3 ms·
> Besides you sounding bitter and misinformed or changing the conversation to one about converting the USA to communism, I don't see how that's relevant to this
by ivraatiems 10y ago
> Besides you sounding bitter and misinformed or changing the conversation to one about converting the USA to communism, I don't see how that's relevant to this.
I didn't say that. I think you're leaping to conclusions. What I'm trying to do, to be frank, is poke holes in the assumptions you're making in the first post about how things are and should be. I'm not a communist (it's never worked as envisioned, and likely can't), but I'm getting pretty sick of the notion that our system as-is is the best one for most people. I want to have a conversation about ways it could either be made better, or what it could be replaced with.
> They benefit by providing for themselves and their families. They're not being forced to do anything (though food, shelter, and self preservation tend to be good motivators).
Again, this is a false choice. It actually is a couple of false assumptions: First, the idea that food, shelter and self-preservation are things that people must earn, rather than have a right to. Second, that people who are in a "do it or die" situation have any real choice, given that almost nobody would choose the "die" part of that.
> To flip your question around, why should they get a free ride because they past a certain age? I'm not saying people shouldn't retire, I'm saying that if they want to do it, they need to be realistic about what's financially involved and either save significantly more or realize they're going to be living off of rice and beans.
So, first of all, I agree with the notion that in the system as it is, one has to be prudent and thoughtful, one has to save money, one has to plan for oneself. We're in agreement on all that: With the world the way it is, it's important for each individual to plan and put themselves first. I fully understand how to work within the system we have to keep oneself afloat, and I'm not suggesting people shouldn't.
Why shouldn't people get a free ride for food, health, shelter? Why are those things things which must somehow be earned? I'm talking philosophically here, not practically. I'm not saying everyone is entitled to caviar and vegan d3 supplements on private yachts, but I don't understand the assumption that, given a society which could technologically provide basics for everyone, people shouldn't have them.
- hosh 10y agoI'm not sure why your comments got downvoted. These are questions I have been asking for the past few years. I haven't come up with any satisfactory answers, other than that I see a lot of people strongly holding onto some narratives that don't seem to be working out well for people. I have not seen anything close to a satisfactory answer, though I see a lot of people making the attempt. To address some of the other comments in this thread: this idea that someone has to earn the right to live has not, historically, been the norm. Pre-modern societies tend to lean more towards values emphasizing community rather than values emphasizing individuals. There is a lot to say about this, philosophically, when you start looking at how modernity changed things. One of the weirdest notions of modernity is this idea that humans are at the apex, with the implicit narrative that what is current will always be the best. Human brain achieved higher intelligence than any other living organism on earth, therefore humans are the apex predators. During the colonial era, the colonial powers considered themselves civilized ... and everyone else were savages, somehow lesser. Now, there are certain ideologies (democracy, free market, capitalism) that are considered as the apex. There is something very broken about modernity. I'm not suggesting pre-modern notions are necessarily better. I do think this narrative of 'being the best' has blinded our modernist sensibilities, and we have yet to find a satisfactory answer beyond modernity.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago>Now, there are certain ideologies (democracy, free market, capitalism) that are considered as the apex. At this point, I would say capitalism is eating both democracy and free markets.
- ivraatiems 10y agoNot capitalism. End-stage oligarchocapitalism.