@Jamiet

I don't write very much; If you're going to respond, I'd appreciate you read all of it instead of just taking things out of context and criticizing them.

As I've said a number of times, there should be a minimum standard of living that allows everyone to have a decent life. You know what you don't need to have a decent life? Airplanes, cocaine, butlers, and race horses. But, the more you do something that others can't, the more you should get in return. That just makes so much sense, I don't know how I could explain in clearer.

I don't know about your proscriptions for a good life, abgemacht. Cocaine is pretty awesome.

@Bob

Don't worry; we could include cocaine as service in my public health care system.

@Spyman

"This is not a natural right, but rather a cultural artifact."

What would you consider to be a "natural right?" Last time I checked, Nature makes no promises.

@Jamiet - Read further down. I did answer your question as well as it could be answered. You gave a simplistic question that could not be answered simply because not all the factors were included, but I clarified that if I could get the OT with the "repetitive/dirt/smelly" job and not with the "enjoyable/rewarding" one, then I would give serious consideration to the former. Compensation is what it is about and if the compensation is significant to balance out the dislike and any risks, I will do that job. I'd be a gun runner if I felt the compensation outweighed the risk of jail and or death, but I don't.

@ Ghostmaker: "I presume you are aware of what the fact value problem actually is? Because that doesn't go any distance towards overcoming it at all."

I have not heard of the fact-value problem, but will go look it up now. I do think that I fully answered the second part of your challenge, to wit "why should we be concerned by wealth inequality?"

Since you've stopped mentioning it, do you accept what I say about the hotdog stand - it is your imposition of conditions that would force it to close, not mine?


@ abgemact: "You know what you don't need to have a decent life? Airplanes, cocaine, butlers, and race horses. But, the more you do something that others can't, the more you should get in return. That just makes so much sense, I don't know how I could explain in clearer."

Setting aside cocaine, which is rightly illegal, no private individual should have their own private jet or butler - it's just not an efficient use of society's resources.


@ Draugnar: "@Jamiet - Read further down. I did answer your question as well as it could be answered. You gave a simplistic question that could not be answered simply because not all the factors were included, but I clarified that if I could get the OT with the "repetitive/dirt/smelly" job and not with the "enjoyable/rewarding" one, then I would give serious consideration to the former."

That's a strange approach. Generally if someone says "out of A and B, would you pick A or B?" it can be pretty safely assumed that any factors not mention are identical for both A and B.

I will ask my question again, taking into account your pedantry:

You are in need of work and are offered two jobs. There are no other jobs available right now (so there is NO "Job C"), and the only other choice is therefore to go without an income.

Job A is dirty, smelly, and boringly repetitive. It pays 30 dollars per hour.
Job B is not smelly or repetitive. It is interesting, stimulating, and the work is very rewarding. It pays 28 dollars per hour.

For both jobs, ALL THE OTHER CONDITIONS ARE THE SAME - same hours of work, same number of hours per week, same pension rights, same union rights, same holiday entitlement, etc.

Which job would you choose?

Job B. Dirty smelly and repetitive have a negative value associated with them that is clearly more negative than a 6.66% increase in income can overcome.

Ask again, but make the difference in pay be 15% or more and you will get a different answer.

@Jamiet

I don't think a butler is a particularly outlandish thing to have.

Also, often times a private jet makes sense. For instance, the president.

I have yet to see a compelling argument that would show how:
1) This non-capitalist society would function and be greatly beneficial to society as a whole
2) We could transfer from our current society to this new one.

Yes, you would choose Job B. Thank you.

This demonstrates that the rate of pay is not your only consideration, and that job satisfaction is important too. That was all I was trying to say.

@ abgemacht:

"I don't think a butler is a particularly outlandish thing to have."

I do. No normal person needs personal servants in this day and age.

"Also, often times a private jet makes sense. For instance, the president."

Are you suggesting that the President is the personal owner of Air Force One, and that he pays for it out of his own salary?

I think you may be mistaken.

