There’s really just six terms I tend to use in order to frame this discussion, which divide into three categories/axes:
1.Ownership of the means of production: this is private or public, the former utilizing private property, the latter dispensing of it.
Ends of the means of production: this is capitalist (MoP used for profit) or socialist (MoP used for public good)
Rules of the means of production: these are planned (typically state, but could be commune, etc.) or market-oriented (accord with supply/demand)
There have definitely been socialist countries, and most of them utilize public ownership, but as far as I know, none have used the rules of the market, which I believe is the reason for their failure.
Before I say anymore, let me know if these sound like reasonable definitions/distinctions.
Before I say anymore, let me know if these sound like reasonable definitions/distinctions.
I don’t know; I’m not the person who asserted “your claim is that socialism improves human welfare. You do realize that this is an empirical statement, and judging from the results of trying socialism (as well as theoretical economic arguments) it appears to be false”. I would prefer a definition that is coherent with the intent of that assertion.
Well, these three axes are not independent, are they?
Private ownership necessarily implies the profit motive and market “planning”, otherwise I don’t see how you can talk about meaningful private ownership. If the state tells you what to produce, takes away your profits, and replenishes your losses, in which sense do you own the means of production?
Public ownership with profit motive seems unappealing, besides the state can’t really have a profit motive since it’s trivial for it to get more money if it wants it.
And as I mentioned in the other post, I can’t see how public ownership and public-goods motive can work with market mechanisms.
You assume that private and state ownership are always separate. In a non-democratic system of governance, the state is not, in my view, a public enterprise accountable to the public, at least not to the extent that the demands of the public determine its actions on a practical level. The Chinese Communist Party are primarily concerned for their party’s survival; the Public Good matters only insofar as it concerns that. The members of the CCP are very much a distinct class of people—not members of the public themselves, much less worried about what the average Chinese person thinks of them (again, beyond making sure that that person doesn’t want to overthrow the CCP altogether).
“And as I mentioned in the other post, I can’t see how public ownership and public-goods motive can work with market mechanisms.”
...Really? It actually seems quite simple to me.
Presumably, I have some idea of what constitutes Public Good (as I mentioned in the other post). I don’t need to be an altruist to think that other people deserve the Public Good as much as I do; most people have an innate sense of fairness, even if it’s calibrated differently from person to person. If I have some vision of how the world is “supposed to be”—which I think most people do, even if only a very rough idea—and I firmly believe in it, and I also have an ownership claim to the means of production and will thus be rewarded myself for my efforts, then presumably I will work to provide that Public Good for myself and others. If anything, this would force people to have a very refined vision of the Public Good, to ensure that whatever public ownership group they join is one producing their particular version of the Public Good, their desire to see that vision realized enhancing their efficiency in attempting to reach it.
Now, if lots of people agree with my vision of the Public Good, lots of them will join me in producing it. If it’s a particularly materially-intensive vision of the Public Good, it will remain more expensive, and democratized ownership may make it inaccessible due to a lack of concentration of resource ownership. E.g., if a socialized and democratized MoP group aims to provide each of its members a private jet, we’re unlikely to succeed as this is a very materially-intensive product to award to individuals; it’s therefore unlikely that such a group would exist for long as none of its members would be able to benefit from being part of a group with that specified purpose. This is an example of the market acting on such an ownership structure and operation to eliminate things which are materially expensive or impossible. As the ownership of the means of production is fully democratized, no one person or group would have anymore say over the purpose of the operation of the MoP than any other person, guaranteeing a more equitable distribution of resources.
But don’t think of this sort of process as simply referring to material Goods; it can extend to social Goods as well.
Take, for example, a racist vision of the Public Good. If I decide my vision of the Public Good excludes black people, I’m denying myself both their labor and, more significantly for this discussion, their claim to ownership of the means of production. This will make it more expensive for me to produce whatever other things are part of my vision of the Public Good, making it difficult, if not impossible to implement; such an exclusionary group would, again, dissolve because of low demand for that particular vision of the Public Good
By contrast, there would be many other groups for whom race is no concern for their conception of the Public Good, and the members of such socialized MoP groups would benefit from being egalitarian by including all potential sources of human labor and all sources of claims to the ownership of the means of production, reducing the costs of producing whatever else....This is the market acting on this type of ownership structure and operation to foster things which are highly-socially desirable, as determined by the existence of high demand.
In a non-democratic system of governance, the state is not, in my view, a public enterprise accountable to the public
I agree, with the proviso that I believe the same thing is true for contemporary democracies as well.
and I also have an ownership claim to the means of production and will thus be rewarded myself for my efforts
That sounds very capitalistic to me. Will there be rich people? Very rich people?
if lots of people agree with my vision of the Public Good, lots of them will join me in producing it.
So, let’s say I (and a bunch of other people) think the world needs another computer chip fab. They cost a couple of billions to build. Where will the money to build it come from, how will the owners of the capital be compensated, who will own the chip fab?
Or let’s say I’m Steve Jobs and want to make an iPhone. Most people call me crazy.
Or let’s say everybody really needs toilet paper, but nobody feels sufficiently motivated to start producing it. Eh, let someone else do it, everyone says.
...it will remain more expensive, and democratized ownership may make it inaccessible due to a lack of concentration of resource ownership.
So, no computer chip fabs? That’s unfortunate.
This is an example of the market acting on such an ownership structure and operation to eliminate things which are materially expensive
I am sorry, the market really REALLY wants computer chips. It’s willing to pay for them (I presume you’ll have money in your society).
As the ownership of the means of production is fully democratized, no one person or group would have anymore say over the purpose of the operation of the MoP than any other person, guaranteeing a more equitable distribution of resources.
It will also guarantee that this MoP will self-destruct in a very short time. I believe people occasionally try to run a business (or, actually, any complicated activity) by referendums. It’s rather comical how that Just. Doesn’t. Work.
Take, for example, a racist vision of the Public Good. … This will make it more expensive for me to produce whatever other things are part of my vision of the Public Good
Not at all. Let’s say I produce foozles. A production team of, say, 1,000 people is enough to fully satisfy the demand for foozles. That team is 100% redneck white male and likes it that way. Any problems?
“I agree, with the proviso that I believe the same thing is true for contemporary democracies as well.”
If the definition of democracy is a government which is accountable to its people, and a particular government isn’t accountable to its people, then it isn’t really a democracy. Modus tollens, right?
“That sounds very capitalistic to me. Will there be rich people? Very rich people?”
Can you explain to me why that seems particularly capitalistic? Because I’m just not seeing it.
“So, let’s say I (and a bunch of other people) think the world needs another computer chip fab. They cost a couple of billions to build. Where will the money to build it come from, how will the owners of the capital be compensated, who will own the chip fab? Or let’s say I’m Steve Jobs and want to make an iPhone. Most people call me crazy. Or let’s say everybody really needs toilet paper, but nobody feels sufficiently motivated to start producing it. Eh, let someone else do it, everyone says.”
This is where you’re beginning to insert a particular vision of the Public Good: you believe that the world is better off when it is producing chip fab plants and toilet paper. If enough people agree with you, and believe that it’s worth utilizing their MoP ownership claim and expending their labor, then those things will be produced; if not they won’t. Either a particular version of the Public Good is worthy of those two things and it happens, or it isn’t and it doesn’t.
“I am sorry, the market really REALLY wants computer chips. It’s willing to pay for them (I presume you’ll have money in your society).”
If the market really really wants computer chips, it will happen; if not, it won’t. It’s just a matter of you, as a person with a vision of the Public Good which includes computer chips, being able to convince others that the world is better off following your vision of the Public Good, including computer chips. If you can’t convince enough people to pool their ownership claims and expend their labor to produce them, they won’t happen. My guess is, in both the computer chip and toilet paper example, you’ll likely be able to convince enough people to start production of these things because the benefits from these things are fairly equitably distributed within a society—there are few people in most wealthy nations that don’t benefit in some way from these two things. The private jets were a counterexample.
