this is a fairly obvious definition of modern social democracy / social liberalism?
Nope, not to me.
because the wealth belongs to the society, not the individual
Not in any “modern social democracy” that I know.
I feel you’re confusing feel-good propaganda with how things actually work in real life.
individualism is people living for hobbies, personal goals, not socially determined duties. Socialist wealth redistribution is about enabling more people to live for a hobby instead of doing what it takes to make a living.
This calls for a quote usually attributed to Maggie Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” To redistribute wealth you first need to create it and “people living for hobbies” tend not to create much.
Rawls is the most used philosopher in these circles and he basically re-implemented socialism from am collectivist to an individualist philosophy in A Theory Of Justice.
I think this is more of a central idea than just propaganda. I think it began as people trying to live as individualists first, living for their hobbies, then figured the market does not support it. So basically hoped to increase freedom by less reliance on the market, figuring if take money form rich people they still have enough to live for their own hobbies and thus you increased the total social sum of hobby-living. True, probably the whole thing does not work economically because it is a “how to spend money on xmas presents to make the most people happy” kind of philosophy and not a “how to make money” kind. I am just saying the basis of it is individualistic. No common goal, but individual pleasure. No pyramids.
Rawls is the most used philosopher in these circles and he basically re-implemented socialism from am collectivist to an individualist philosophy in A Theory Of Justice.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that he’s right or that his theory makes much sense. I have a fairly low opinion of “these circles”.
it began as people trying to live as individualists first, living for their hobbies
First of all, I don’t think that “living for a hobby” has anything at all to do with being an individualist. The markets are individualistic, a fact much lamented by a variety of authors (e.g. Karl Marx), and hobbies can perfectly well be communal.
to increase freedom by less reliance on the market
This is basically “if someone gives me resources for free (gratis) I’ll be more free (libre) in the sense that more options will be available to me”. That is trivially true, but still has nothing to do with individualism—the principle works in the same way for tribes, governments, AIs, etc. etc.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that he’s right or that his theory makes much sense. I have a fairly low opinion of “these circles”.
I used to, too, but lately I figured I should not really write off ideas so easily that are basically shared by the majority of professors more or less. I did not sign up them either but learned to put them into a “gray zone”, neither affirm nor deny, but more like watch where they lead neutrally. One thing is clear, I suck at empathy, lately I am even thinking I may be schizoid a bit, and it would not be safe (in the sense of my calibration) to scoff too much on bleeding-heart stuff, as it can be my inner indifference speaking instead of my rational judgement.
Markets are individualistic because there is no such thing as fads, bandwagons, fandom, network effect and stuff like that? :) Sorry, I must say with a high probability that this 19th century idea is falsified. Just look at “Apple fanboys”. Basically a religion, attire and all that. The 21st century market does not even resemble individuals looking like the buying the best things for their individual goals. More like people buying things that signal membership in a community...
Hobbies can be communal, but I guess what makes them individualistic is the lack of commitment. Stop when no longer fun.
This is basically “if someone gives me resources for free (gratis) I’ll be more free (libre) in the sense that more options will be available to me”. That is trivially true, but still has nothing to do with individualism—the principle works in the same way for tribes, governments, AIs, etc. etc.
No offense, but do you too have a similar empathy deficiency problem I am struggling with? It is trivially easy to imagine people having all kinds of individual aspirations but the sheer necessity of needing to pay rent, bills, support a family etc. overrides it and basically they have to accept any job they can.
Again I don’t endorse socialism, but it deserves more empathic understanding than you seem to give to it. Imagine four men, each having to support a family and each wanting to be a not too good violinist, not too good means not expecting to get paid for it. A has no money, B has €5M, C has €20M and D has €100M. B, C, and D will all be able to live for their hobby as they don’t need a wage to live. A will have to work as an accountant. Redistributing from D to A enables all four to live as a violinist. Yes, the model is not complete, as it lacks the model to generate wealth, yes, there are economic arguments against it, but can’t we give some empathic understanding how A feels coerced, forced, unfree, due to the lack of money, to follow his impulse and B, C, D not? Can’t we at least empathically understand that there is at least a freedom advantage gained from this, even if other disadvantages created, by D saving A from “wage slavery” ?
do you too have a similar empathy deficiency problem I am struggling with?
Hard to say—I do not struggle with such a problem and in my experience people who proclaim that I should have more empathy towards X just want my money.
but can’t we give some empathic understanding how A feels coerced, forced, unfree, due to the lack of money, to follow his impulse and B, C, D not?
Some. Very very small empathetic understanding. Certainly not enough to base economic systems of societies on.
But if you think you should feel so much empathy for the poor bloke who can’t be a violinist, let me ask you something. Have you ever been to a very poor third world country? Say, India, or something in Tropical Africa. I recommend you go, and not in a tour bus either. I suspect this will recalibrate your empathy a lot.
No, I was never outside Europe, don’t really like to travel long distances, I am more familiar with the Eastern European style of poverty and yes, most of what empathy I am capable of having goes to people outside the first world, inside the first world it seems more doable to compromise personal goals with the need to make a living.
