Lets Get Political

[213374U]

4 hours ago, Skarpen said:

And how exactly would that apply to capital goods? Are capital goods freedom or democracy in this situation?

It would apply in the same way as the ownership of people being legal because people agreed it is legal. Things like modern wage slavery, being forced into prostitution for a sandwich and privatization of essential resources present a threat to freedom in a practical sense. Of course, abolishing private ownership of land and capital goods may not solve those problems by itself, but capitalism does rest on it.

 

4 hours ago, KaineParker said:

I agree, but legality is a spook to begin with. The legitimacy of the state does not come from any natural law or diety, it comes from wielded force and exists to perpetuate itself and support the class that (largely) composes it.

Fair enough. I'm mostly interested in consistency here. You cannot hold the view that a foundational idea in society is simply an error by the majority (paraphrasing) while simultaneously believing that other such concepts -spooks- are immanent. Not without some serious mental gymnastics, at least.

It's been argued that without spooks, myths and collective fictions, you cannot really run a group bigger than a hundred people or so with any degree of coordination, btw. Force or the threat thereof just doesn't cut it.

Edited July 6, 2019 by 213374U
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Guard Dog]

59 minutes ago, smjjames said:

I'd call taking a major part in the last campaign in the Revolutionary War more than a handful. Not to mention being responsible for the decisive naval battle during the same campaign. Not sure where you're getting that French soldiers did not participate.

Memory for what that is worth. i'd consider myself something of an expert on US history from 1860 on to today. Admittedly not so much before that.

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

5 hours ago, 213374U said:

Interesting. Maybe consider applying that same reasoning to the private ownership of capital goods.

 

Sorry. I have less than no desire to go down that rhetorical rabbit hole.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

11 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Fair enough. I'm mostly interested in consistency here. You cannot hold the view that a foundational idea in society is simply an error by the majority (paraphrasing) while simultaneously believing that other such concepts -spooks- are immanent. Not without some serious mental gymnastics, at least.

It's been argued that without spooks, myths and collective fictions, you cannot really run a group bigger than a hundred people or so with any degree of coordination, btw. Force or the threat thereof just doesn't cut it.

I don't hold that view my friend, this being the internet I'm not sure if you're critiquing me or GD on property. To be brief I think that a foundational idea in society isn't an error of the majority because the majority played no part in crafting it and it has been around long enough for them to accept it as the way things are. It becomes a part of ideology or myth and isn't challenged en masse without extreme pressure, like food shortages or similar.

As to the second part, while force is not the sole reason that society exists as it does, it is a major part of it as the modern state has maintained a police and military apparatus for centuries. I don't buy the argument about myth because it seems to be predicated on a superficial investigation that recounts how myth (whether religion or ideology) has played a vital part in historical society rather than looking into why that is. Coordination based upon interest seems to be completely possible without myth, though likely in a form that functions radically different than current methods of organization which are largely authoritarian in nature.

[213374U]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Sorry. I have less than no desire to go down that rhetorical rabbit hole.

Have it your way. Perhaps you have an internal dialogue that justifies analyzing -and potentially discarding- some ideas but exempting others from similar scrutiny out of hand. Outwardly, though, that amounts to "just take my word for it".

I really only followed you down the rabbit hole.

 

 

1 hour ago, KaineParker said:

I don't hold that view my friend, this being the internet I'm not sure if you're critiquing me or GD on property. To be brief I think that a foundational idea in society isn't an error of the majority because the majority played no part in crafting it and it has been around long enough for them to accept it as the way things are. It becomes a part of ideology or myth and isn't challenged en masse without extreme pressure, like food shortages or similar.

As to the second part, while force is not the sole reason that society exists as it does, it is a major part of it as the modern state has maintained a police and military apparatus for centuries. I don't buy the argument about myth because it seems to be predicated on a superficial investigation that recounts how myth (whether religion or ideology) has played a vital part in historical society rather than looking into why that is. Coordination based upon interest seems to be completely possible without myth, though likely in a form that functions radically different than current methods of organization which are largely authoritarian in nature.