“It will also guarantee that this MoP will self-destruct in a very short time. I believe people occasionally try to run a business (or, actually, any complicated activity) by referendums. It’s rather comical how that Just. Doesn’t. Work.”
So, you mean to tell me that employee-owned corporations always fail? What I’ve been describing is kind of one of those, but isn’t based around a particular kind of production, but rather a particular kind of Public Good. The necessity of smooth operation of such a corporation is why it’s so important for people to have a holistic vision of what they consider to be the Public Good.
“Not at all. Let’s say I produce foozles. A production team of, say, 1,000 people is enough to fully satisfy the demand for foozles. That team is 100% redneck white male and likes it that way. Any problems?”
Yes. Autarky is incompatible with democratic society because resource depletion is a real thing; eventually, this 100% redneck white male team is going to need a new source of labor as its members die off, and raw material as its foozles are consumed; a lack of foozles will cause members to leave, and the whole thing to dissolve. And we’re not just talking about production of a single type of material good. We’re talking about production of all the goods needed to satisfy a particular vision of the Public Good. Perhaps you’d find a few people who are completely happy with just one, material good, but most people have a number of differing desires for both material and social conditions. Those are what this system would try to produce: lifestyles, if you like.
If the definition of democracy is a government which is accountable to its people
But it’s not. That’s a separate topic, however, and our exchange is too voluminous already :-)
Can you explain to me why that seems particularly capitalistic?
It would be if “ownership” really meant ownership and “rewarded for … efforts” really meant that. But your reply in the other sub-thread suggests that “ownership” is a misleading term here and you’re basically talking about a vote and a license to work. See that other sub-thread for details.
If enough people agree with you, and believe that it’s worth utilizing their MoP ownership claim and expending their labor, then those things will be produced
If the market really really wants computer chips, it will happen;
This sounds like a mystical incantation: things will just automagically happen because… well… I dunno… they will just happen.
Markets are not magical, they work through well-understood mechanisms that boil down to, crudely, price and greed. I still don’t see how these mechanisms would work in your utopia. You seem to think that the way it should happen is through rationally convincing people to commit their labor to a project. That might work for small-scale gardening or, say, art. I strongly doubt it would work for e.g. mining or public toilet cleaning.
And what happens when you were unable to convince the sufficient number of people to produce enough fertilizer and there is not enough food to go round?
So, you mean to tell me that employee-owned corporations always fail?
Employee-owned is not at all the same thing as managed by referendum.
eventually, this 100% redneck white male team is going to need a new source of labor as its members die off
Oh, there are a LOT of redneck white males and they reproduce quite successfully. As its members die off, the group just hires their children, cousins, nephews, etc.
Those are what this system would try to produce: lifestyles, if you like.
The problem is, there is a lot of demand for the lifestyle of a rich and idle leisure class, there is not a lot of demand for the lifestyle of doing hard, dirty, and dangerous things that the society needs done to keep its head above the water.
“But it’s not. That’s a separate topic, however, and our exchange is too voluminous already :-)”
...You agreed to that definition 2 posts up:
I said: “In a non-democratic system of governance, the state is not, in my view, a public enterprise accountable to the public”
You said: “I agree, with the proviso that I believe the same thing is true for contemporary democracies as well.”
“It would be if “ownership” really meant ownership and “rewarded for … efforts” really meant that. But your reply in the other sub-thread suggests that “ownership” is a misleading term here and you’re basically talking about a vote and a license to work. See that other sub-thread for details.”
All you offered in the other thread was that ownership wasn’t what I said it was; you gave no details as to what else it might be.
“This sounds like a mystical incantation: things will just automagically happen because… well… I dunno… they will just happen. Markets are not magical, they work through well-understood mechanisms that boil down to, crudely, price and greed. I still don’t see how these mechanisms would work in your utopia. You seem to think that the way it should happen is through rationally convincing people to commit their labor to a project. That might work for small-scale gardening or, say, art. I strongly doubt it would work for e.g. mining or public toilet cleaning. And what happens when you were unable to convince the sufficient number of people to produce enough fertilizer and there is not enough food to go round?”
I don’t know why you don’t see that what I’m proposing and the current reality is the same thing, in terms of how the market operates. If some person or group of people proposes a vision of the Public Good which is too resource-intensive, i.e. pricey, to be carried out for all the people who would be involved in its production, it won’t happen because most people would not willfully deprive themselves of what they feel is the price of their labor.
Though there’s probably a large number of people who’d love to take a trip to space next year, it won’t happen because we (that is to say, people who live in a system which operates according to market principles) don’t currently have a way to organize enough resources to make it happen without also having to sacrifice a lot of other things people consider to be important, even though the demand is there. And your fertilizer/food argument is another example of an obvious non-possibility. It doesn’t usually take much to convince people that they need food if they don’t want to die. If they’re unwilling to do whatever necessary to make sure they have enough food to survive, which again, seems not to be much of a problem now, then they’ll die. I don’t know of many (or any) famines caused by apathy.
Your “price and greed” are more technically known as supply (price of production) and demand (use value or, if you like, desire or greed). I feel I’ve been pretty consistent in framing my proposition in those terms.
“Oh, there are a LOT of redneck white males and they reproduce quite successfully. As its members die off, the group just hires their children, cousins, nephews, etc.”
No, no; you don’t understand. We’re not talking about a community of rednecks; we’re talking, in your specific example, of a group redneck white males who form a group solely because its membership is exclusive to people who fit those three criteria; no women are in this group because they are not included in what this group thinks is the Public Good. Hell, it doesn’t need to be that specific.
Even if we talk about a group of white people, joined together for the purpose of promoting Whiteness, the population of such a group will eventually require more resources than were available in the original plot of land this group settled on. They will then have to branch out and interface with groups who don’t believe in promoting Whiteness or that the Public Good is just for white people. That will eventually lead this Whiteness group in one of two directions: conflict, stagnation, and decline, or dissolution. This should sound like an entirely plausible situation, and resolution thereof, to anyone with a knowledge of 19th/20th century European imperialism.
“The problem is, there is a lot of demand for the lifestyle of a rich and idle leisure class, there is not a lot of demand for the lifestyle of doing hard, dirty, and dangerous things that the society needs done to keep its head above the water.”
Which is why private property ownership is problematic. It allows concentration of power such that a few can enjoy the lifestyle of the wealthy class by virtue of nothing other than ownership of private property. Without that concentration of power allowed by private property, there would be no such thing as a rich and idle leisure class because the leisure class represents a sub-optimally efficient distribution of resources (you must be aware of the marginal propensity to save/spend)--in clumps here and absence there. People may desire to have that kind of lifestyle, but if the price of satisfying the demand for it, in an equitable fashion, is too high, and there’s no individual resource clumps to pay for it, it won’t happen, just like we don’t have any group saying it’s going to send a million people into space next year.
I did not. You are making a logic error: thinking that { not(A) is_not (B) } necessarily implies { (A) is (B) }. That is not so. Here A=”democratic system of governance” and B=”public enterprise accountable to the public”.
Your “price and greed” are more technically known as supply (price of production) and demand (use value or, if you like, desire or greed).
No, you misunderstand. I am using “price and greed” to mean the following: the market signals what it likes and does not like via the price at which the market clears. This price reflects both supply and demand. There is information in this price, but this information is useless unless somebody acts on it. The usual reason to act on the basis of the price information is desire for wealth, aka greed. It is the motivation which is necessary to make the step from information to real-world consequences (usually, a change in supply).
