that try to lecture everyone else about the evils of excess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Out of interest, where do you stand on the oft cited "a government ran by the people for all of the people" i.e. do you believe this is being achieved in the US and if not what is the solution?

oft cited "a government ran by the people for all of the people"

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

... I have said more than once, people should have to pay the full price of what they consume which means the cost of dealing with the pollution their activities cause...

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Economic systems are, as far as I can think, really neutral as far as morality.  It is the structure of society around them that makes moral judgements.

This is absolutely not the case. The purpose of Government is to provide a quality of life for its citizens. The economy is a tool to provide this quality of life i.e. the econcomy is society's tool for well-being and as such is absolutely and completely bound by morality.

An issue I have with this thread is the notion that you either accept capitalism in its current form of rampant consumerism or you reject capitalism completely.

In actual fact, capitalism has proven itself (to date) to be the best generator of wealth. However, there are capitalist economies outside of the US which do a far better job of providing for the people and the Governments of these countries act like proper Governments i.e they regulate the economy while at the same time promoting enterprise.

NorthernGent,

Good post.

Please see my above comments about morality in economic systems versus morality in people.

The purpose of Government is to provide a quality of life for its citizens.

Strongly disagree, and one of the fundamental differences, I believe in our belief systems, and why we will end up on the opposite sides of any discussion about politics.

To me, the purpose of a government is not to provide a "quality of life" at all.  It is to be a minimizing agency to help free peoples manage those things that are difficult or impossible for them to manage themselves individually or in groups of civil organizations, and to otherwise stay the hell out of our business.


1.  Do I accept that "providing for the people" is what governments should be doing (my above short discussion):

2.  Do we agree on what "providing for the people" even means, assuming I accept your definition of the place of government:

3.  Does "providing for the people", regardless of whose definition you accept, necessarily mean the same thing as providing for a dynamic and healthy society in the long run?

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Out of interest, where do you stand on the oft cited "a government ran by the people for all of the people" i.e. do you believe this is being achieved in the US and if not what is the solution?

oft cited "a government ran by the people for all of the people"

huh?

Oft cited?  Where?  When?  What context?

I don't think I've ever seen those words cited.

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Credit where it's due Firm, you certainly make the effort with your posts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Well, I won't comment on that but we only have to look at parts of the US and Britain to understand something is going wrong. The Government isn't providing for all of its people.

Out of interest, where do you stand on the oft cited "a government ran by the people for all of the people" i.e. do you believe this is being achieved in the US and if not what is the solution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Credit where it's due Firm, you certainly make the effort with your posts.

Thank you.  These kinds of posts and debates is what I really enjoy.  Recognizing that we may never come to convince "the other side",  yet conducting the discussion in a relatively calm and intelligent manner.

The rest of your post is interesting.  It has opened up a few new wrinkles in my brain, but I don't have the time to respond right now, but I'm interested in continuing the discussion, and will get back to it.

In the meantime, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure


I think the difference in ideologies here is that I don't believe it's up to the Government to provide for me. 

Without being too contradictory I don't think this is the difference. I don't expect the Government to provide for me because I can find my own way in life. I have never relied on social welfare and never will do but that is largely because I was lucky enough to have two parents who instilled in me a work ethic and an amount of self-esteem that means I can cope with what life throws at me. Others may not be so lucky. There is a general under-estimation of how much we are shaped by our environment. There are always exceptions to a rule but most people from a difficult background struggle to move beyond there background. From what I can see we differ because I believe it is civilised to break cycle of underachievement by providing the opportunities to allow people to thrive i.e. the opportunities that people in Britain and the US are denied. My politics is based around the sort of country I want to live in - do I want to live in an "I'm alright Jack" culture? I couldn't think of anything worse.

Without getting into the details of just exactly what I think the role of Government should be, I'll simply say that I expect the people elected to govern to tackle the unenviable task of legislating to benefit the most while protecting our basic freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So what is going wrong then because the world saw New Orleans laid bare and we all know the levels of drug abuse and serious crime in the US? Happiness? isn't the US the country with the highest rate of anti-depressant use in the developed world? If this board is a representative sample of the US then there are a lot of unhappy people in your country. Something is going badly wrong. Also, I'm struggling to understand the reality of liberty in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong but regardless of how you vote in the next election you will get pretty much the same Government and this means you are disenfranchised - this is not democracy or liberty.
 
This shouldn't sound like this is have a go at the US season because it is not. It is healthy to have a look in the mirror from time to time. We have people in Britain who think Britain is all tits and beer too.

The quote you refer to is by Abraham Lincoln.  When dedicating the military cemetary at Gettysburg, he declared, "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  You'd have to study the historical context of that comment to understand it fully, but needless to say, his definition of our government has endured.
 
Fine. My knowledge of US history leaves a lot to be desired so I'll leave that one there.

Our government is made up of citizens, voted in by citizens, and charged with representing the citizens interests.

This applies to every country in the world. The question is: which citizens? Largely white Middle-Class America or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure


I think the difference in ideologies here is that I don't believe it's up to the Government to provide for me.  Without getting into the details of just exactly what I think the role of Government should be, I'll simply say that I expect the people elected to govern to tackle the unenviable task of legislating to benefit the most while protecting our basic freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The quote you refer to is by Abraham Lincoln.  When dedicating the military cemetary at Gettysburg, he declared, "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  You'd have to study the historical context of that comment to understand it fully, but needless to say, his definition of our government has endured.

Our government is made up of citizens, voted in by citizens, and charged with representing the citizens interests.