No, I was explaining my response to GD, I didn't meant to imply that you held that view. Whether a majority is involved in the creation of one of these ideas tends to take a back seat to how useful that idea is compared to competitors, I think. In a supposedly democratic society this can cause contradictions, but practicality trumps intellectual consistency because of how memes are selected and spread.

As for the coordination through myths bit. The ~150 individual upper limit seems to be empirically derived and the idea is that our brains cannot keep straight a much bigger number. Beyond that size, social structures start falling apart without cognitive crutches.

So In this context, "myth" doesn't necessarily carry religious undertones. Much like the state, the working class for instance is a myth, because it doesn't exist in any tangible sense in the real world. It is a fiction upheld by you, me, and several other million people that helps us make sense of our society and work toward common goals without personally trusting or even knowing each other. The use of myths (such as "country", "legal framework" or "corporate branch") enable coordination on a massive scale. Common material interests alone aren't enough to bind together groups of thousands or millions because your immediate interests often won't align with those of the folks in the next village. And you really need not just cooperation but also precise coordination in order to do things like curing cancer or getting people to Mars.

I'm not going to get into the degree of authoritarianism required for that to work -- that wasn't my point either. I'm open to the idea that, potentially, it could work without any sort of coercion at all. But I can't even begin to speculate as to how that would work.

Edited July 6, 2019 by 213374U
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ShadySands]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Memory for what that is worth. i'd consider myself something of an expert on US history from 1860 on to today. Admittedly not so much before that.

 

Can you speak on Russia's assistance to the Union in the Civil War? 

I've only heard about it today and not in any history class I've ever attended 

[smjjames]

I wouldn't be surprised if they gave some assistance as the Civil War theatre extended from the Pacific to the Atlantic, though the eastern theatre saw most of the action and the western theatre usually gets pretty much ignored in Civil War documentaries.

Can't seem to find anything on wikipedia, yet....

edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire–United_States_relations#American_Civil_War Seems to have been something they did that wasn't actually support, but was percieved as support?

Edited July 6, 2019 by smjjames

[BruceVC]

9 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Some people equate the words freedom and democracy. They shouldn't. Not the same things. If you have the latter you probably get the former. But not necessarily. The USSR was "democratic" in that it held elections, even if they were not a sham the opportunity to choose your leaders does not make you free. There is a school of thought that the actions of a duly elected legislative body can't be illegal because the very act of electing them gives them the mandate of the people. Nothing could be father from the truth. Slavery for example was legal and popular and democratically mandated and because of it people were not free. So even if there is a democratic process he end result is not always freedom. As far a regime change goes, IMO that is solely the responsibility of the people under the regime. No one else. The Colonists did not ask the French or Spanish to fight the Brits for them, they lined themselves up in Lexington MA on a hot April morning with muskets in hand. I would not trade on drop of American blood to change any government on this Earth no matter how vile it may be. Not. Our. Responsibility. 

And if history has taught us anything such an action usually leaves the people of those countries fewer, worse off, and very ungrateful.  

 

 

On the issue of  legitimate and sustainable regime change let me give you some background  and context to why this can be justified  and then pose a question to you

Firstly let me say my opinion has changed on this. Before Iraq 2003  I use to believe Democracy, the free market, responsible Capitalism  and the institutions that make it work have been  historically and currently proven to be the most effective and sustainable systems of government and economies  in the world that offer citizens overall the best quality of life. I still believe that but where I have changed is you cant force countries to adopt a better system because sometimes the attempt to help is rejected or seen in a negative light by the country we are trying to help

 Which is why I use the words " sustainable regime change " 

Now what would be an example of this and how would you justify it? There are several examples of this but my fundamental definition where this would be acceptable is where you have a  failed state and that failed state is not due to the country being very poor or having a legitimate Democracy  that made bad decisions. This type of government needs to be assisted and regime change here would be wrong and pointless