Which is why private property ownership is problematic.
Ah.
Without that concentration of power allowed by private property, there would be no such thing as a rich and idle leisure class
Yep. Reminds me of an old joke which is long but essentially boils down to pointing out that capitalism wants to make everyone rich, while socialism/communism recoils in horror and wants to make everyone equally poor...
You are making a logic error: thinking that { not(A) is_not (B) } necessarily implies { (A) is (B) }
If A and B have truth values, then { not(A) is_not (B) } does necessarily imply { (A) is (B) }. (Although “democratic system of governance” does not have a truth value, “X is a democratic system of governance” does have a truth value.)
In the case of A and B being things like a “democratic system of governance” I think we’re more likely to be talking about set membership: “x∉A ⇒ x∉B” does not imply “x∈A ⇒ x∈B” (though it implies “x∈B ⇒ x∈A”)
“I did not. You are making a logic error: thinking that { not(A) is_not (B) } necessarily implies { (A) is (B) }. That is not so. Here A=”democratic system of governance” and B=”public enterprise accountable to the public”.”
Fair play, but I think I can clean up the mess I’ve made there by asking if you consider a democratic government to be a kind of public enterprise. To me this seems like a reasonable assertion: a government elected democratically is beholden to its shareholders (electorate), for whom it must produce a particular batch of goods and services at a particular level of efficiency. Any democratic government which consistently fails to do so will have its managers (elected politicians) kicked out by its electorate for a new group of managers. I understand you’re likely tired of conversing with me, so I’ll just ask for a yes/no answer on that.
“No, you misunderstand. I am using “price and greed” to mean the following: the market signals what it likes and does not like via the price at which the market clears. This price reflects both supply and demand. There is information in this price, but this information is useless unless somebody acts on it. The usual reason to act on the basis of the price information is desire for wealth, aka greed. It is the motivation which is necessary to make the step from information to real-world consequences (usually, a change in supply).”
The information of supply and demand, i.e. price, isn’t useless if there’s no one to act on it, it’s non-existent. If there was no one on Earth, we wouldn’t have supply and demand, and so no price. And—this is sure to bring some laughs—the desire for wealth isn’t a rational impulse. Unless you literally have a desire for wealth, which is an instrumental good, and not what it brings you, intrinsic goods (however defined), it’s against your interest to pursue wealth beyond whatever version of your intrinsic good it buys you. That seems obvious to me—a dollar is worth its exchange value, nothing more. And how many parables are there about the wealthy, lonely old man, sitting sadly in his mansion, surrounded by piles of gold? I’d rather everyone be poor and happy than have some people wealthy and happy, some others being wealthy and unhappy, and others being poor and sad or poor and happy; wouldn’t you?
Don’t misunderstand my intent, here. If capitalism really did make everyone rich, or even just modestly comfortable, I’d have no problem with it or private property; I’m not a deontologist. But the fact of the matter is that capitalism doesn’t make everyone rich, or even modestly comfortable, but tells the lie that it can; that’s where I have a problem with it.
if you consider a democratic government to be a kind of public enterprise
That would depend on the specifics. A “democratic government” could be any of a wide variety of political systems. I would guess that I’d be willing to accept some of them as “a kind of public enterprise” and not willing to accept as such some others.
I’ll reiterate my view that I do NOT consider typical contemporary democracies (e.g. the US) to be “a public enterprise accountable to the public”.
a government elected democratically is beholden to its shareholders (electorate), for whom it must produce a particular batch of goods and services at a particular level of efficiency.
I don’t think that’s how it works in reality. To start with, consider the difference between elected politicians and the permanent government bureaucracy.
the desire for wealth isn’t a rational impulse. Unless you literally have a desire for wealth, which is an instrumental good, and not what it brings you, intrinsic goods (however defined), it’s against your interest to pursue wealth beyond whatever version of your intrinsic good it buys you.
It’s quite a bit more complicated. Let me do a short run through terminal desires towards which having a great amount of wealth contributes:
consumption: maybe I like to consume expensive things
freedom: wealth buys a lot of freedom, both positive and negative
safety: wealth buys safety as well, both directly and as a buffer against volatility in the future
welfare of children: a large inheritance lets you pass the benefits of wealth to your kids
power: wealth can be transmuted (to a limited degree) into power
status: wealth can be and often is used as currency in status competitions
The level of wealth which would satisfy all these terminal desires fully is pretty high :-)
If capitalism really did make everyone rich, or even just modestly comfortable, I’d have no problem with it or private property
Compare it to alternatives—real ones, not imaginary.
“I don’t think that’s how it works in reality. To start with, consider the difference between elected politicians and the permanent government bureaucracy.”
No disagreement here; but that’s a matter of how a particular democratic system is laid out, not a necessary property of democracy.
“It’s quite a bit more complicated. Let me do a short run through terminal desires towards which having a great amount of wealth contributes:
•consumption: maybe I like to consume expensive things
•freedom: wealth buys a lot of freedom, both positive and negative
•safety: wealth buys safety as well, both directly and as a buffer against volatility in the future
•welfare of children: a large inheritance lets you pass the benefits of wealth to your kids
•power: wealth can be transmuted (to a limited degree) into power
•status: wealth can be and often is used as currency in status competitions
The level of wealth which would satisfy all these terminal desires fully is pretty high :-)”
That’s really not the point. The point is that wealth isn’t the only conceivable way to attain these goods, and that if there are better ways of doing so, wealth stops serving its purpose. I’m trying to lay out a vision of a better way of doing so, which you’re being fairly helpful in helping my figure out slightly better.
“Compare it to alternatives—real ones, not imaginary.”
All abstract concepts are imaginary. You can’t point to anything that anyone can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell and say, “this is capitalism”. The realm of abstracts is pretty damn enormous; to carry this site’s favorite metaphor, you mean to tell me that you don’t believe that there’s any map which could better describe the territory of our world than capitalism? Again, I ask—really??
I understand it may be difficult, but I thank us for trying in any case.
The point is that wealth isn’t the only conceivable way to attain these goods
Maybe not, but “wealth” is a very general concept. It can be defined as an amount of value where the value itself is defined as the quality of being wanted by someone.
I’m trying to lay out a vision of a better way of doing so
Well, then you probably should start by showing that your way actually does contribute towards these terminal desires. At the moment you just assert that this is so but do not show how and why.
All abstract concepts are imaginary. You can’t point to anything that anyone can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell and say, “this is capitalism”.
I can point to specific societies, both historical and contemporary, and say “This one I say belongs to capitalism” and “This one I say does not belong to capitalism”.
So I’ll rephrase my suggestion: compare actual, existing societies using your yardstick of “make everyone rich, or even just modestly comfortable”. Check if the societies at the top of your list are better described as capitalist or not capitalist.
Nowhere in the definition of capitalism does it say “There should be no social welfare programs” or “The state should not own even a tiny little itty bitty factory”.
I would call all of Western Europe capitalist easily enough, for example. There are, of course, many different flavors of capitalism.
Some people call western Europe socialist. The problem is lies in drawing contrary conclusions from the same evidence as a result of labeling it differently.
We are now in this discussion thread where aquaticko has actually defined what does he mean by “socialist”. So within this particular context these “some people” are just using different terminology.
A .has also defined what A. means by “good/successful” nation, and it isn’t what you mean, so you are nto actually refuting A. with any evidence that the successful nations are all capitalist: you are instead able to attach a different truth value to a string by interpreting the terms in it differently.
I still maintain that Western European nations are best described as having mixed economies. There is a failure mode associated with describing them as a capitalist. people go on to conclude that they are successful because they are capitalist, that the non-capitialist elements need to be removed and so on. People think that is an argument based on a fact, but it is actually based on the way they have labelled a fact.