@Jamie - there is another factor involved that is indentical for both jobs... The current situation of my life. If the $350 a month (the difference in the two jobs before taxes) means losing or keeping my house, I go for the higher paying dirty, smelly, repetitive job until I can find something better for the same or better pay and keep my house instead of selling it and moving to a cheaper place.

"Since you've stopped mentioning it, do you accept what I say about the hotdog stand - it is your imposition of conditions that would force it to close, not mine?"

No, think your still totally wrong, however, I don't see much point in arguing the point because I don't think you have refuted mine. You are imposing yourself between these two people and stopping them from doing something they would do if you would only leave them alone... I see it as analogous to blame a woman for being raped because she was wearing a skirt.

@ Ghostmaker: "Fact-value problem..."

I have now read a little on the fact-value issue. Can you please explain how it relates to our discussion? In particular, how it is a problem for my view, but does not pose a problem for you?

@The Ghostmaker: "I see it as analogous to blame a woman for being raped because she was wearing a skirt."

I don't see any correlation between the two. Please explain.

@Jamie - it does not demonstrate that job satisfaction is in any way related. It's the dirt y smelly part (which is about personal hygeine) that I object too, not the repetitive versus satisfying part. Eliminate dirty smelly and just go with two nearly identical jobs but one is satisfying and one is not where as the unsatisfying one pays a couple dollars and hour more and I go for the money. You put conditions that had little to nothing to do with job satisfaction on the "negative" job. Job satisfaction is about taking pride in your work and knowing what you are doing is somehow rewarding, not environmental factors. You fail epically for equating bad working conditions with job satisfaction. My nephew works as a civil engineer and sometimes has to get into the guts of some of the nastiest dirtiest places on earth but his job satisfaction is high becasue he sees his efforts in cleaning up environmental disasters as very satisfying. I'm in a nice clean comfortable office but my job satisfaction is way down because I despise the system I am working on right now. However, I left a system I enjoyed working on with all the same environmental qualities, because this place offered me 12K more per year to make them my full time client.

"@ Ghostmaker: "Fact-value problem..."

I have now read a little on the fact-value issue. Can you please explain how it relates to our discussion? In particular, how it is a problem for my view, but does not pose a problem for you?"

The fact-value, or is-ought problem, simply stated is that you cannot go from premises of purely factual statements (involving "is") and then move on to propose certain actions are morally required (statements involving "ought")

You say that we ought not to allow inequality or "unfairness" etc. and propose that we ought to take certain actions, but you haven't provided any sound philosophical arguments as to why we should. You must (a) find some mutually acceptable premise involving an "ought", (b) demonstrate a logical inconsistency in the statement "We have no obligation to provide against inequality" or (c) admit that in fact you have no convincing arguments that are not ultimately based your own impulses (for want of a better word), and so cannot hope to persuade me unless I come to share said impulses.

It is an issue for my position too, but I believe that it is possible to overcome it, and we are discussing the validity of your views right now.

"@The Ghostmaker: "I see it as analogous to blame a woman for being raped because she was wearing a skirt."

I don't see any correlation between the two. Please explain."

You say that, because the hot-dog men could potentially have come to an agreement involving 50:50 ownership but didn't, it is their fault that their business doesn't open. i.e. they could have taken action A (coming to an agreement), resulting in consequence C (not having a business) being avoided.

Similarly, it is certainly true that women who dress in trousers and rarely go out except in the mid-morning are unlikely to be raped, so they too can take an action A (dressing differently) which would have prevented them from consequence C (being raped)

Ergo, by your position, it isn't the rapist's fault for imposing himself on the woman, it is her fault for dressing so that he would, just as it isn't your fault for stopping the business, but the businessmen's fault for acting so that you would.

@Jamiet

You and I going back and forth saying, "This is OK to have" "No it isn't" isn't every productive.

What do you have to say to my two important questions? I'm particularly interested in how we can make the switch.

Holy crap, I should stop sleeping to keep up with these debates. I've got school soon, so I'll only say this:
From Jamie: That's not an argument against having a government. That's an argument for having a different government.