I am talking about governments that are either dictatorships or represent " Democratic facades " , this means where a government stays in power by undermining and cheating in the Democratic process...so they say they are a  legitimate government but obviously if people haven't been able to vote or participate in the Democratic process equally and fairly then its illegitimate 

The outcome of this type of government is normally a collapse of basic services, economic opportunities, quality of life, lack of investment and sustainable futures for citizens and there families. Now where I have also changed about this appalling type of leadership is where now I think " as long as my country isn't impacted by this flawed government we shouldn't get involved "....but here is real issue. It is very possible you will be effected especially where you share a border so a brutal dictatorships can become your problem even if you dont want to get involved

In South Africa we have become the destination  of millions of immigrants who come to SA looking for jobs and some kind of prosperity because these dont exist in there own countries, quite simply we cannot absorb all these people who enter the country illegally and are undocumented. We just dont have resources

For example Zimbabwe from 2002 was allowed to get worse and worse and Mugabe systematically destroyed his countries economy through egregious political and economic decisions. The outcome was the mass illegal  immigration of millions of Zimbabweans to other countries who now have to try to deal with them. Regime change should have been implemented in Zim in about 2005 by putting real pressure on Mugabe by the African Union  but by keeping silent the situation deteriorated and countries like South Africa now have to internally deal with the pressure on our economy 

Finally this could apply to the USA and  does in some real similarities . The mass movement of immigrants from Central America to the USA border is due to high levels of crime and the reality that there countries dont offer economic futures. Now I am not suggesting countries like Honduras and El Salvador become legitimate targets for regime change because they dont fit my profile of dictatorships but there are other examples where the failed outcomes of governments leads to a direct negative impact to the USA 

So going back to your original post, if the actions and decisions of a particular  foreign government due to failed leadership can directly and indirectly impact the USA dont you think sustainable regime change should and can be justified? 

[ShadySands]

2 hours ago, smjjames said:

I wouldn't be surprised if they gave some assistance as the Civil War theatre extended from the Pacific to the Atlantic, though the eastern theatre saw most of the action and the western theatre usually gets pretty much ignored in Civil War documentaries.

Can't seem to find anything on wikipedia, yet....

edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire–United_States_relations#American_Civil_War Seems to have been something they did that wasn't actually support, but was percieved as support?

Yeah, that looks similar to what I read but it also said that while they were doing it out of their own interests that the fleets in NY and SF did also offer protection for those ports though it was never tested if they would have actually fought on our behalf. That's why I was looking for more info because I've not seen anyone argue that it wasn't for Russia's own reasons but I've seen conflicting articles on whether or not they would have actually defended the ports they were stationed at and/or if their presence alone staved off any attacks. The dismissal of it seems to be based on the fact that Russia did it for their own interests and seemingly stops there. 

As I said, I've only heard about it today and haven't found much on the topic and since GD is somewhat of an expert I thought I'd ask.

Edited July 6, 2019 by ShadySands

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, 213374U said:

It would apply in the same way as the ownership of people being legal because people agreed it is legal. Things like modern wage slavery, being forced into prostitution for a sandwich and privatization of essential resources present a threat to freedom in a practical sense. Of course, abolishing private ownership of land and capital goods may not solve those problems by itself, but capitalism does rest on it.

 

 

I read your links but they are both unconvincing as examples of the failure of Capitalism or even how these are relevant to your initial suggestion about  privatization of land is wrong or what you mean by the ownership of capital goods ....not sure what this means in any recognized, modern  economic lexicon?

