With Liberty and Justice for the Rich

I started this forum last year when Sciforums was down for the count:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=850&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


Here are some factoids:
1. The rich are far better educated than the poor.

2. The rich have more freedom to choose what they want to do. A rich person can choose whether he wants to go on a cruise or build a natural food center. The poor person does not have this choice.

3. The poor people in USA are rich relative to poor people in other countries. Poor people in USA are still poor nonetheless because they are oppress by the rich.

4. Everything the rich have and consume come from the backs of the poor.

5. There are 3 general systems.
A - A system devoted to the elimination of desperation.
B - A system that turns a blind eye to desperation.
C - A system that ensures desperation exists in order to function.

System-A proceeds to be highly functional. System-C is extremely disfuctional. Capitalism portrays itself to abide by System-B, but is really System-C. Capitalism does not work. It is an archaic system that has no concept of technology. In order for a capitalist system to function, desperation is necessary. Therefore, a capitalist system is flawed. A system in which desperation is unecessary, and even more so is set up to reduce or eliminate desperation proceeds to be highly functional.

6. The rich have great influence over the masses through their control over the media.

7. The law does not uphold human rights. It upholds the rights of the rich over the poor. It is based on might makes right. Whatever is beneficial to the rich is what the law is right according to the law.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By what do men become seperated? If it is indeed survival of the fittest, those animals with teeth and claws are more likely to be able to survive against another threat that eats plants and plays with its pud. So in a civilized society, is it not the same way. Those that have motivation, wits, other qualities, ect.. ect... are the ones that become rich. Others I suppose inherit wealth from some generation before them and if they don't possess similiar skills or nack, they won't sustain the wealth to the next generation. So the rich then push their agenda and their agenda involves either A. making more wealth, B. Fame, or C. Benevolence....which creates A and B.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So in short, cool skill, I am guessing you would say that capitalism is a game with a few winners and many losers. Being a competitive system, that's to be expected; what else should come of an economy that extolls the virtues of screwing over your neighbor for your own personal gain? It is not a broken system, however; it's quite efficient at what it does, and it succeeds in motivating economic development where other systems fail. Capitalism today does not only understand technology, it drives it. The quest for greater personal luxury that is crucial to capitalism is the cause of most of the amenities you have in your own home. The capitalistic struggle for dominance among nations drives the military-industrial complex, a major center of innovation. Capitalism encourages economic strength and competitiveness in the nation that embraces it; the comfort of a few successes at the expense of many failures is not the undesirable side effect of this but the very sign of it.

In such a situation, the ones with the resources to enforce order will naturally be the ones to do it. Might most definitely makes right in a competitive system; law-abiding citizens follow the law ultimately because they are forced to. If you do not, you face the consequences. It comes as no surprise that the powerful are favored in capitalism, because they are the ones who define what is right in their dominion - or if you prefer, unlike most of us, they are able to buy immunity. The irreconcilable conflict here between the power of the wealthy and any higher moral authority is at times painfully obvious to those who answer to one.

In the long run, for all its productivity, capitalism will corrode the bonds of trust that glue society together, and the establishment that today has risen on high will fall. Perhaps then a new idea's time will come, and the foibles of capitalism will be addressed. Competition and selfishness are as much a part of human nature as altruism and conscience, however, so there is good reason for doubt. In either case, the challenge to overcome despair and make life worthwhile is individual. Not everyone can be president, but anyone can be happy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes.

It is a very flawed and broken system. It is of utmost inefficiency, and does not drive technology, but is a major burdening blockade to technological progress.
Mobilization can be seen in 5 categories.
1. Reverse mobilization. Moving in reverse.
2. Immobilization. Not moving.
3. Slow mobilization. Barely moving forward.
4. Mobilization. Moving forward at a steady pace.
5. Accelerated mobilization. Moving forward at accelerated exponential pace.

Capitalism results in category 3 mobilization which is slow mobilization. Capitalism has little or no understanding of actual technological progress, and creates a social circumstance in which technological progress barely moves forward. A more efficient system would make for category 5 mobilization which is accelerated technological progress. Capitalism is completely incapable of this.

No it is not. It is the cause of the lack of a decent standard of living and decent amenities in the homes of the poor.
The quest for personal luxury is crucial to a dysfunctional economic system such as capitalism, but is not an aspect of a functioning economic system.

It is a major center for destruction which is everything but innovation.

This is not in anyway a measurement of economic strength. It is the sign of a dysfunctional system.

Yes.

Flawed human nature perspective again. I have encountered this total load of garbage a gazillion times online.
This is false.
This is irrelevant.
Every time these types of topics are discussed, plebs and crab-slaves regurgitate the human nature fallacy that they have been brainwashed into regurgitating like it has any relevance or vailidty.
This fallacy has no place in any argument. It belongs in the garbage it came from.

Yes.

 

Can you support this? It seems very arbitrary to me, for one; and for another, many others who call themselves experts make equally arbitrary claims that technological advancement is accelerating exponentially. Personally, I see no reliable meter of technological advancement. But it is true that capitalism encourages the development of luxury items that would be deemed unnecessary in other economic systems, and technology does not generally advance without an economic impetus.

How are these mutually exclusive? It is both.

Humans kill each other all the time, and we are always coming up with more innovative ways to do it. Destruction is one of the foremost causes of innovation.

No, it is supposed to trample the impoverished masses.

Why?

How so?

If we are talking about human nature (of which economics is a part) then it is important to understand how humans are inclined to behave. If selfishness is not human nature, then what is it?

 

The human nature argument is a regurgitated social fallacy. Just like the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is flat.
The human nature fallacy is irrelevant because it has no meaning in actual logic.
The human nature fallacy is constantly used as a scapegoat to justify the lack of pursuit of justice and better and more functional economic systems.
It is regurgitated because it is spoonfed false knowledge. It has no basis in actual reality.