It is, because it is like that throughout history. Look at Rome, who owned most of the slaves and land? Look at feudalism, or all absolutist regimes (early modern Europe, China, the Mughal Empire)

To diplomat61: The only reason Americans aren't buying from BP is because the incident occurred on their doorstep. To bring Shell back up (sorry Shell, it's nothing personal :P), how many investors decided to back out after the allegations of murder of environmental activists in Nigeria became public? Yes, share price is an indication of profit, but no company gets fined enough to create a large dent in their profit, and each fine tends to be around 20-30 million, which as I said earlier is nothing compared to their yearly profit.

From the friendly warlord: "I find him to be a cogent and lucid historian and a terrible prophet, primarily because he underestimated the flexibility of the upper classes. We saw in the 30's that they could cut deals to preserve their continued existence as a class."
I agree.

Cm.

Without government, you do not have a life. Society does not function.

People kill people over grudges who otherwise would not have. Why? No authority tells them that it is bad.

I'm not going to beat around the bush with you: people need an authority to appeal to, plain and simple.

Sometimes its religion, which can even form the state and become a theocracy. In the modern age it is mostly government, or society, of which government is an extension.

Do you really think that we humans have created anything that it is not in our nature to create?

Of course not! Any talk of something we humans do of being "unnatural" in some way is bunk, since we are animals, all our behaviors are natural.

So government is natural just as much as anything else, just as much as justice or as barter (or money in this case).

List for me please the things that would get better with no government. Then honestly and truthfully list the things that would get worse without a government, and weigh them against each other. You do not have to do this in public, do it alone, to yourself, but be honest with yourself, without blind bias against "authority" of any sort.

spyman: "This is not a natural right, but rather a cultural artifact."

abgemacht: What would you consider to be a "natural right?" Last time I checked, Nature makes no promises.

That quote makes more sense within the context of the discussion I was having with TGM. He believes property rights to be natural and inalienable; hence taxation is theft.
The point that I was making is that society can and does re-write the conditions of the contracts it makes with individuals; and that taxation was defacto rent paid to society, and not theft.
I support capitalism not because it is moral or our "natural aand inalienable right" but because it is practical.

@Spyman

That makes much more sense. I understand.

Ok, Ghostmaker, point taken. Here is my response on the fact-value issue:

David Hume's view that it is logically impossible to derive an "is" from an "ought" has been criticised from a number of angles. John Searle, Alasdair MacIntyre, and the developing field known as the "Science of morality" all stand in opposition to Hume.

I am not an academic, and although I am grateful that your raising of the fact-value issue has now brought this question to my attention, I will have to do quite a lot of reading before I can come to a fully-formed view on the subject. This may, unfortunately, take several weeks. But if you want me to engage in a detailed academic-level discussion about a controversial philosophical concept, you'll just have to give me that time. In the meantime, I cannot answer your question - but I think a lot of other people on this forum could not answer it either.

I appreciate that this is, at best, a holding answer - but that's all I can give at present. I'll get back to you.


@ Ghostmaker: "It is an issue for my position too, but I believe that it is possible to overcome it, and we are discussing the validity of your views right now."

Oh, that's nice. Attack my position without justifying your own? I think not. Please remember that I did not start this thread. Our discussion involves your view as well as mine. Please come up with an argument that supports your position and does not foul the fact-value problem.



And back to the rapist:

YOU: "I see it as analogous to blame a woman for being raped because she was wearing a skirt."

ME: "I don't see any correlation between the two. Please explain."

YOU: "You say that, because the hot-dog men could potentially have come to an agreement involving 50:50 ownership but didn't, it is their fault that their business doesn't open. i.e. they could have taken action A (coming to an agreement), resulting in consequence C (not having a business) being avoided.