A .has also defined what A. means by “good/successful” nation, and it isn’t what you mean
That is not true. In this subthread we are both using the same definition: “make everyone rich, or even just modestly comfortable”.
I still maintain that Western European nations are best described as having mixed economies.
You are, of course, free to use whatever labels you like.
people go on to conclude that they are successful because they are capitalist
That seems a valid conclusion to me. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
that the non-capitialist elements need to be removed
And that doesn’t follow. I am not sure what “non-capitalist elements” are, anyway. If you mean something like less state ownership of companies (e.g. in France) I would agree that it would be a good thing.
People think...
So are you objecting to some unnamed people not present in this thread… OK, but how is this relevant to anything here?
“Maybe not, but “wealth” is a very general concept. It can be defined as an amount of value where the value itself is defined as the quality of being wanted by someone.”
All the more reason why it doesn’t make sense to measure wealth in terms of profit or income.
“Well, then you probably should start by showing that your way actually does contribute towards these terminal desires. At the moment you just assert that this is so but do not show how and why.”
So you really think that I’ve been speaking a nonsense through this whole debate? I’ll never claim perfection, but that seems a little unfair.
“So I’ll rephrase my suggestion: compare actual, existing societies using your yardstick of “make everyone rich, or even just modestly comfortable”. Check if the societies at the top of your list are better described as capitalist or not capitalist.”
Anything short of constant conjunction is insufficient to assume causation. I don’t think I’ve said that capitalism makes everyone worse off, but it has made some people worse off, and I do think there’s a lot of room for different concepts to do better.
So you really think that I’ve been speaking a nonsense through this whole debate?
Nope. I think that you focused on, to quote you, “egalitarianism, equality, and communitarianism” to the exclusion of other values. Notice how the terminal desires that we’ve been talking about in this sub-thread do not include any of those.
I do think there’s a lot of room for different concepts to do better.
Sure. There’s only one problem with that—ideas similar to yours were quite popular at the beginning of the XX century. They were also “different concepts” aiming to do better than capitalism.
“Nope. I think that you focused on, to quote you, “egalitarianism, equality, and communitarianism” to the exclusion of other values. Notice how the terminal desires that we’ve been talking about in this sub-thread do not include any of those.”
As I said in the other comment thread, it’s an issue of universalizability of moral laws. It’s inconsistent to write a moral rule stating that any one person ought to be sacrificed for another against his/her will because it’s not what I would consent to myself. Similarly, it’s inconsistent with reality to state a moral rule saying that everyone ought to own an entire continent by themselves. Unless you start from a base of egalitarianism and equality, nothing a person can say has any merit because anything which conflicts with those values is ultimately hypocritical and inconsistent.
“Sure. There’s only one problem with that—ideas similar to yours were quite popular at the beginning of the XX century. They were also “different concepts” aiming to do better than capitalism. What was the price for trying them out?”
Undoubtedly quite high, but as a consequentialist and utilitarian, I see no problem in saying that, if they had worked out in reaching their ends, they would’ve been worth it from the perspective of someone who believed in those ends. The ends always justify the means because from the perspective of our consciousness, time only ever moves forward.
I’d like to think I’d be willing to sacrifice myself for some greater good if I agreed with it and thought my sacrifice would help achieve it. I’ll concede I might chicken out—I’m only human—but that would be a poor thing for me to do.
Unless you start from a base of egalitarianism and equality, nothing a person can say has any merit
You may want to think carefully about this claim. Assuming charitably that you are only talking about moral questions not other statements, this ignores the issue that even if one thinks that “egalitarianism and equality” should be basic moral axioms, one can still have derived common conclusions from a different moral base. For example, Lumifer and you almost certainly both think that say torturing cats is wrong and that deliberate genocide of human populations is also wrong (for a suitably narrow definition of genocide). So any conclusion Lumifer draw from those results will still be valid in your moral framework.
To use a different analogy, one person might be using ZFC as their axioms for math, while another uses ZF with Foundation replaced by the axiom of Anti-Foundation. The two will derive different theorems, but the vast majority of mathematics will be agreed on by both people. It wouldn’t make sense for the Foundationalist to ignore a proof that the Anti-Foundationalist did that only used Peano Artihmetic.
As I said in response to Lumifer’s post, the problem is this still leaves it up to chance. We may come to the same conclusions on one thing or another, but that is purely by accident, and if we should begin to come up with different moral axioms, I have no reason to respect his viewpoint if a.) I have no guarantee that he’ll respect mine, or b.) I have no axiom which states that I should respect other moral frameworks even if they’re different from mine. Certainly, there are many instances in which both parties to a discussion discover an idea they agree upon, but the debate continues because of how the agreement was come upon, when it shouldn’t matter.
We may come to the same conclusions on one thing or another, but that is purely by accident,
You may want to look at the ZFC example again. Is the shared commonality of Peano Arithmetic there purely by accident?
In general, humans occupy a pretty small piece of mindspace, and the ethical and moral attitudes of people influenced by Western thought occupies a small piece of that.
a.) I have no guarantee that he’ll respect mine, or b.) I have no axiom which states that I should respect other moral frameworks even if they’re different from mine.
I’m confused by a how a guarantee why personal respect is necessary. It doesn’t impact whether or not one of his arguments should be at all persuasive. As to the second, given your emphasis on equality and egalitarianism, I’m surprised that some form of respect for other moral frameworks would fall out from that.
Unless you start from a base of egalitarianism and equality, nothing a person can say has any merit
I think we’ll have to disagree about that.
I’d like to think I’d be willing to sacrifice myself
The point of that mention of history wasn’t that certain people were ready to sacrifice themselves. The point was that they were perfectly willing to sacrifice others.
If people aren’t treated as though they’re inherently equal, then why should any one person’s agency or vision be respected? If I’m not willing to abide by the obligation created by the existence of others’ rights, what obligation do others have to abide by the existence of my rights? And if there is no obligation in either direction, to what extent can we be said to have or acknowledge the existence of rights? I think you’d agree: none at all.
“The point of that mention of history wasn’t that certain people were ready to sacrifice themselves. The point was that they were perfectly willing to sacrifice others.”
You’ve been pointing out, throughout much of our discussion, a common definition of rights: they are both the right itself and an accompanying obligation. It’s misguided to expect a moral right without any accompanying obligation to hold much water, because whether something is a right or obligation is just a matter of perspective between the two different parties who claim them. E.g., I have a right to free religion, but this appears to be an obligation for others not to restrict my religious practice, and vice versa. It’s basic social contract theory, really, the only dysfunction in it arising when not all people affected by it are given equal say in its construction, hence the importance of egalitarianism and democracy.
Besides, we already have a form of voluntary sacrifice of agency which is practiced on a global scale; private property. We use private property laws because, while I may want to exercise my agency to get some of the resources someone else accumulates, I can’t condone thievery and pillaging because I wouldn’t want it to happen to me. So it doesn’t seem totally out-there to suggest this mutual-benefit mentality could be shifted away from or extended past private property to something else (and it seems to me that we have done that quite a lot already, e.g. laws against violence or in protection of intellectual property). I’m just suggesting a new kind of property right, but I think we’ve talked about that particular idea enough for now.
If people aren’t treated as though they’re inherently equal, then why should any one person’s agency or vision be respected?
I recommend observing real life and learning history. People have rarely been treated as inherently equal and yet it very often happened that “one person’s agency or vision” was respected.
Do note that people’s capabilities vary greatly and reality doesn’t care at all about equality or fairness.
whether something is a right or obligation is just a matter of perspective between the two different parties who claim them.
Yes, this is correct, but I don’t see how is this related to the willingness to sacrifice others.