My point is simply libertarian capitalism cannot really claim to maximize personal freedom, of course, we could say that it does optimize the combined goal of personal freedom and coming up with an economic system that can survive more than 50 years, economists understand it, I am just saying some understanding should be given to non-economists who look for alternatives where most people are not stuck in having to make a living doing things they don’t like. That libertarian capitlaism should not be defined as an individualist or freedom based system, but more like a stability based system, we could easily imagine far more freedom based or far more individualist systems (say based on basic income where most people are not expected to get a job) but they would not last for more than 2 generations, so it would be more proper to call it stability based, not individuality based, that is only my point, not that it is bad or that there are currently better alternatives, but merely that its virtue is its stability, not its individuality nor its freedom.
Nope, not to me.
Not in any “modern social democracy” that I know.
I feel you’re confusing feel-good propaganda with how things actually work in real life.
This calls for a quote usually attributed to Maggie Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” To redistribute wealth you first need to create it and “people living for hobbies” tend not to create much.
Again: I am reporting it, not endorsing it.
Rawls is the most used philosopher in these circles and he basically re-implemented socialism from am collectivist to an individualist philosophy in A Theory Of Justice.
I think this is more of a central idea than just propaganda. I think it began as people trying to live as individualists first, living for their hobbies, then figured the market does not support it. So basically hoped to increase freedom by less reliance on the market, figuring if take money form rich people they still have enough to live for their own hobbies and thus you increased the total social sum of hobby-living. True, probably the whole thing does not work economically because it is a “how to spend money on xmas presents to make the most people happy” kind of philosophy and not a “how to make money” kind. I am just saying the basis of it is individualistic. No common goal, but individual pleasure. No pyramids.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that he’s right or that his theory makes much sense. I have a fairly low opinion of “these circles”.
First of all, I don’t think that “living for a hobby” has anything at all to do with being an individualist. The markets are individualistic, a fact much lamented by a variety of authors (e.g. Karl Marx), and hobbies can perfectly well be communal.
This is basically “if someone gives me resources for free (gratis) I’ll be more free (libre) in the sense that more options will be available to me”. That is trivially true, but still has nothing to do with individualism—the principle works in the same way for tribes, governments, AIs, etc. etc.
I used to, too, but lately I figured I should not really write off ideas so easily that are basically shared by the majority of professors more or less. I did not sign up them either but learned to put them into a “gray zone”, neither affirm nor deny, but more like watch where they lead neutrally. One thing is clear, I suck at empathy, lately I am even thinking I may be schizoid a bit, and it would not be safe (in the sense of my calibration) to scoff too much on bleeding-heart stuff, as it can be my inner indifference speaking instead of my rational judgement.
Markets are individualistic because there is no such thing as fads, bandwagons, fandom, network effect and stuff like that? :) Sorry, I must say with a high probability that this 19th century idea is falsified. Just look at “Apple fanboys”. Basically a religion, attire and all that. The 21st century market does not even resemble individuals looking like the buying the best things for their individual goals. More like people buying things that signal membership in a community...
Hobbies can be communal, but I guess what makes them individualistic is the lack of commitment. Stop when no longer fun.
No offense, but do you too have a similar empathy deficiency problem I am struggling with? It is trivially easy to imagine people having all kinds of individual aspirations but the sheer necessity of needing to pay rent, bills, support a family etc. overrides it and basically they have to accept any job they can.
Again I don’t endorse socialism, but it deserves more empathic understanding than you seem to give to it. Imagine four men, each having to support a family and each wanting to be a not too good violinist, not too good means not expecting to get paid for it. A has no money, B has €5M, C has €20M and D has €100M. B, C, and D will all be able to live for their hobby as they don’t need a wage to live. A will have to work as an accountant. Redistributing from D to A enables all four to live as a violinist. Yes, the model is not complete, as it lacks the model to generate wealth, yes, there are economic arguments against it, but can’t we give some empathic understanding how A feels coerced, forced, unfree, due to the lack of money, to follow his impulse and B, C, D not? Can’t we at least empathically understand that there is at least a freedom advantage gained from this, even if other disadvantages created, by D saving A from “wage slavery” ?
Hard to say—I do not struggle with such a problem and in my experience people who proclaim that I should have more empathy towards X just want my money.
Some. Very very small empathetic understanding. Certainly not enough to base economic systems of societies on.
But if you think you should feel so much empathy for the poor bloke who can’t be a violinist, let me ask you something. Have you ever been to a very poor third world country? Say, India, or something in Tropical Africa. I recommend you go, and not in a tour bus either. I suspect this will recalibrate your empathy a lot.
No, I was never outside Europe, don’t really like to travel long distances, I am more familiar with the Eastern European style of poverty and yes, most of what empathy I am capable of having goes to people outside the first world, inside the first world it seems more doable to compromise personal goals with the need to make a living.
My point is simply libertarian capitalism cannot really claim to maximize personal freedom, of course, we could say that it does optimize the combined goal of personal freedom and coming up with an economic system that can survive more than 50 years, economists understand it, I am just saying some understanding should be given to non-economists who look for alternatives where most people are not stuck in having to make a living doing things they don’t like. That libertarian capitlaism should not be defined as an individualist or freedom based system, but more like a stability based system, we could easily imagine far more freedom based or far more individualist systems (say based on basic income where most people are not expected to get a job) but they would not last for more than 2 generations, so it would be more proper to call it stability based, not individuality based, that is only my point, not that it is bad or that there are currently better alternatives, but merely that its virtue is its stability, not its individuality nor its freedom.