For example women being forced into sex work for food is terrible and I wish it didnt occur. But we have discussed in the past the reality  of the reasons of austerity for the PIGS countries and what this meant for people on the ground in these countries who indeed suffer in different ways. In summary austerity was and is necessary because of a failure of economic management and a failure to adhere to global financial regulations ...dont blame Capitalism for bad leadership decisions or a failure to implement prudent financial  management  that the majority of countries in the EU have been able to do

The link about private companies owning water resources  is a very serious risk and should only be allowed under certain specific  conditions. But most countries dont allow this and the government controls water resources which is a basic human right ....access to water. Also even if a private company somehow controlled water resources and then started denying water to citizens of that country this would never be allowed as the government should act in the interests of human rights and there own citizens. Even if the government was taken to some international court by the company Im confident the corporation would lose the court case in the interests of human rights and how denying water could lead to lose of life

So Im unclear on what those links have got to do with your suggested changes to the free market and Capitalist system?

 

[Skarpen]

5 hours ago, 213374U said:

It would apply in the same way as the ownership of people being legal because people agreed it is legal. Things like modern wage slavery, being forced into prostitution for a sandwich and privatization of essential resources present a threat to freedom in a practical sense. Of course, abolishing private ownership of land and capital goods may not solve those problems by itself, but capitalism does rest on it.

Ok. So we can agree that not everything people agree it's legal is good. But that doesn't mean everything they agree on is bad. So we should argue about particular cases rather than assume something is good/bad because it's legal/illegal.

On the other point I think you equalize freedom and safety. That's not the case. You can be broke, unfortunate, unemployable failure dying in the gutter and still be free. Freedom means also being free to fail.

I also like BruceVC don't see the point of your links in bashing capitalism. Neither Greek crisis nor Bolivian one were results of capitalism. For example Greece had massive social programs that they financed by bank loans and at some point Germany said they will not bankroll this lunacy.

[Guard Dog]

@ Shady: Now THAT is news to me. The Tsar was Alexander and the only reason I even know that is because the US bought Alaska from him in '67 or '68. I think it was '68 because Johnson caught hell for it. I guess it's possible but I've read a lot of books about that time period and aside from the Alaska purchase never heard of any interactions between either the USA or CSA & the Russian Empire.

@ James: I don't spend a lot of time researching facts for formulating arguments here. I thoroughly enjoy conversing with everyone here but if it becomes akin to writing term papers, I think we all have better things to do. So don't be too surprised if I (hopefully only) occasionally post something wrong. I don't hit google before posting unless it's something specific and it can't be avoided. Also I should clarify a rather broad boast I made. I would consider myself an expert in the US Civil War, Reconstruction, and westward expansion. I know a fair but about the "old west", Red Cloud and the Ogala Sioux and the war for the Powder River country. I know a lot about Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Howard Taft and the 1912 US Election and how it completely f----d up the 20th Century for pretty much everyone.  I know a lot about the Great Depression, it's causes and effects,  WW2 and it's causes and effects, and a pretty goo general knowledge of everything since. My education was not in history so in college I took the bare minimum of history classes the state of Florida required. The eras and events I listed interest me so I've read a lot of books about them.  Now if you want to talk baseball, I know the whole history of that. From the deadball to the modern day I got that down pat! 

On a side note the Civil War in the Pacific was limited to just one ship, the CSS Shenandoah. It was a raider attacking the US whaling fleet in the Bering Sea. It's actually a pretty good story if you are ever looking for some historical adventure to read:

There are several books about it but this was the best IMO. Reads like fiction but was all true.

 

@Bruce: You do have a point that regime change can seem like a valid option because a regime like Mugabe & Maduro in Venezuela (just two examples) cause damage beyond their borders. However, the only way to do that is at gunpoint. People with absolute power are usually not inclined to give it up. There is no such thing as a bloodless invasion. So if international pressure is a waste of time you can either enable a civil war through clandestine means, maybe it works, maybe not, or invade. Well, THAT will work but as we see in Iraq right now you might realize after tens of thousands of people died and billions of dollars spent that you'd have been better off not doing it. What is the appropriate price in human life to achieve a purely optional political objective in another country? It's a shame you never served in the military. It would change how you think about things like that. Military service does not create pacifists. Not at all. But it DOES make you appreciate that fact that when military power is used, people die. A lot of good people die or get permanently f---d up.  Some wearing your uniform, some wearing others, and many, many wearing no uniform at all. So the question that needs to be asked is "is this worth people dying?"  Sadly that question never gets asked. Because the people in power don't give a s--t. Yet another reason governments should be deprived of a lot of their power. 