“I recommend observing real life and learning history. People have rarely been treated as inherently equal and yet it very often happened that “one person’s agency or vision” was respected. Do note that people’s capabilities vary greatly and reality doesn’t care at all about equality or fairness.”
That essentially relies on chance. A person’s agency is most likely to be respected by me if, by chance, I see that person as roughly my equal. Most people don’t worry about violating the agency of a dog nearly as much as they worry about violating the agency of another human (although this obviously depends on one’s definition of personhood). The agency of African American people in the U.S. was frequently violated because they were perceived as being different from, and lesser than, white people.
Proximity plays a noted role, here. There’s generally a greater concern for the agency of those near you than those you don’t know about, because the only violations of agency you care about are those that seem to be a threat to you. I just think that personhood is a valuable enough thing that we ought to be more systemic in how we protect the agency of things which fit whatever definition of personhood we agree to.
“Yes, this is correct, but I don’t see how is this related to the willingness to sacrifice others.”
You cannot say that there is a right for you to sacrifice other people against their will, because, definitionally, you cannot willingly abide by the obligation to sacrifice yourself against your will for other people.
You cannot say that there is a right for you to sacrifice other people against their will, because, definitionally, you cannot willingly abide by the obligation to sacrifice yourself against your will for other people.
That is subject to the “what counts as the ‘same thing’?” objection. I would indeed willingly abide by the obligation to sacrifice non-Jiro people for Jiro so by your reasoning it’s okay to expect other people to abide by the same thing.
A person’s agency is most likely to be respected by me if, by chance, I see that person as roughly my equal.
No, I don’t think so. I think a person’s agency is most likely to be respected by you if that person has shown you evidence that he is superior to you.
There’s really just six terms I tend to use in order to frame this discussion, which divide into three categories/axes:
1.Ownership of the means of production: this is private or public, the former utilizing private property, the latter dispensing of it.
Ends of the means of production: this is capitalist (MoP used for profit) or socialist (MoP used for public good)
Rules of the means of production: these are planned (typically state, but could be commune, etc.) or market-oriented (accord with supply/demand)
There have definitely been socialist countries, and most of them utilize public ownership, but as far as I know, none have used the rules of the market, which I believe is the reason for their failure.
Before I say anymore, let me know if these sound like reasonable definitions/distinctions.
I don’t know; I’m not the person who asserted “your claim is that socialism improves human welfare. You do realize that this is an empirical statement, and judging from the results of trying socialism (as well as theoretical economic arguments) it appears to be false”. I would prefer a definition that is coherent with the intent of that assertion.
Well, these three axes are not independent, are they?
Private ownership necessarily implies the profit motive and market “planning”, otherwise I don’t see how you can talk about meaningful private ownership. If the state tells you what to produce, takes away your profits, and replenishes your losses, in which sense do you own the means of production?
Public ownership with profit motive seems unappealing, besides the state can’t really have a profit motive since it’s trivial for it to get more money if it wants it.
And as I mentioned in the other post, I can’t see how public ownership and public-goods motive can work with market mechanisms.
You assume that private and state ownership are always separate. In a non-democratic system of governance, the state is not, in my view, a public enterprise accountable to the public, at least not to the extent that the demands of the public determine its actions on a practical level. The Chinese Communist Party are primarily concerned for their party’s survival; the Public Good matters only insofar as it concerns that. The members of the CCP are very much a distinct class of people—not members of the public themselves, much less worried about what the average Chinese person thinks of them (again, beyond making sure that that person doesn’t want to overthrow the CCP altogether).
“And as I mentioned in the other post, I can’t see how public ownership and public-goods motive can work with market mechanisms.”
...Really? It actually seems quite simple to me.
Presumably, I have some idea of what constitutes Public Good (as I mentioned in the other post). I don’t need to be an altruist to think that other people deserve the Public Good as much as I do; most people have an innate sense of fairness, even if it’s calibrated differently from person to person. If I have some vision of how the world is “supposed to be”—which I think most people do, even if only a very rough idea—and I firmly believe in it, and I also have an ownership claim to the means of production and will thus be rewarded myself for my efforts, then presumably I will work to provide that Public Good for myself and others. If anything, this would force people to have a very refined vision of the Public Good, to ensure that whatever public ownership group they join is one producing their particular version of the Public Good, their desire to see that vision realized enhancing their efficiency in attempting to reach it.
Now, if lots of people agree with my vision of the Public Good, lots of them will join me in producing it. If it’s a particularly materially-intensive vision of the Public Good, it will remain more expensive, and democratized ownership may make it inaccessible due to a lack of concentration of resource ownership. E.g., if a socialized and democratized MoP group aims to provide each of its members a private jet, we’re unlikely to succeed as this is a very materially-intensive product to award to individuals; it’s therefore unlikely that such a group would exist for long as none of its members would be able to benefit from being part of a group with that specified purpose. This is an example of the market acting on such an ownership structure and operation to eliminate things which are materially expensive or impossible. As the ownership of the means of production is fully democratized, no one person or group would have anymore say over the purpose of the operation of the MoP than any other person, guaranteeing a more equitable distribution of resources.
But don’t think of this sort of process as simply referring to material Goods; it can extend to social Goods as well.
Take, for example, a racist vision of the Public Good. If I decide my vision of the Public Good excludes black people, I’m denying myself both their labor and, more significantly for this discussion, their claim to ownership of the means of production. This will make it more expensive for me to produce whatever other things are part of my vision of the Public Good, making it difficult, if not impossible to implement; such an exclusionary group would, again, dissolve because of low demand for that particular vision of the Public Good
By contrast, there would be many other groups for whom race is no concern for their conception of the Public Good, and the members of such socialized MoP groups would benefit from being egalitarian by including all potential sources of human labor and all sources of claims to the ownership of the means of production, reducing the costs of producing whatever else....This is the market acting on this type of ownership structure and operation to foster things which are highly-socially desirable, as determined by the existence of high demand.
I agree, with the proviso that I believe the same thing is true for contemporary democracies as well.
That sounds very capitalistic to me. Will there be rich people? Very rich people?
So, let’s say I (and a bunch of other people) think the world needs another computer chip fab. They cost a couple of billions to build. Where will the money to build it come from, how will the owners of the capital be compensated, who will own the chip fab?
Or let’s say I’m Steve Jobs and want to make an iPhone. Most people call me crazy.
Or let’s say everybody really needs toilet paper, but nobody feels sufficiently motivated to start producing it. Eh, let someone else do it, everyone says.
So, no computer chip fabs? That’s unfortunate.
I am sorry, the market really REALLY wants computer chips. It’s willing to pay for them (I presume you’ll have money in your society).
It will also guarantee that this MoP will self-destruct in a very short time. I believe people occasionally try to run a business (or, actually, any complicated activity) by referendums. It’s rather comical how that Just. Doesn’t. Work.
Not at all. Let’s say I produce foozles. A production team of, say, 1,000 people is enough to fully satisfy the demand for foozles. That team is 100% redneck white male and likes it that way. Any problems?
“I agree, with the proviso that I believe the same thing is true for contemporary democracies as well.”
If the definition of democracy is a government which is accountable to its people, and a particular government isn’t accountable to its people, then it isn’t really a democracy. Modus tollens, right?
“That sounds very capitalistic to me. Will there be rich people? Very rich people?”
Can you explain to me why that seems particularly capitalistic? Because I’m just not seeing it.
“So, let’s say I (and a bunch of other people) think the world needs another computer chip fab. They cost a couple of billions to build. Where will the money to build it come from, how will the owners of the capital be compensated, who will own the chip fab? Or let’s say I’m Steve Jobs and want to make an iPhone. Most people call me crazy. Or let’s say everybody really needs toilet paper, but nobody feels sufficiently motivated to start producing it. Eh, let someone else do it, everyone says.”
This is where you’re beginning to insert a particular vision of the Public Good: you believe that the world is better off when it is producing chip fab plants and toilet paper. If enough people agree with you, and believe that it’s worth utilizing their MoP ownership claim and expending their labor, then those things will be produced; if not they won’t. Either a particular version of the Public Good is worthy of those two things and it happens, or it isn’t and it doesn’t.
“I am sorry, the market really REALLY wants computer chips. It’s willing to pay for them (I presume you’ll have money in your society).”
If the market really really wants computer chips, it will happen; if not, it won’t. It’s just a matter of you, as a person with a vision of the Public Good which includes computer chips, being able to convince others that the world is better off following your vision of the Public Good, including computer chips. If you can’t convince enough people to pool their ownership claims and expend their labor to produce them, they won’t happen. My guess is, in both the computer chip and toilet paper example, you’ll likely be able to convince enough people to start production of these things because the benefits from these things are fairly equitably distributed within a society—there are few people in most wealthy nations that don’t benefit in some way from these two things. The private jets were a counterexample.
“It will also guarantee that this MoP will self-destruct in a very short time. I believe people occasionally try to run a business (or, actually, any complicated activity) by referendums. It’s rather comical how that Just. Doesn’t. Work.”
So, you mean to tell me that employee-owned corporations always fail? What I’ve been describing is kind of one of those, but isn’t based around a particular kind of production, but rather a particular kind of Public Good. The necessity of smooth operation of such a corporation is why it’s so important for people to have a holistic vision of what they consider to be the Public Good.
“Not at all. Let’s say I produce foozles. A production team of, say, 1,000 people is enough to fully satisfy the demand for foozles. That team is 100% redneck white male and likes it that way. Any problems?”
Yes. Autarky is incompatible with democratic society because resource depletion is a real thing; eventually, this 100% redneck white male team is going to need a new source of labor as its members die off, and raw material as its foozles are consumed; a lack of foozles will cause members to leave, and the whole thing to dissolve. And we’re not just talking about production of a single type of material good. We’re talking about production of all the goods needed to satisfy a particular vision of the Public Good. Perhaps you’d find a few people who are completely happy with just one, material good, but most people have a number of differing desires for both material and social conditions. Those are what this system would try to produce: lifestyles, if you like.
But it’s not. That’s a separate topic, however, and our exchange is too voluminous already :-)
It would be if “ownership” really meant ownership and “rewarded for … efforts” really meant that. But your reply in the other sub-thread suggests that “ownership” is a misleading term here and you’re basically talking about a vote and a license to work. See that other sub-thread for details.
This sounds like a mystical incantation: things will just automagically happen because… well… I dunno… they will just happen.
Markets are not magical, they work through well-understood mechanisms that boil down to, crudely, price and greed. I still don’t see how these mechanisms would work in your utopia. You seem to think that the way it should happen is through rationally convincing people to commit their labor to a project. That might work for small-scale gardening or, say, art. I strongly doubt it would work for e.g. mining or public toilet cleaning.
And what happens when you were unable to convince the sufficient number of people to produce enough fertilizer and there is not enough food to go round?
Employee-owned is not at all the same thing as managed by referendum.
Oh, there are a LOT of redneck white males and they reproduce quite successfully. As its members die off, the group just hires their children, cousins, nephews, etc.
The problem is, there is a lot of demand for the lifestyle of a rich and idle leisure class, there is not a lot of demand for the lifestyle of doing hard, dirty, and dangerous things that the society needs done to keep its head above the water.
“But it’s not. That’s a separate topic, however, and our exchange is too voluminous already :-)”
...You agreed to that definition 2 posts up:
I said: “In a non-democratic system of governance, the state is not, in my view, a public enterprise accountable to the public”
You said: “I agree, with the proviso that I believe the same thing is true for contemporary democracies as well.”
“It would be if “ownership” really meant ownership and “rewarded for … efforts” really meant that. But your reply in the other sub-thread suggests that “ownership” is a misleading term here and you’re basically talking about a vote and a license to work. See that other sub-thread for details.”
All you offered in the other thread was that ownership wasn’t what I said it was; you gave no details as to what else it might be.
“This sounds like a mystical incantation: things will just automagically happen because… well… I dunno… they will just happen. Markets are not magical, they work through well-understood mechanisms that boil down to, crudely, price and greed. I still don’t see how these mechanisms would work in your utopia. You seem to think that the way it should happen is through rationally convincing people to commit their labor to a project. That might work for small-scale gardening or, say, art. I strongly doubt it would work for e.g. mining or public toilet cleaning. And what happens when you were unable to convince the sufficient number of people to produce enough fertilizer and there is not enough food to go round?”
I don’t know why you don’t see that what I’m proposing and the current reality is the same thing, in terms of how the market operates. If some person or group of people proposes a vision of the Public Good which is too resource-intensive, i.e. pricey, to be carried out for all the people who would be involved in its production, it won’t happen because most people would not willfully deprive themselves of what they feel is the price of their labor.
Though there’s probably a large number of people who’d love to take a trip to space next year, it won’t happen because we (that is to say, people who live in a system which operates according to market principles) don’t currently have a way to organize enough resources to make it happen without also having to sacrifice a lot of other things people consider to be important, even though the demand is there. And your fertilizer/food argument is another example of an obvious non-possibility. It doesn’t usually take much to convince people that they need food if they don’t want to die. If they’re unwilling to do whatever necessary to make sure they have enough food to survive, which again, seems not to be much of a problem now, then they’ll die. I don’t know of many (or any) famines caused by apathy.
Your “price and greed” are more technically known as supply (price of production) and demand (use value or, if you like, desire or greed). I feel I’ve been pretty consistent in framing my proposition in those terms.
“Oh, there are a LOT of redneck white males and they reproduce quite successfully. As its members die off, the group just hires their children, cousins, nephews, etc.”
No, no; you don’t understand. We’re not talking about a community of rednecks; we’re talking, in your specific example, of a group redneck white males who form a group solely because its membership is exclusive to people who fit those three criteria; no women are in this group because they are not included in what this group thinks is the Public Good. Hell, it doesn’t need to be that specific.
Even if we talk about a group of white people, joined together for the purpose of promoting Whiteness, the population of such a group will eventually require more resources than were available in the original plot of land this group settled on. They will then have to branch out and interface with groups who don’t believe in promoting Whiteness or that the Public Good is just for white people. That will eventually lead this Whiteness group in one of two directions: conflict, stagnation, and decline, or dissolution. This should sound like an entirely plausible situation, and resolution thereof, to anyone with a knowledge of 19th/20th century European imperialism.
“The problem is, there is a lot of demand for the lifestyle of a rich and idle leisure class, there is not a lot of demand for the lifestyle of doing hard, dirty, and dangerous things that the society needs done to keep its head above the water.”
Which is why private property ownership is problematic. It allows concentration of power such that a few can enjoy the lifestyle of the wealthy class by virtue of nothing other than ownership of private property. Without that concentration of power allowed by private property, there would be no such thing as a rich and idle leisure class because the leisure class represents a sub-optimally efficient distribution of resources (you must be aware of the marginal propensity to save/spend)--in clumps here and absence there. People may desire to have that kind of lifestyle, but if the price of satisfying the demand for it, in an equitable fashion, is too high, and there’s no individual resource clumps to pay for it, it won’t happen, just like we don’t have any group saying it’s going to send a million people into space next year.
I did not. You are making a logic error: thinking that { not(A) is_not (B) } necessarily implies { (A) is (B) }. That is not so. Here A=”democratic system of governance” and B=”public enterprise accountable to the public”.
No, you misunderstand. I am using “price and greed” to mean the following: the market signals what it likes and does not like via the price at which the market clears. This price reflects both supply and demand. There is information in this price, but this information is useless unless somebody acts on it. The usual reason to act on the basis of the price information is desire for wealth, aka greed. It is the motivation which is necessary to make the step from information to real-world consequences (usually, a change in supply).
Ah.
Yep. Reminds me of an old joke which is long but essentially boils down to pointing out that capitalism wants to make everyone rich, while socialism/communism recoils in horror and wants to make everyone equally poor...
If A and B have truth values, then { not(A) is_not (B) } does necessarily imply { (A) is (B) }. (Although “democratic system of governance” does not have a truth value, “X is a democratic system of governance” does have a truth value.)
In the case of A and B being things like a “democratic system of governance” I think we’re more likely to be talking about set membership: “x∉A ⇒ x∉B” does not imply “x∈A ⇒ x∈B” (though it implies “x∈B ⇒ x∈A”)
You mean if A and B are boolean values. In that case, yes, but that’s a special case not applicable here.
“I did not. You are making a logic error: thinking that { not(A) is_not (B) } necessarily implies { (A) is (B) }. That is not so. Here A=”democratic system of governance” and B=”public enterprise accountable to the public”.”
Fair play, but I think I can clean up the mess I’ve made there by asking if you consider a democratic government to be a kind of public enterprise. To me this seems like a reasonable assertion: a government elected democratically is beholden to its shareholders (electorate), for whom it must produce a particular batch of goods and services at a particular level of efficiency. Any democratic government which consistently fails to do so will have its managers (elected politicians) kicked out by its electorate for a new group of managers. I understand you’re likely tired of conversing with me, so I’ll just ask for a yes/no answer on that.
“No, you misunderstand. I am using “price and greed” to mean the following: the market signals what it likes and does not like via the price at which the market clears. This price reflects both supply and demand. There is information in this price, but this information is useless unless somebody acts on it. The usual reason to act on the basis of the price information is desire for wealth, aka greed. It is the motivation which is necessary to make the step from information to real-world consequences (usually, a change in supply).”
The information of supply and demand, i.e. price, isn’t useless if there’s no one to act on it, it’s non-existent. If there was no one on Earth, we wouldn’t have supply and demand, and so no price. And—this is sure to bring some laughs—the desire for wealth isn’t a rational impulse. Unless you literally have a desire for wealth, which is an instrumental good, and not what it brings you, intrinsic goods (however defined), it’s against your interest to pursue wealth beyond whatever version of your intrinsic good it buys you. That seems obvious to me—a dollar is worth its exchange value, nothing more. And how many parables are there about the wealthy, lonely old man, sitting sadly in his mansion, surrounded by piles of gold? I’d rather everyone be poor and happy than have some people wealthy and happy, some others being wealthy and unhappy, and others being poor and sad or poor and happy; wouldn’t you?
Don’t misunderstand my intent, here. If capitalism really did make everyone rich, or even just modestly comfortable, I’d have no problem with it or private property; I’m not a deontologist. But the fact of the matter is that capitalism doesn’t make everyone rich, or even modestly comfortable, but tells the lie that it can; that’s where I have a problem with it.
That would depend on the specifics. A “democratic government” could be any of a wide variety of political systems. I would guess that I’d be willing to accept some of them as “a kind of public enterprise” and not willing to accept as such some others.
I’ll reiterate my view that I do NOT consider typical contemporary democracies (e.g. the US) to be “a public enterprise accountable to the public”.
I don’t think that’s how it works in reality. To start with, consider the difference between elected politicians and the permanent government bureaucracy.
It’s quite a bit more complicated. Let me do a short run through terminal desires towards which having a great amount of wealth contributes:
consumption: maybe I like to consume expensive things
freedom: wealth buys a lot of freedom, both positive and negative
safety: wealth buys safety as well, both directly and as a buffer against volatility in the future
welfare of children: a large inheritance lets you pass the benefits of wealth to your kids
power: wealth can be transmuted (to a limited degree) into power
status: wealth can be and often is used as currency in status competitions
The level of wealth which would satisfy all these terminal desires fully is pretty high :-)
Compare it to alternatives—real ones, not imaginary.
“I don’t think that’s how it works in reality. To start with, consider the difference between elected politicians and the permanent government bureaucracy.”
No disagreement here; but that’s a matter of how a particular democratic system is laid out, not a necessary property of democracy.
“It’s quite a bit more complicated. Let me do a short run through terminal desires towards which having a great amount of wealth contributes: •consumption: maybe I like to consume expensive things •freedom: wealth buys a lot of freedom, both positive and negative •safety: wealth buys safety as well, both directly and as a buffer against volatility in the future •welfare of children: a large inheritance lets you pass the benefits of wealth to your kids •power: wealth can be transmuted (to a limited degree) into power •status: wealth can be and often is used as currency in status competitions
The level of wealth which would satisfy all these terminal desires fully is pretty high :-)”
That’s really not the point. The point is that wealth isn’t the only conceivable way to attain these goods, and that if there are better ways of doing so, wealth stops serving its purpose. I’m trying to lay out a vision of a better way of doing so, which you’re being fairly helpful in helping my figure out slightly better.
“Compare it to alternatives—real ones, not imaginary.”
All abstract concepts are imaginary. You can’t point to anything that anyone can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell and say, “this is capitalism”. The realm of abstracts is pretty damn enormous; to carry this site’s favorite metaphor, you mean to tell me that you don’t believe that there’s any map which could better describe the territory of our world than capitalism? Again, I ask—really??
I understand it may be difficult, but I thank us for trying in any case.
Maybe not, but “wealth” is a very general concept. It can be defined as an amount of value where the value itself is defined as the quality of being wanted by someone.
Well, then you probably should start by showing that your way actually does contribute towards these terminal desires. At the moment you just assert that this is so but do not show how and why.
I can point to specific societies, both historical and contemporary, and say “This one I say belongs to capitalism” and “This one I say does not belong to capitalism”.
So I’ll rephrase my suggestion: compare actual, existing societies using your yardstick of “make everyone rich, or even just modestly comfortable”. Check if the societies at the top of your list are better described as capitalist or not capitalist.
The societies at the top of the top of list are mixed economies, of a sort. It’s kinda glass-half-full to label them capitalistic.
Nowhere in the definition of capitalism does it say “There should be no social welfare programs” or “The state should not own even a tiny little itty bitty factory”.
I would call all of Western Europe capitalist easily enough, for example. There are, of course, many different flavors of capitalism.
Some people call western Europe socialist. The problem is lies in drawing contrary conclusions from the same evidence as a result of labeling it differently.
We are now in this discussion thread where aquaticko has actually defined what does he mean by “socialist”. So within this particular context these “some people” are just using different terminology.
A .has also defined what A. means by “good/successful” nation, and it isn’t what you mean, so you are nto actually refuting A. with any evidence that the successful nations are all capitalist: you are instead able to attach a different truth value to a string by interpreting the terms in it differently.
I still maintain that Western European nations are best described as having mixed economies. There is a failure mode associated with describing them as a capitalist. people go on to conclude that they are successful because they are capitalist, that the non-capitialist elements need to be removed and so on. People think that is an argument based on a fact, but it is actually based on the way they have labelled a fact.
That is not true. In this subthread we are both using the same definition: “make everyone rich, or even just modestly comfortable”.
You are, of course, free to use whatever labels you like.
That seems a valid conclusion to me. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
And that doesn’t follow. I am not sure what “non-capitalist elements” are, anyway. If you mean something like less state ownership of companies (e.g. in France) I would agree that it would be a good thing.
So are you objecting to some unnamed people not present in this thread… OK, but how is this relevant to anything here?
One way to try to sidestep this issue is to explicitly use something like aquaticko!socialist, but that might cost more awkwardness than it saves you.
“Maybe not, but “wealth” is a very general concept. It can be defined as an amount of value where the value itself is defined as the quality of being wanted by someone.”
All the more reason why it doesn’t make sense to measure wealth in terms of profit or income.
“Well, then you probably should start by showing that your way actually does contribute towards these terminal desires. At the moment you just assert that this is so but do not show how and why.”
So you really think that I’ve been speaking a nonsense through this whole debate? I’ll never claim perfection, but that seems a little unfair.
“So I’ll rephrase my suggestion: compare actual, existing societies using your yardstick of “make everyone rich, or even just modestly comfortable”. Check if the societies at the top of your list are better described as capitalist or not capitalist.”
Anything short of constant conjunction is insufficient to assume causation. I don’t think I’ve said that capitalism makes everyone worse off, but it has made some people worse off, and I do think there’s a lot of room for different concepts to do better.
Nope. I think that you focused on, to quote you, “egalitarianism, equality, and communitarianism” to the exclusion of other values. Notice how the terminal desires that we’ve been talking about in this sub-thread do not include any of those.
Sure. There’s only one problem with that—ideas similar to yours were quite popular at the beginning of the XX century. They were also “different concepts” aiming to do better than capitalism.
What was the price for trying them out?
“Nope. I think that you focused on, to quote you, “egalitarianism, equality, and communitarianism” to the exclusion of other values. Notice how the terminal desires that we’ve been talking about in this sub-thread do not include any of those.”
As I said in the other comment thread, it’s an issue of universalizability of moral laws. It’s inconsistent to write a moral rule stating that any one person ought to be sacrificed for another against his/her will because it’s not what I would consent to myself. Similarly, it’s inconsistent with reality to state a moral rule saying that everyone ought to own an entire continent by themselves. Unless you start from a base of egalitarianism and equality, nothing a person can say has any merit because anything which conflicts with those values is ultimately hypocritical and inconsistent.
“Sure. There’s only one problem with that—ideas similar to yours were quite popular at the beginning of the XX century. They were also “different concepts” aiming to do better than capitalism. What was the price for trying them out?”
Undoubtedly quite high, but as a consequentialist and utilitarian, I see no problem in saying that, if they had worked out in reaching their ends, they would’ve been worth it from the perspective of someone who believed in those ends. The ends always justify the means because from the perspective of our consciousness, time only ever moves forward.
I’d like to think I’d be willing to sacrifice myself for some greater good if I agreed with it and thought my sacrifice would help achieve it. I’ll concede I might chicken out—I’m only human—but that would be a poor thing for me to do.
You may want to think carefully about this claim. Assuming charitably that you are only talking about moral questions not other statements, this ignores the issue that even if one thinks that “egalitarianism and equality” should be basic moral axioms, one can still have derived common conclusions from a different moral base. For example, Lumifer and you almost certainly both think that say torturing cats is wrong and that deliberate genocide of human populations is also wrong (for a suitably narrow definition of genocide). So any conclusion Lumifer draw from those results will still be valid in your moral framework.
To use a different analogy, one person might be using ZFC as their axioms for math, while another uses ZF with Foundation replaced by the axiom of Anti-Foundation. The two will derive different theorems, but the vast majority of mathematics will be agreed on by both people. It wouldn’t make sense for the Foundationalist to ignore a proof that the Anti-Foundationalist did that only used Peano Artihmetic.
As I said in response to Lumifer’s post, the problem is this still leaves it up to chance. We may come to the same conclusions on one thing or another, but that is purely by accident, and if we should begin to come up with different moral axioms, I have no reason to respect his viewpoint if a.) I have no guarantee that he’ll respect mine, or b.) I have no axiom which states that I should respect other moral frameworks even if they’re different from mine. Certainly, there are many instances in which both parties to a discussion discover an idea they agree upon, but the debate continues because of how the agreement was come upon, when it shouldn’t matter.
You may want to look at the ZFC example again. Is the shared commonality of Peano Arithmetic there purely by accident?
In general, humans occupy a pretty small piece of mindspace, and the ethical and moral attitudes of people influenced by Western thought occupies a small piece of that.
I’m confused by a how a guarantee why personal respect is necessary. It doesn’t impact whether or not one of his arguments should be at all persuasive. As to the second, given your emphasis on equality and egalitarianism, I’m surprised that some form of respect for other moral frameworks would fall out from that.
I think we’ll have to disagree about that.
The point of that mention of history wasn’t that certain people were ready to sacrifice themselves. The point was that they were perfectly willing to sacrifice others.
If people aren’t treated as though they’re inherently equal, then why should any one person’s agency or vision be respected? If I’m not willing to abide by the obligation created by the existence of others’ rights, what obligation do others have to abide by the existence of my rights? And if there is no obligation in either direction, to what extent can we be said to have or acknowledge the existence of rights? I think you’d agree: none at all.
“The point of that mention of history wasn’t that certain people were ready to sacrifice themselves. The point was that they were perfectly willing to sacrifice others.”
You’ve been pointing out, throughout much of our discussion, a common definition of rights: they are both the right itself and an accompanying obligation. It’s misguided to expect a moral right without any accompanying obligation to hold much water, because whether something is a right or obligation is just a matter of perspective between the two different parties who claim them. E.g., I have a right to free religion, but this appears to be an obligation for others not to restrict my religious practice, and vice versa. It’s basic social contract theory, really, the only dysfunction in it arising when not all people affected by it are given equal say in its construction, hence the importance of egalitarianism and democracy.
Besides, we already have a form of voluntary sacrifice of agency which is practiced on a global scale; private property. We use private property laws because, while I may want to exercise my agency to get some of the resources someone else accumulates, I can’t condone thievery and pillaging because I wouldn’t want it to happen to me. So it doesn’t seem totally out-there to suggest this mutual-benefit mentality could be shifted away from or extended past private property to something else (and it seems to me that we have done that quite a lot already, e.g. laws against violence or in protection of intellectual property). I’m just suggesting a new kind of property right, but I think we’ve talked about that particular idea enough for now.
I recommend observing real life and learning history. People have rarely been treated as inherently equal and yet it very often happened that “one person’s agency or vision” was respected.
Do note that people’s capabilities vary greatly and reality doesn’t care at all about equality or fairness.
Yes, this is correct, but I don’t see how is this related to the willingness to sacrifice others.
“I recommend observing real life and learning history. People have rarely been treated as inherently equal and yet it very often happened that “one person’s agency or vision” was respected. Do note that people’s capabilities vary greatly and reality doesn’t care at all about equality or fairness.”
That essentially relies on chance. A person’s agency is most likely to be respected by me if, by chance, I see that person as roughly my equal. Most people don’t worry about violating the agency of a dog nearly as much as they worry about violating the agency of another human (although this obviously depends on one’s definition of personhood). The agency of African American people in the U.S. was frequently violated because they were perceived as being different from, and lesser than, white people.
Proximity plays a noted role, here. There’s generally a greater concern for the agency of those near you than those you don’t know about, because the only violations of agency you care about are those that seem to be a threat to you. I just think that personhood is a valuable enough thing that we ought to be more systemic in how we protect the agency of things which fit whatever definition of personhood we agree to.
“Yes, this is correct, but I don’t see how is this related to the willingness to sacrifice others.”
You cannot say that there is a right for you to sacrifice other people against their will, because, definitionally, you cannot willingly abide by the obligation to sacrifice yourself against your will for other people.
That is subject to the “what counts as the ‘same thing’?” objection. I would indeed willingly abide by the obligation to sacrifice non-Jiro people for Jiro so by your reasoning it’s okay to expect other people to abide by the same thing.
No, I don’t think so. I think a person’s agency is most likely to be respected by you if that person has shown you evidence that he is superior to you.