User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 21

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fecal McAngry View Post
    Actually, capitalism thrives on people making mistakes, some of them very large indeed, and on people acting on all sorts of motives...
    I think you mean the economy as opposed to capitalism, they arent the same thing and ideological capitalism isnt the same thing either.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think you mean the economy as opposed to capitalism, they arent the same thing and ideological capitalism isnt the same thing either.
    I have no idea WTF you are attempting to communicate. Could you please restate your point, this time in English, or at least Ebonics?

  3. #13
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Some Guy View Post
    You don't, but you do need those things for pure free-market capitalism to work in the manner its advocates often claim it will (being the most efficient system, being the most just system, being the system which produces the most good, being the system that best maximizes individual liberty and natural rights, etc.).
    I happen to believe free-market capitalism is the most efficient, just economic system, but I would never claim that it is ALWAYS efficient, nor would I claim that humans can (or even should) be completely rational calculators. That is not necessary. No one can have perfect knowledge of the market at all times, and perfect competition is not necessary for a free market. Very few goods can even approach perfect competition.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #14
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBowden View Post
    Since government services are funded like Ponzi schemes, they require more and more resources. This means there always has to be young people to tax. On the other hand, feminism, abortion, alternative marriages, delayed adulthood, all encourage fewer and smaller families...
    You left birth control and playboyism out of your manifesto here.

    Also what about the effect of higher standards of living on birth rate?

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fecal McAngry View Post
    I have no idea WTF you are attempting to communicate. Could you please restate your point, this time in English, or at least Ebonics?
    With that attitude you're pretty close to going on ignore, then when you've diffused whatever shit is giving you attitude just right now you'll still not be able to communicate. Think about it.

    As to my point, you were suggesting that capitalism works because of a variety of motivations, not people behaving like rational calculators.

    Well, that's not capitalism, that's the economy, the economy isnt perfectly capitalist, it doesnt resemble the early or later theorists outlines remotely and that's why its generally described as a mixed economy or welfare capitalism or a property owning democracy.

    The uncapitalist nature of most economies allows for ideological capitalism, people who hold the original or later capitalist theories as of ideological importance, if you want a pop cultural reference consider the Ferengi in Star Trek, if you want a political reference think of Ron Paul or the Libertarians in the states, if you want a "literary" or fictional example consider Ayn Rand.

    Both the classical economics which Marx labelled capitalism or ideological capitalism assumes and suggests that people are rational calculators, all the pop economic books like Freakanomics or Undercover Economist or others reaffirm that basis paradigm.

  6. #16
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    With that attitude you're pretty close to going on ignore, then when you've diffused whatever shit is giving you attitude just right now you'll still not be able to communicate. Think about it.

    As to my point, you were suggesting that capitalism works because of a variety of motivations, not people behaving like rational calculators.

    Well, that's not capitalism, that's the economy, the economy isnt perfectly capitalist, it doesnt resemble the early or later theorists outlines remotely and that's why its generally described as a mixed economy or welfare capitalism or a property owning democracy.

    The uncapitalist nature of most economies allows for ideological capitalism, people who hold the original or later capitalist theories as of ideological importance, if you want a pop cultural reference consider the Ferengi in Star Trek, if you want a political reference think of Ron Paul or the Libertarians in the states, if you want a "literary" or fictional example consider Ayn Rand.

    Both the classical economics which Marx labelled capitalism or ideological capitalism assumes and suggests that people are rational calculators, all the pop economic books like Freakanomics or Undercover Economist or others reaffirm that basis paradigm.

    I am an American libertarian, and I find your characterization quite inaccurate.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBowden View Post
    Lark, you need to look carefully at the demographics.
    There's a lot about family dynamics which I think is concerning but attempting to turn the clock back isnt the answer, its like Zerzans primitivism, you cant have a straight return, its like trying to grow younger instead of older, it simply doesnt happen.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I am an American libertarian, and I find your characterization quite inaccurate.
    It is completely inaccurate.

    It's a bit like me claiming that Islam is a religion which holds that the highest virtue is the consumption of pork and beer while standing on one leg.