[smjjames]

@GD: Um, okay, I wasn't trying to bash you over the mistake earlier, if you forgot, fair enough. For the Russia thing, I wasn't sure myself, though I did hear or read something before about diplomatic support.

[213374U]

7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

On the other point I think you equalize freedom and safety. That's not the case. You can be broke, unfortunate, unemployable failure dying in the gutter and still be free. Freedom means also being free to fail.

I also like BruceVC don't see the point of your links in bashing capitalism. Neither Greek crisis nor Bolivian one were results of capitalism. For example Greece had massive social programs that they financed by bank loans and at some point Germany said they will not bankroll this lunacy.

Being free to rot and die is a rather limited view of what "freedom" means. Namely, just the absence of the state breathing down your neck. If due to economic conditions, you are forced to sell your labor for a pittance (because due to the reserve labor army, wage elasticity only benefits the owners of the means of production) under abusive work conditions, to what degree can one be truly free? If one could live off photosynthesis and reject these jobs so as to negotiate on equal footing, you may have a point.

If the only thing you can do is die because of material conditions imposed on you through no fault of your own, you aren't "free" at all. You may believe that this isn't real, that it will never happen to you because you are much smarter and more hard working than that, but history suggests that you'd be wrong. Holding that viewpoint requires accepting the premise that everyone worse off than you is dumb and lazy. A self-satisfying perspective to set into, but not one that is supported by evidence. It also requires accepting that you are dumber and lazier than those who were simply born into riches, which is how most rich people nowadays made their wealth.

It's funny because legal restrictions are much, much easier to flaunt than material ones -- breaking the law only requires the will to do so, but a former industrial worker in his late fifties whose job has been relocated to Vietnam can hardly will himself into a twenty-something big data expert mathematician. And yet, you insist that only legal restrictions matter when determining whether one is "free".

Read up on the causes of the Greek crisis. It wasn't government social spending spiraling out of control -though book cooking was a serious problem- but rather private bank financial speculation and a lucrative credit bubble that was facilitated by the euro, central banks, and EU institutions. Other countries were also hit, and not just the PIGS, but Belgium, Netherlands and the UK, that paid billions to bail out the irresponsible private banking sector.

[Maedhros]

Safety IS freedom. When you know someone's got your back, it's easier to pursue your goals (= free).  A good government that represents the people CAN exist, and that's far more preferable to an absent one.

[HoonDing]

God hates freedom.

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, 213374U said:

Being free to rot and die is a rather limited view of what "freedom" means. Namely, just the absence of the state breathing down your neck. If due to economic conditions, you are forced to sell your labor for a pittance (because due to the reserve labor army, wage elasticity only benefits the owners of the means of production) under abusive work conditions, to what degree can one be truly free? If one could live off photosynthesis and reject these jobs so as to negotiate on equal footing, you may have a point.

If the only thing you can do is die because of material conditions imposed on you through no fault of your own, you aren't "free" at all. You may believe that this isn't real, that it will never happen to you because you are much smarter and more hard working than that, but history suggests that you'd be wrong. Holding that viewpoint requires accepting the premise that everyone worse off than you is dumb and lazy. A self-satisfying perspective to set into, but not one that is supported by evidence. It also requires accepting that you are dumber and lazier than those who were simply born into riches, which is how most rich people nowadays made their wealth.

It's funny because legal restrictions are much, much easier to flaunt than material ones -- breaking the law only requires the will to do so, but a former industrial worker in his late fifties whose job has been relocated to Vietnam can hardly will himself into a twenty-something big data expert mathematician. And yet, you insist that only legal restrictions matter when determining whether one is "free".

Read up on the causes of the Greek crisis. It wasn't government social spending spiraling out of control -though book cooking was a serious problem- but rather private bank financial speculation and a lucrative credit bubble that was facilitated by the euro, central banks, and EU institutions. Other countries were also hit, and not just the PIGS, but Belgium, Netherlands and the UK, that paid billions to bail out the irresponsible private banking sector.

I tend to agree with both you and Skarpen in different ways 

I do think you guys are using extreme examples around what can be classified as freedom, its unlikely that the quality of life and hardships with someone unemployed and homeless can be equated to " freedom "  as most of us would define it 

But you definitely dont need to own property and own "  capital goods " (still unclear what you mean )  , have money and or resources to have  a sense of freedom. For example you could be renting a place and have a low income job but live in a country where you feel safe and quality of life is excellent ...what about those fortunate people who are in happy and loving relationships or just have great support structures through family or friends ?

They may have none of things you seem to define as aspects of Capitalism but  I guarantee you they can be both happy and have a sense of freedom

I realize I dont have much personal experience with this  type of lifestyle but I do try to understand how to make SA a better place because of the deprivations of Apartheid legacy and general high levels of inequality I see. So I do contribute towards a better SA where reasonable and applicable. Anyway I have met people who have no money and no resources and sometimes they arent even employed but work for NGO.....many of these people are still positive and do believe  in freedom because they can vote in a Democracy and are included in other components that come with a Democracy

So its leads back to my original point how " freedom "  really means different things to different people and we should try not  to  necessarily define this word too critically based on materialist things 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by BruceVC

[ShadySands]

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

16 hours ago, 213374U said:

No, I was explaining my response to GD, I didn't meant to imply that you held that view. Whether a majority is involved in the creation of one of these ideas tends to take a back seat to how useful that idea is compared to competitors, I think. In a supposedly democratic society this can cause contradictions, but practicality trumps intellectual consistency because of how memes are selected and spread.

As for the coordination through myths bit. The ~150 individual upper limit seems to be empirically derived and the idea is that our brains cannot keep straight a much bigger number. Beyond that size, social structures start falling apart without cognitive crutches.

So In this context, "myth" doesn't necessarily carry religious undertones. Much like the state, the working class for instance is a myth, because it doesn't exist in any tangible sense in the real world. It is a fiction upheld by you, me, and several other million people that helps us make sense of our society and work toward common goals without personally trusting or even knowing each other. The use of myths (such as "country", "legal framework" or "corporate branch") enable coordination on a massive scale. Common material interests alone aren't enough to bind together groups of thousands or millions because your immediate interests often won't align with those of the folks in the next village. And you really need not just cooperation but also precise coordination in order to do things like curing cancer or getting people to Mars.

I'm not going to get into the degree of authoritarianism required for that to work -- that wasn't my point either. I'm open to the idea that, potentially, it could work without any sort of coercion at all. But I can't even begin to speculate as to how that would work.

Ah ok, here goes a response. I agree with the first paragraph fam.

Criticism of the 150 people aside, I don't think that a functioning society requires every individual to be aware of, let alone have consistent relationships with, every other individual that composes society even without cognitive crutches such as states or corporations or class or whatever.

Myths aren't necessarily religious in nature but they are often enough in current society in the sense of viewing certain fictions as natural, such as the myths that establish state, property, class, race, etc presenting themselves as "just the way things are" rather than the product of conditions and mutable. To this end I think there is a difference between involuntary abstraction, where you accept myth without recognizing it is a myth, and a voluntary abstraction where you recognize a myth for being a myth but still operate with it as an abstraction because the myth has obtained a de facto presence through relationships, like realizing the working class doesn't exist as tangible thing while still organizing wage laborers.

As to common material interests, it's been said by some that that's not enough to bind together a village or even a household but I could probably dig up some examples that show that to be wrong. I'd argue that it depends on what we view as our interest and how we view interests, as well as the presence (or lack of) of particular myths and the current level of technology. So in this regard I don't think it would be impossible to see common interest being enough in particular circumstances. The problem with precise coordination is that it doesn't seem to be aided by centralized or hierarchical structures, arguably the only difference those make is the amount of people those carrying out tasks have to report to and centralization appears to be very throughput heavy in a way that consumes much more resources, but I'm drinking at the moment and don't have access to the pdfs where I read up on these things.

The authoritarianism was an off-hand remark by me, probably should have avoided it to keep the conversation more flowing. If you want a more utopian example, there's Post-Scarcity Anarchism (it's free) I guess but if it does happen it will be uncharted territory and we'll have to figure it out as we go. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

7 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

 

It's weird to watch DS9 now and realize how it goes further than much of what is currently on TV.  Also did a damn fine job with costumes, makeup, and prosthetics.

[Guard Dog]

3 hours ago, Maedhros said:

Safety IS freedom. When you know someone's got your back, it's easier to pursue your goals (= free).  A good government that represents the people CAN exist, and that's far more preferable to an absent one.

It can exist but never forget it's a rabid wolf on a silk leash that needs to be watched every single minute. 

Edited July 6, 2019 by Guard Dog

[HoonDing]

That episode with Quark's mom was hilarious.

[Skarpen]

7 hours ago, 213374U said:

Being free to rot and die is a rather limited view of what "freedom" means. Namely, just the absence of the state breathing down your neck. If due to economic conditions, you are forced to sell your labor for a pittance (because due to the reserve labor army, wage elasticity only benefits the owners of the means of production) under abusive work conditions, to what degree can one be truly free? If one could live off photosynthesis and reject these jobs so as to negotiate on equal footing, you may have a point.

If the only thing you can do is die because of material conditions imposed on you through no fault of your own, you aren't "free" at all. You may believe that this isn't real, that it will never happen to you because you are much smarter and more hard working than that, but history suggests that you'd be wrong. Holding that viewpoint requires accepting the premise that everyone worse off than you is dumb and lazy. A self-satisfying perspective to set into, but not one that is supported by evidence. It also requires accepting that you are dumber and lazier than those who were simply born into riches, which is how most rich people nowadays made their wealth.

It's funny because legal restrictions are much, much easier to flaunt than material ones -- breaking the law only requires the will to do so, but a former industrial worker in his late fifties whose job has been relocated to Vietnam can hardly will himself into a twenty-something big data expert mathematician. And yet, you insist that only legal restrictions matter when determining whether one is "free".

Read up on the causes of the Greek crisis. It wasn't government social spending spiraling out of control -though book cooking was a serious problem- but rather private bank financial speculation and a lucrative credit bubble that was facilitated by the euro, central banks, and EU institutions. Other countries were also hit, and not just the PIGS, but Belgium, Netherlands and the UK, that paid billions to bail out the irresponsible private banking sector.

You ALSO have the freedom to succeed. The view that the only way for someone is to become wage slave is like XVIII, XIX century. Nowadays you have thousands other options to pursue. I don't agree that being born into the riches is necessary to make economical success, or any other success for that matter. Just ask Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg if being born into riches is required to make a financial success. It's not. Is it possible for everybody to become super rich? Of course not for numerous reasons. Is everyone aspiring to be super rich? Of course not, also for numerous reasons. Is everyone who is less successful lazier and dumber? Of course not, what a preposterous proposition. Being economically successful is not a measurement of anything else than being economically successful.  Is a soccer mom who is happy with her husband and two kids living in a nice neighborhood not a success because Bezos has more money and stuff? Preposterous. Is a teacher who loves his job and doing it with passion and dedication not a success? The view that only being the 0,1% of richest people is success is a rather limited view.

Nowhere I said anything about only legal restrictions matter in determining freedom. I said that economical status have nothing to do with freedom. 

4 hours ago, Maedhros said:

Safety IS freedom. When you know someone's got your back, it's easier to pursue your goals (= free).  A good government that represents the people CAN exist, and that's far more preferable to an absent one.

Handholding is not freedom. The all powerful protective state failed each and every time and produced nothing but death and servitude.

A good government would be the one that ensures you can pursue your goals and prevent others, including the government, from restricting your freedom to do so. Also to ensure you are not stomping on someone else freedom. Thought I need to include this as you guys seem a little picky. 

4 hours ago, HoonDing said:

God hates freedom.

Some of them do.

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I tend to agree with both you and Skarpen in different ways 

I do think you guys are using extreme examples around what can be classified as freedom, its unlikely that the quality of life and hardships with someone unemployed and homeless can be equated to " freedom "  as most of us would define it 

But you definitely dont need to own property and own "  capital goods " (still unclear what you mean )  , have money and or resources to have  a sense of freedom. For example you could be renting a place and have a low income job but live in a country where you feel safe and quality of life is excellent ...what about those fortunate people who are in happy and loving relationships or just have great support structures through family or friends ?

They may have none of things you seem to define as aspects of Capitalism but  I guarantee you they can be both happy and have a sense of freedom

I realize I dont have much personal experience with this  type of lifestyle but I do try to understand how to make SA a better place because of the deprivations of Apartheid legacy and general high levels of inequality I see. So I do contribute towards a better SA where reasonable and applicable. Anyway I have met people who have no money and no resources and sometimes they arent even employed but work for NGO.....many of these people are still positive and do believe  in freedom because they can vote in a Democracy and are included in other components that come with a Democracy

So its leads back to my original point how " freedom "  really means different things to different people and we should try not  to  necessarily define this word too critically based on materialist things 

Agree. It's a silly assumption that if not everyone will succeed and become super rich somehow the system is broken and doesn't provide freedom. Free markets (or capitalism) are very similar to democracy. It's the worst system except for every other system ever created. 

[ktchong]

-

Edited July 7, 2019 by ktchong

[BruceVC]

7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

You ALSO have the freedom to succeed. The view that the only way for someone is to become wage slave is like XVIII, XIX century. Nowadays you have thousands other options to pursue. I don't agree that being born into the riches is necessary to make economical success, or any other success for that matter. Just ask Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg if being born into riches is required to make a financial success. It's not. Is it possible for everybody to become super rich? Of course not for numerous reasons. Is everyone aspiring to be super rich? Of course not, also for numerous reasons. Is everyone who is less successful lazier and dumber? Of course not, what a preposterous proposition. Being economically successful is not a measurement of anything else than being economically successful.  Is a soccer mom who is happy with her husband and two kids living in a nice neighborhood not a success because Bezos has more money and stuff? Preposterous. Is a teacher who loves his job and doing it with passion and dedication not a success? The view that only being the 0,1% of richest people is success is a rather limited view.

 

Skarpen has made several relevant points in his own words and used  examples that align to my broader point around the definitions of freedom. And also why perceptions of the inequality and outcomes of Capitalism are not all negative or rather there are real success stories and people who can change there financial status and lifestyle within the free market system despite some financial regulations that are seen as " anti-poor "  by some commentators 

[Maedhros]

8 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

It can exist but never forget it's a rabid wolf on a silk leash that needs to be watched every single minute. 

Yes, the government should always fear the people, and consider themselves servants rather than masters. That's one of the reasons why I think that politicians should not be able to enrich themselves when in power, or when campaigning. Their wage should be on the same level as a normal job.

7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

 Handholding is not freedom. The all powerful protective state failed each and every time and produced nothing but death and servitude.

A good government would be the one that ensures you can pursue your goals and prevent others, including the government, from restricting your freedom to do so. Also to ensure you are not stomping on someone else freedom. Thought I need to include this as you guys seem a little picky.

I'm not referring to a non-democratic powerful state. Of course such entities will fail.

I don't disagree on the second part. Though I suspect I interpret it in a way you don't intend. It all comes down to how you define "freedom".