"Similarly, it is certainly true that women who dress in trousers and rarely go out except in the mid-morning are unlikely to be raped, so they too can take an action A (dressing differently) which would have prevented them from consequence C (being raped)

"Ergo, by your position, it isn't the rapist's fault for imposing himself on the woman, it is her fault for dressing so that he would, just as it isn't your fault for stopping the business, but the businessmen's fault for acting so that you would."

This is ridiculous.

Firstly, the rape example is silly, because I think most people would agree that there are NO circumstances in which rape is acceptable. There ARE circumstances in which it is acceptable for a business to close down.

Stripping away the examples, the basic logic here boils down to this:

1. There is an action that I can easily take, which will result in my desired outcome.
2. I do not take that action.
3. I do not achieve my desired outcome.

I think that's fairly reasonable logic.

Let's see another example under this logic:

1. My final exams are in a few weeks. I know that if I want to get a good grade, I should revise for the exams.
2. I am lazy and do not revise for the exams.
3. I fail the exams.

ANALYSIS: I think most people would agree it was my fault I failed the exams. Based on the argument you have used against me, presumably you think I have done nothing wrong, and it is the college's fault for refusing to award me a pass?

“I appreciate that this is, at best, a holding answer - but that's all I can give at present. I'll get back to you.”

I hope you agree with me that it is pretty much fundamental to your position that you provide some solution to it. My only request would be that you do try to avoid rationalising.

“Oh, that's nice. Attack my position without justifying your own? I think not. Please remember that I did not start this thread. Our discussion involves your view as well as mine. Please come up with an argument that supports your position and does not foul the fact-value problem.”

I am currently maintaining an essentially nihilist position, mainly to make for a cleaner discussion. I’m only trying here to demonstrate that your position is wrong, not that my own is correct. That I haven't presented a solution to the fact-value problem isn't an excuse for you not to do so, particularly when this discussion has solely about the justification for your society as being morally good.

“1. There is an action that I can easily take, which will result in my desired outcome.
2. I do not take that action.
3. I do not achieve my desired outcome.“

This isn’t the case though. The action of splitting the business 50:50 *does not* result in the desired outcome- that’s the point. Similarly, the woman not wearing a dress is *not* her desired outcome.

“1. My final exams are in a few weeks. I know that if I want to get a good grade, I should revise for the exams.
2. I am lazy and do not revise for the exams.
3. I fail the exams.

ANALYSIS: I think most people would agree it was my fault I failed the exams. Based on the argument you have used against me, presumably you think I have done nothing wrong, and it is the college's fault for refusing to award me a pass?”

But here the college is not an uninvolved party as in my case- in fact, your presumption that you are an involved party in the agreements between the hot-dog men is total crap, and this category error is precisely what causes such absurdities as the one you presented to arise.

Please clarify - who is the uninvolved party in the hot-dog example?

The regulator who bans them from agreeing to fair, but unequal ownership.

TGM I am still not sure why you think private property is an inalienable right. I posted a question to you a page back which you might not have seen, but I would still be interested to hear your views, as this might help me understand your position a little better.
Imagine a very simple word inhabited by a few families existing communally where everything is shared. At some point all the families agree to cede all property to one individual, who then becomes the supreme ruler. Time passes and the rulers first son inherits that property (as is their custom). But at a later date the progeny of those original families decide their forbears made a mistake and decide by force to re-take that property and distribute it equally, would that be immoral?
Does the supreme ruler have an inalienable right to his private property?

@Ghostmaker: "[By 'the uninvolved party' I am referring to] the regulator who bans them from agreeing to fair, but unequal ownership."

I do not agree that, for the purposes of this discussion, the state (who you refer to here as 'the regulator') is an uninvolved party. I would remind you that you started this discussion by asking me the following:

"Private Enterprise, iirc, you would allow it, but wouldn't allow employees, am I correct?"

Clearly, then, we are specifically discussing the kind of system which *I* would propose introducing. That system is based on a command economy. In a command economy, all economic activity is regulated. Therefore the ownership of private enterprises is an issue in which the state is an involved party.

But then you are basically promoting the view that the state is involved in *everything* as being your morally superior system... why?