  9. #19
    Senior Member JHBowden's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3
    Posts
    201

    Default

    but attempting to turn the clock back isnt the answer
    There are no answers. It isn't like we're solving problems, as in mathematics.

    I usually get called a bigot in these discussions, which is far from the truth, since I believe Islamic societies are objectively and morally superior to secular progressive societies. All human civilizations have what the Muslims call maqasid al-Shari'ah. Most multiculturalists have no idea what I'm talking about-- their open-mindedness is about feeling warm and fluffy about other cultures without knowing any details about them.

    As the story goes, every society has five foundational ends, or maqasid-- offspring, family, property, reason, and religion. Societies that conform to these ends displace those that do not-- it is just the inherent telos underlying the possibility of any human activity. Secular progressives, which are against all five, will grow old, childless, and will wither away.

    Some libertarians might wonder why religion is necessary. It happens that most of humankind is immoral and stupid. This will always be the case, no matter how much education we have. Immoral people are more likely to breed than prudent people. Stupid people are more likely to breed than cultivated people. Religion is the only social construct keeping a stupid and immoral horde in check without decreasing their fertility.

    So there is reason to reject Lark's progressive premise completely. It isn't like we can turn back the clock, as if the clock is progressively moving forward. In matters of culture, the house always wins.

    At this point, a typical response is as follows. "Jason, if you embrace a steady-state theory of morality, and believe retrograde societies have virtue, then what are you worried about?" Well, my heart is with Western civilization-- Brahms, Euler, Leonardo, Dante, Galileo, Darwin. I not only enjoy the higher things of our society, we could argue they are worthy of imitation. It would be a tragedy if we forfeited higher perfections because we lost sight of the basic tasks of social reproduction outlined so clearly in Aristotle's Politics. Our fantasy of value-neutrality has gotten the best of us.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBowden View Post
    There are no answers. It isn't like we're solving problems, as in mathematics.

    I usually get called a bigot in these discussions, which is far from the truth, since I believe Islamic societies are objectively and morally superior to secular progressive societies. All human civilizations have what the Muslims call maqasid al-Shari'ah. Most multiculturalists have no idea what I'm talking about-- their open-mindedness is about feeling warm and fluffy about other cultures without knowing any details about them.

    As the story goes, every society has five foundational ends, or maqasid-- offspring, family, property, reason, and religion. Societies that conform to these ends displace those that do not-- it is just the inherent telos underlying the possibility of any human activity. Secular progressives, which are against all five, will grow old, childless, and will wither away.

    Some libertarians might wonder why religion is necessary. It happens that most of humankind is immoral and stupid. This will always be the case, no matter how much education we have. Immoral people are more likely to breed than prudent people. Stupid people are more likely to breed than cultivated people. Religion is the only social construct keeping a stupid and immoral horde in check without decreasing their fertility.

    So there is reason to reject Lark's progressive premise completely. It isn't like we can turn back the clock, as if the clock is progressively moving forward. In matters of culture, the house always wins.

    At this point, a typical response is as follows. "Jason, if you embrace a steady-state theory of morality, and believe retrograde societies have virtue, then what are you worried about?" Well, my heart is with Western civilization-- Brahms, Euler, Leonardo, Dante, Galileo, Darwin. I not only enjoy the higher things of our society, we could argue they are worthy of imitation. It would be a tragedy if we forfeited higher perfections because we lost sight of the basic tasks of social reproduction outlined so clearly in Aristotle's Politics. Our fantasy of value-neutrality has gotten the best of us.
    What would your advice be to those who agree with everything you write but are incapable of suspending disbelief sufficiently to buy into any particular religion?

    I do not agree with all you write, FWIW, but I am incapable of believing in a religion.

Similar Threads

  1. Why do Social Theories Become Ideologies?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-29-2010, 04:18 PM
  2. [INTP] Older INTPs: Have you become more or less social over the years?
    By ajblaise in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-01-2009, 09:48 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-25-2008, 06:33 PM
  4. [INTP] Being an INTP has become a LIVING HELL. HELP.
    By the_STRATOSPHERE in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-07-2008, 06:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO