Election

[Moatilliatta]

Calling the whole 'third way' thing socialism is kinda missing the point. The 'third way' was a way for social democrats to reinvent themselves in order to win elections. Third way has to my knowledge always been a free market with a heavy state theory prioritizing stuff like education and technology.

 

I mean, I do realize why you guys (Taks and RN) call them socialist as they do miss the point of socialisms failure entirely. But calling them socialist when they're trying to distance themselves from it is missing the point more than those guys who are third way.

Well. Distancing oneself from a group takes more than just saying so. If the so-called "third way" adherents still hold fast to certain socialist principles of management... how are they not socialists? Granted, there's shades of gray in everything, and I want to avoid making any sort of value judgement of one group or another. But... that's what they are.

They distanced themselves from normal social democratism by embracing the current free market with certain amount of intervention normally callded mixed market economy and which is the gray area that you're talking about.

 

I tend to call it socialism light with an (un)healthy dose of fascism. But I'm biased against it.

 

Oh and I'm gonna be somewhat volournian here but lol at Chomsky.

[taks]

Calling the whole 'third way' thing socialism is kinda missing the point. The 'third way' was a way for social democrats to reinvent themselves in order to win elections. Third way has to my knowledge always been a free market with a heavy state theory prioritizing stuff like education and technology.

no, it is not missing the point, not at all. third way is, as you correctly surmise, a way for social democrats to reinvent themselves in order to win elections. the reason they weren't in the first place is that everyone correctly deduced that they were really socialists in disguise. concepts of socialism are patient. they will work their way into society. once you start putting all these regulations in place, and redistributing wealth accordingly, you need more and more of the same to maintain the system.

 

the current crisis is a perfect example. we're talking about implementing the largest socialist bailout in US history. more regulations, more government control. why? on the surface, because capitalism failed. we need the "third way" since this way just ain't working. unfortunately, what politicians refuse to admit is that the "failure" of the system was a result of the very regulations in the first place. australia survived its crisis because of regulations? sure, but the crisis wouldn't have happened without the regulations in the first place. it's merely an excuse to exert ever more control over our lives.

 

no, i'm sorry, but third way proponents are socialist, even if they don't know it. most don't. most are incapable of seeing their own hypocrisy.

 

Be careful that you do not fall into the bottomless pit commonly reffered to as conservatism and by that I obviously do not refer to the specific political ideology commonly used by conservative party but rather the general ideology of not wanting to acknowledge the good parts of the now and the future. You get what I mean.

hard to be conservative politically, as i am so often accused, when i have so many beliefs that are absolutely opposite of what is conservative. the only thing they have in common with me is the belief in a small government and capitalism, but even the right-wingers only pay lip-service to the idea.

 

taks

[Xard]

READ PSYCHOLOGY

 

or hell, read history, anthropology or biology

sorry, but still not true, and history beyond 100 years ago hardly counts. when communities were small, socialism was required. not so anymore.

 

Apart from stone age these communities were hardly "small". And why would history beyond 100 years ago hardly count? Nature of man hasn't changed a lot.

 

And it's not case of what is required.

 

Humans are collective animals. There's no way around that. Ever heard of S-O-C-I-E-T-Y for example? Ever looked into mind of early or Middle Age man? Ever heard of empathy or self-sacrifice for collective? Ever heard of far east countries like "China" or "Japan"?

ah yes, china as an example, dictatorship, communism. moving towards free market and capitalism... yeah, good example. examples of collectivist societies is not proof that we are as such by nature, it is merely proof that some are capable of asserting their will over others.

 

Again, primary focus being culture and psyche.

 

And I'd say they very well are proof as even hyperindividualized 20th and 21th century western world (I wonder when tide will turn, it'll happen eventually) has so many collectivistic traits in them (apart from the fact society even exist, heh) it is impossible to count. I think you too acknowledge this as otherwise you would't rant against current systems, yes?

 

However to truly understand human nature you must see how it works under varying situations and especially how it was around the magical era of 50,000 BC and some tens of thousands of years forward, when man's psyche was as "pure" as it could be, free of great cultural influences.

 

And in these cases collectivist nature of human thought showcases very, very clearly. For example there was this psychological experiment that showcased that under horrendous stress or panic situations (statistically) near all humans start to act like sheep.

 

And that isn't very individualistic way of behaviour.

 

Man is not communistic by nature (which is the reason why communism fails), because people are individuals and need something to call their own. That's basic psychological need. Communism also presumes best out of men which ultimately leads to its downfall.

communism/collectivism is an immaterial difference. it is, at best, sematic.

 

collectivism = socialism

 

--> world already is socialist and shall be so evermore"

hopefully, no. but either way, you need to shed your programming. really, you're smart enough, i don't understand why you can't do it.

 

taks

 

And this is still where you go wrong. Man is individualistic AND collectivistic, it isn't either or situation

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[Moatilliatta]

@Taks

heh, you just continue calling them socialists then. I'm not gonna argue that further.

 

Anyway you are aware that the last part of my post was directed at Xard, right? Xard is the one who tends to argue against Capitalism by gloryfying some non-existant past that was supposedly better.

[Xard]

@Taks

heh, you just continue calling them socialists then. I'm not gonna argue that further.

 

Anyway you are aware that the last part of my post was directed at Xard, right? Xard is the one who tends to argue against Capitalism by gloryfying some non-existant past that was supposedly better.

 

I don't glorify anything

[Moatilliatta]

Aren't you the Finn who was afraid of capitalisms supposedly bad influence on the culture of Finland?

[Xard]

so, you mean, you can't deduce morality from your own beliefs? i don't care what wiki's criticism of capitalism is, it was written by someone that approves of socialism, i.e., one of them thar self-deluded, lying or incompetent folks i mentioned already.

 

I can and do.

 

Still, you should read the article because it is very neutral with rebuttals and counter rebuttals etc.

 

besides, it saves me from the pain of having to write some of those arguments again

 

Aren't you the Finn who was afraid of capitalisms supposedly bad influence on the culture of Finland?

 

No, as Finland has always been "capitalistic" country.

 

However neoliberalism's influence on the other hand has not been so big in the past. The great value vacuum the materialistic capitalistic culture/spirit of era imposes with heavy attention on "efficiency" and "economical growth" as most important things in the world... yes, that indeed is very negative influence that shows more and more with each passing year

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[Oerwinde]

I'm voting NDP again. Harper is a douchebag and Dion is an even bigger douchebag. So I'me voting for the moustache.

[taks]

I can and do.

 

Still, you should read the article because it is very neutral with rebuttals and counter rebuttals etc.

 

besides, it saves me from the pain of having to write some of those arguments again

like all of the well-known arguments as to why socialism, and the so-called third way plans don't work? there is really only one argument necessary: an inability to cope with demand.

 

my point, btw, is that you are incapable of providing your own definition of what is morality, one that calls for equality. instead you misdirect to some "criticism of capitalism."* you can't do this because you'd have to admit that your definition of morality actually does provide more rights to one over another. you require that some people are seen as more deserving, and therefore, your morality is based on inequality.

 

taks

 

*the "criticisms" are all either incorrect (such as a tendency towards monopoly... boy is that tired), or simply not problems associated with capitalism, but with our third way implementation.

[taks]

@Taks

heh, you just continue calling them socialists then. I'm not gonna argue that further.

you should come around on this, lest you be taken in when they take over.

 

Anyway you are aware that the last part of my post was directed at Xard, right? Xard is the one who tends to argue against Capitalism by gloryfying some non-existant past that was supposedly better.

uh, yes, i realize that you were referring to xard. not sure where i was going with that other than... who knows.

 

And this is still where you go wrong. Man is individualistic AND collectivistic, it isn't either or situation

wow, i laughed out loud, literally, at this one. ooookkkkkaaaaay.

 

taks

[Xard]

I feel stupid for having to spell this out: There's a lot more to individualism than merely financial matters.

immaterial. financial matters are ultimately what is used to survive. no one person can do everything, therefore he needs to obtain the services and products of others. the most equitable way to do this is through trade. since not everyone has something the other needs, or wants, we have money. suddenly it's a financial thing.

 

Uhh, if we reduce everything to survival we can reduce financials away too, as those are not something one needs for survival.

 

You're in odds with me and majority of other humans on this planet when it comes to existence and viability of "the third way". Some sort of third way is what drives all democracies.

since when does any consensus mean anything? the rest of the world has spent its life in poverty, subjugated to the very thing you claim will save them. of course they advocate a third way, it is easy to advocate taking from others to serve their own needs. instead, we end up with more of the same.

 

Massing the wealth for few has always been part of capitalism and not something that can be avoided. Hell, whole libertarian western world holds ridiculously big chunk of world's resources. No amount of free market will fix that inequality and without big (and never going to happen) redistribution of wealth it won't change. But oh, that would be inequal way of dealing with people!

 

Indeed?

yes, indeed. keynesian philosophies don't work, and there aren't many sane economists that believe in him. Funny your quote regarded policies in the 40s, not today.

 

 

I'm not "keynesian", but he is big name. There are many big names and within today's economy your extremely radical capitalism is still in minority.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[Xard]

And this is still where you go wrong. Man is individualistic AND collectivistic, it isn't either or situation

wow, i laughed out loud, literally, at this one. ooookkkkkaaaaay.

 

taks

 

Yup, yup and yup

 

Psyche is not either or deal in any matter

[random n00b]

That's Hobbesian line of thought with only social contract stopping the war of everyone against everyone - it doesn't have any basis and idea wouldn't have been born if it wasn't for era when Hobbes lived.

 

However, as it should be very clear by now, his ideology was way too pessimistic and basic anthropology studies on stone age men shows it to be false.

Sorry, what? Where did I say anything about all-out war? Where's the potential gain in that?

 

And, as for not having any basis, that's pretty funny and it's something I see you do quite often ("string theory is crap, invisible hand is bs... etc"), while you refuse to explain why that is so. Human beings are not "like eagles" simply because we haven't adapted to the environment to become solitary predators. Our chances of survival are far greater if in groups, but that's that. And that's the sole reason why communities have perpetuated themselves - it's a practice that increases survivability, so it's adopted and passed on to future generations. Other than that, there aren't any apparent biological drives that make us "collective" beings, much less "hive"-like communities. Empathy may be brought up to support that, but empathy needs to be developed, trained if you will, and will not develop at all under certain circumstances. It's not any more inherent to the "nature" of mankind than a dog's ability to fetch. It's just a product of our versatility that allows us to work better in groups.

 

 

Man is both collectivistic and individualistic by needs (and in latter by sense of ego) and on which side one eventually leans depends on their culture, situation and their own free choices - though without sufficient abilities and knowledge third factor plays least role (but it still plays!). I'd say situation is the most important factor, although social psychologists might prefer culture.

That's simply the environment counterbalancing man's base instincts to some degree. It's not two opposed parts of our nature headbutting.

 

 

Again, primary focus being culture and psyche.

 

And I'd say they very well are proof as even hyperindividualized 20th and 21th century western world (I wonder when tide will turn, it'll happen eventually) has so many collectivistic traits in them (apart from the fact society even exist, heh) it is impossible to count. I think you too acknowledge this as otherwise you would't rant against current systems, yes?

Specify. Most "social" conducts can be explained by the simple fact that by working towards the good of others, the individual is benefitted as well. This is basic cooperation games theory. Has nothing to do with human "nature".

 

 

And in these cases collectivist nature of human thought showcases very, very clearly. For example there was this psychological experiment that showcased that under horrendous stress or panic situations (statistically) near all humans start to act like sheep.

 

And that isn't very individualistic way of behaviour.

No, that's sheepish behaviour. Under extreme stress, human beings tend to save their own skin. That's why people get trampled in fires, crushed to death in evacuations, etc. Instinct taking over, instinct overruling cultural, moral, and other superfluous (at the time) concerns. Edited September 30, 2008 by random n00b

[Xard]

That's Hobbesian line of thought with only social contract stopping the war of everyone against everyone - it doesn't have any basis and idea wouldn't have been born if it wasn't for era when Hobbes lived.

 

However, as it should be very clear by now, his ideology was way too pessimistic and basic anthropology studies on stone age men shows it to be false.

Sorry, what? Where did I say anything about all-out war? Where's the potential gain in that?

 

And, as for not having any basis, that's pretty funny and it's something I see you do quite often ("string theory is crap, invisible hand is bs... etc"), while you refuse to explain why that is so. Human beings are not "like eagles" simply because we haven't adapted to the environment to become solitary predators. Our chances of survival are far greater if in groups, but that's that. And that's the sole reason why communities have perpetuated themselves - it's a practice that increases survivability, so it's adopted and passed on to future generations. Other than that, there aren't any apparent biological drives that make us "collective" beings, much less "hive"-like communities. Empathy may be brought up to support that, but empathy needs to be developed, trained if you will, and will not develop at all under certain circumstances. It's not any more inherent to the "nature" of mankind than a dog's ability to fetch. It's just a product of our versatility that allows us to work better in groups.

 

I got Hobbesian vibes from "On the other hand, we are social animals by need." You can't get much more Hobbesian than that when it comes to socian contracts and formation of society.

 

I've made only two such claims. String theory criticism I base on growing opposition it is getting among scientific circles and invisible hand is bs in the sense that market knows what is best for humans. After all there is little evidence for existence of such invisible hand (even less than for God!) guiding markets for best humanitarian outcome. And then there's the irrationality of it all as taks noted earlier when talking about stocks. Irrationality doesn't go well with guided action

 

As for empathy it is more natural state than nonempathy. There's exceptions to everything of course. But you making behaviourist claim that empathy is merely outcome of upbringing is false. It is closely tied to morality and that is still great mystery for us. And simple explanations like that are very lacking.

 

How come that human mind is quickly deteoriated under circumstances when he lacks connection to other human beings, why loneliness drives so many people mad etc. Socialising is uppermost need of human psyche.

 

If people were group animals only due to survival it would be easy to see modern man - with secured survival - leaving humans far behind. No pets or other such creatures could follow him to his destination either. He'd be utterly alone but with secured survival and very good quality of material aspects of life. He wouldn't need anything at all. Let's also suppose return to society would be harmful for his survival, say there's riots going on in the city and other anarchistic activities.

 

Yet this man would eventually eclipse into madness due to his separation from rest of the humans (nor does he have anything like pet that could work as surrogate).

 

Man being social animal is "inbuilt" aspect of either our brain or mind, it doesn't matter much which one's. Point stays.

 

 

Man is both collectivistic and individualistic by needs (and in latter by sense of ego) and on which side one eventually leans depends on their culture, situation and their own free choices - though without sufficient abilities and knowledge third factor plays least role (but it still plays!). I'd say situation is the most important factor, although social psychologists might prefer culture.

That's simply the environment counterbalancing man's base instincts to some degree. It's not two opposed parts of our nature headbutting.

 

See my example of man in perfect yet lonely "bliss". One can be loner (I'm somewhat) but solipstic...nope.

 

Again, primary focus being culture and psyche.

 

And I'd say they very well are proof as even hyperindividualized 20th and 21th century western world (I wonder when tide will turn, it'll happen eventually) has so many collectivistic traits in them (apart from the fact society even exist, heh) it is impossible to count. I think you too acknowledge this as otherwise you would't rant against current systems, yes?

Specify. Most "social" conducts can be explained by the simple fact that by working towards the good of others, the individual is benefitted as well. This is basic cooperation games theory. Has nothing to do with human "nature".

 

Ahh, the great nature of society debate in philosophy, is society merely collection of wills of individuals or is it "more". I have no time or capacity to ponder on this very deebly, at least not now.

 

However "Most "social" conducts can be explained by the simple fact that by working towards the good of others, the individual is benefitted as well" this is just shaky and bad application of simplified darwinism in situation where it doesn't work. Reminds me of theory that altruism is explained by showing off to neighbours and thereby getting more sex made by some "clever" evolutionary psychologist/biologist *facepalm*

 

The glee with science magazines jump onto these crude musings is to me really disheartening. After few months they're utterly forgotten as criticism gets heavier and more staggering. Plus there's next Pet Theory of Morality just made up!

 

It is very similar to almost monthly reports on "oooooohh, solving the origin of life is nearly done!" type of news one sees.

 

Neither types has any kind of strong basis behind them and are almost uniformally contradictory.

 

Perhaps science will uncover mystery of morality in coming decades, but explanatory power must go far beyond simple and crude musings based on kinds of "caveman stories"* and darwinism

 

*I read really great hidden ridicule on these theories once. It really showcased how goddamn easy it is to make your own "once upon a time man with a club saw" types of theories that at first glance seem very plausible (e.g one you used) but under scrutiny fall apart.

 

And in these cases collectivist nature of human thought showcases very, very clearly. For example there was this psychological experiment that showcased that under horrendous stress or panic situations (statistically) near all humans start to act like sheep.

 

And that isn't very individualistic way of behaviour.

No, that's sheepish behaviour. Under extreme stress, human beings tend to save their own skin. That's why people get trampled in fires, crushed to death in evacuations, etc. Instinct taking over, instinct overruling cultural, moral, and other superfluous (at the time) concerns.

 

Actully study showcases that statistically most of people just start to blindly follow any sort of leader under such situation, attaching to any sort of figure that might know what to do (one guy starts to run south and 75 % follows just like that)

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[taks]

Our chances of survival are far greater if in groups, but that's that. And that's the sole reason why communities have perpetuated themselves - it's a practice that increases survivability, so it's adopted and passed on to future generations. Other than that, there aren't any apparent biological drives that make us "collective" beings, much less "hive"-like communities. Empathy may be brought up to support that, but empathy needs to be developed, trained if you will, and will not develop at all under certain circumstances. It's not any more inherent to the "nature" of mankind than a dog's ability to fetch. It's just a product of our versatility that allows us to work better in groups.

indeed, should he actually read up on the very things we are accused of not understanding, he might see the light. socialism, too, must be taught.

 

This is basic cooperation games theory. Has nothing to do with human "nature".

yeah, nash got a nobel for work in this area.

 

taks

[taks]

Actully study showcases that statistically most of people just start to blindly follow any sort of leader under such situation, attaching to any sort of figure that might know what to do (one guy starts to run south and 75 % follows just like that)

while i have read that as well, probably in the same location you derive your information from (wiki's great, eh), that's not collectivism. not even close.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

taks, a question:

 

With your model (austrian school of economics and a strict interpretation of the constitution), would you allow a state to adopt the scandinavian model of governance (social security, free healthcare, free education) and ONLY within that state?

 

And i am not questioning on whether it is effecient or anything, just that if it would be legit, given that the citizens of that state vote for it with an absolute majority, meaning 4/5 votes in favour.

 

Yes/No is enough.

[Xard]

Our chances of survival are far greater if in groups, but that's that. And that's the sole reason why communities have perpetuated themselves - it's a practice that increases survivability, so it's adopted and passed on to future generations. Other than that, there aren't any apparent biological drives that make us "collective" beings, much less "hive"-like communities. Empathy may be brought up to support that, but empathy needs to be developed, trained if you will, and will not develop at all under certain circumstances. It's not any more inherent to the "nature" of mankind than a dog's ability to fetch. It's just a product of our versatility that allows us to work better in groups.

indeed, should he actually read up on the very things we are accused of not understanding, he might see the light. socialism, too, must be taught.

 

This is basic cooperation games theory. Has nothing to do with human "nature".

yeah, nash got a nobel for work in this area.

 

taks

 

What have I accused you of not understanding?

 

Anyway, random n00b's (while overall making intelligent post as usual) point on empathy isn't right (and isn't exactly on topic here). It was kind of behaviourist argument which were descimated back in 50's quite totally. Empathy can be enhanced and molded by upbringing, but rendering it to equivalent of training dog to fetch sticks is false and reeks of same mistakes as any other simple darwinian behaviouristic theories that get thrown around every once in a while. Kind of like meme theory

 

Anyway, I suppose this thread isn't about pondering on origins of morals so:

 

As for the first part my very simple example of man in his perfect solitude works why groups doesn't exist just for survival. Human mind is (and this is one of the core fact of facts) such it won't survive without touch with others. Man is social animal by nature, not by simply need

 

Actully study showcases that statistically most of people just start to blindly follow any sort of leader under such situation, attaching to any sort of figure that might know what to do (one guy starts to run south and 75 % follows just like that)

while i have read that as well, probably in the same location you derive your information from (wiki's great, eh), that's not collectivism. not even close.

 

taks

 

Yeah you're right, it was bad example and not really fitting otherwise than showcasing flimsy nature of individual thinking

Edited September 30, 2008 by Xard

[taks]

taks, a question:

 

With your model (austrian school of economics and a strict interpretation of the constitution), would you allow a state to adopt the scandinavian model of governance (social security, free healthcare, free education) and ONLY within that state?

 

And i am not questioning on whether it is effecient or anything, just that if it would be legit, given that the citizens of that state vote for it with an absolute majority, meaning 4/5 votes in favour.

 

Yes/No is enough.

no, i don't think they should be able to. note that free education already exists in all states, though it is mostly funded at the state/local level (which is at least primarily based on sales taxes, which are voluntary).

 

one of the problems with the "majority rules" viewpoint is that it results in collectivism as well. once the majority realizes it can vote itself the keys to the kingdom, it will, under the guise of the "benefit for all," which in the end, benefits none.

 

taks

[Xard]

taks, a question:

 

With your model (austrian school of economics and a strict interpretation of the constitution), would you allow a state to adopt the scandinavian model of governance (social security, free healthcare, free education) and ONLY within that state?

 

And i am not questioning on whether it is effecient or anything, just that if it would be legit, given that the citizens of that state vote for it with an absolute majority, meaning 4/5 votes in favour.

 

Yes/No is enough.

no, i don't think they should be able to. note that free education already exists in all states, though it is mostly funded at the state/local level (which is at least primarily based on sales taxes, which are voluntary).

 

one of the problems with the "majority rules" viewpoint is that it results in collectivism as well. once the majority realizes it can vote itself the keys to the kingdom, it will, under the guise of the "benefit for all," which in the end, benefits none.

 

taks

 

so basically

 

free market --> democracy aka will of people who this free market concerns?

 

 

Isn't that tyranny of markets and money as opposed to tyranny of ideological party? Only clear difference is that latter one is at least somewhat personal, first one simply amoral force of "nature"

[taks]

What have I accused you of not understanding?

uh... your words:

 

READ PSYCHOLOGY

 

or hell, read history, anthropology or biology

k? at best your ideas of humans being collectivist by nature are controversial in any one of these areas.

 

Man is social animal by nature, not by simply need

being "social" and being "collectivist" are a bit different. we like to associate with each other (well, most do, my wife doesn't), but we need to deal with each other, and we have no built-in need to help each other except in that it benefits us individually.

 

don't get me wrong, i don't fully prescribe to ayn rand's beliefs in this area completely. selfless acts are quite common, and almost a given throughout society, but not at a societal level. we care for our friends and family (certainly some extend it to the societal level, and they also participate heavily in charitable activities, which is something that has not even been mentioned...)

 

Yeah you're right, it was bad example and not really fitting otherwise than showcasing flimsy nature of individual thinking

okie... i don't really think it's an example of the flimsy nature of individual thinking, just fear of the unknown maybe. it is hard for me to say because i do not follow authority figures at all (though i do follow my friends... very odd).

 

taks

[taks]

free market --> democracy aka will of people who this free market concerns?

 

 

Isn't that tyranny of markets and money as opposed to tyranny of ideological party? Only clear difference is that latter one is at least somewhat personal, first one simply amoral force of "nature"

um, no. i know people like to make that connection, but it just ain't true. in the former, you have a choice, no matter how you want to label it, the choice is an individual choice. in the latter, you are forced to the will of the tyranny. you have no choice, and you are required to comply through threat of violence (imprisonment, etc.).

 

that's the standard socialist argument, btw, and a pretty weak one at that.

 

taks

[Xard]

What have I accused you of not understanding?

uh... your words:

 

READ PSYCHOLOGY

 

or hell, read history, anthropology or biology

k? at best your ideas of humans being collectivist by nature are controversial in any one of these areas.

 

Collectivistic and individualistic which makes up to...uuuhh... humane?

 

Man is social animal by nature, not by simply need

being "social" and being "collectivist" are a bit different. we like to associate with each other (well, most do, my wife doesn't), but we need to deal with each other, and we have no built-in need to help each other except in that it benefits us individually.

 

don't get me wrong, i don't fully prescribe to ayn rand's beliefs in this area completely. selfless acts are quite common, and almost a given throughout society, but not at a societal level. we care for our friends and family (certainly some extend it to the societal level, and they also participate heavily in charitable activities, which is something that has not even been mentioned...)

 

Well, this ultimate selflissness was my view for a long while, but I've abandonded it. It would be way off-topic why and is tied to many other worldview changes happening to me (biggest being shift from atheist to theistically/deistically inclined agnostic)

 

Suffice to say empathy cannot be reduced to merely behaviorism and narrow thinking darwinian theories enable here.

 

then again, are you saying empathic = collectivistic?

 

 

Then again, capitalism too is something that must be learned

 

Yeah you're right, it was bad example and not really fitting otherwise than showcasing flimsy nature of individual thinking

okie... i don't really think it's an example of the flimsy nature of individual thinking, just fear of the unknown maybe. it is hard for me to say because i do not follow authority figures at all (though i do follow my friends... very odd).

 

taks

 

well, me neither

 

and I learned about this in class or from mag, not from wikipedia

[Xard]

free market --> democracy aka will of people who this free market concerns?

 

 

Isn't that tyranny of markets and money as opposed to tyranny of ideological party? Only clear difference is that latter one is at least somewhat personal, first one simply amoral force of "nature"

um, no. i know people like to make that connection, but it just ain't true. in the former, you have a choice, no matter how you want to label it, the choice is an individual choice. in the latter, you are forced to the will of the tyranny. you have no choice, and you are required to comply through threat of violence (imprisonment, etc.).

 

that's the standard socialist argument, btw, and a pretty weak one at that.

 

taks

 

dunno about weak... but whatever, I need to get sleep

[taks]

extremely weak. because it's an illusionary "tyranny," made out out of thin air because socialists need to paint a bleaker picture of capitalism knowing full well that their view requires real tyranny to implement (or at least, results in real tyranny).

 

taks