Technological advancement is exponential, but it is severely hindered by the weight of the dysfunctional economic system.

The quest for personal luxury is not crucial in a functional system. Moreover, it is completely unnecessary and irrelevant in a functional system. Only a completely dysfunctional system considers the quest for personal luxury to be a crucial necessity. This is part of the reason why it is dysfunctional.

Destruction in no way leads to innovation. Destruction is the antithesis of innovation. Destruction prevents innovation, and leads to reverse mobilization.

A society can be considered functional or dysfunctional with respect to the degree in which the society fulfills its objectives as well as how society defines its objectives.
If it is fulfilling its objectives it is functional.
If not, it is dysfunctional.

The objective of a dysfunctional economic system is to support the rich. It has no interest in innovation. Therefore, capitalism can be considered functional because it is functioning to fulfill its dysfunctional objectives.
The objective of a functional society is to eliminate desperation and uphold equal human rights. This leads to greater innovation and technology, higher education, cleaner environment, less violence/poverty, and a higher standard of living altogether.

The dysfunctional system such as capitalism ensures desperation, suppressed innovation and technology, destroys the environment, is based on violence/poverty. It allows education and healthcare for the rich, but makes for a poorly educated unhealthy low standard of living overall.

 

Hm... very ideological. Well, you can't say I didn't try explain it to you.

 

... and you wouldn't be the first to try and 'fail'. Do yourself a favor and quit while you're ahead, baum.

 

Your disillusional explanation is extremely flawed.

You are part of a cult of capitalism.
Minless drones that have been bread to believe that capitalism is a great beneficial economic system even though it does not fulfill functional objectives.

 

What is "disillusional?"

But not to be a dick, you never explained anything you said. You just repeated it. I think it's sane to expect the same result if I try again.

Oh, and I really don't like capitalism. I would prefer anarchy to capitalism. You can think what you want, though.

 

You are.
Anarchy does not work either.
Indians and most tribal societies operated in primitve nomadic anarchy systems.

Capiatalism is very primitive. Anarchy is even moreso. Anarchies have no laws, and no protection of huma rights. While Capitlism is dysfunctional because it ensures desperation and other social/economical dysfunctions. Anarchy is dysfunctional because it does not address social dysfunctions, and addresses nothing for that matter.

A functional system is one in which dysfunctions are addressed.

 

Exactly. It doesn't work on the scale it needs to today. This is probably why anarchic societies became fewer and farther between as the world population grew. I didn't say I wanted to replace the current establishment, just that I would prefer to live in such a system.

I believe someone once wrote about that place. He called it Utopia.

Society is comprised of imperfect people. As such, there will always be social dysfunction. There will be dysfunctional families, dysfunctional neighborhoods, dysfunctional cities, and dysfunctional states. No special way of organizing people short of lining them up and gassing them will stop them from doing evil. It's just a fact of life.

 

False.
And discontinue regurgitating the "fact of life" fallacy as if it has not been done over and over.
It is irrelevant and illogical.

 

How is it irrelevant? You are the one who brought up social dysfunction in the first place.

I call it a fact of life because it is; the entirety of human history up until this point is stained with our own blood. We kill each other with the vicious abandon of the animals we are. As we have this very discussion, soldiers, terrorists, and innocent civilians in Iraq are all being killed, and their families are being left behind to mourn them. Suffering and death are parts of the human condition; they have been since the dawn of man. Even in Utopia, the citizens' trifling family dramas cause grief enough to inspire murder, rape, domestic abuse, and suicide. These things happen because we are humans, not because of capitalism. The exploitation faced by the poor only adds to the pressure, but if it is not the pressure of being exploited, then it is the pressure of continuing to exploit successfully. Life is as painful as nature is unforgiving.

Can you disprove this? If it is so illogical, it should be a simple matter of reductio ad absurdum. I think you know all about the suffering of man, however, since it is requisite to your thesis.

 

As an addendum, I would like to add that in the WHO report on violence in 2002, ( violence defined as deliberate abuse of children, intimate partner, youth and elderly) out of 1.6 million people who died, about half were suicides one-third were homicides and only one-fifth were armed conflict.

Violence is one of the most uncontrollable of human impulses. (Note the overflowing prisons in countries, secular and otherwise)

 

"there will always be social dysfunction . . . It's just a fact of life."

Not only is any single person on the planet incapable of proving the above, they are not actual arguements.
They are in no way whatsoever a "fact of life".

This goes inline with the human nature fallacy.

These fallacies have zero relevance because they are not based on any fact.
They are culturally derived regurgitations.
The sun goes around the earth.
The earth is flat.

These false social assumptions are bred into people because they are social norms based on the lack of thought process.

It is when you start thinking that you discover that the earth goes around the sun. The sun goes around the earth. There is no such thing in human nature that has been proven to prevent social functioning. Most so called "facts of life" are nothing more than brainwashing. Crabs brainwashing crabs. There is no basis of any fact in it whatsoever.

It is impossible to have a proper discussion about functional/dysfunctional economic systems when such regurgitations with no logical basis are thrown into discussion. It is irrelevan because it is unproven fallacy. The only difference between such concepts and superstition, is that society is so extremely superstitious when it comes to such concepts that they automatically accept it as fact of life while other superstitious concepts are looked at with more skepticism. The only thing you are lacking is the skepticism of unproven fallacies that have been accepted as facts of life through mass brainwashing.

I do not have to disprove aything as I do not have the burden of proof.
It is your burden to prove, but we already know this is an impossibility.
It is impossible to prove that "There will always be social disfunction."
It is not a real statement, but a nonsensical cultural expression.

 

Cool skill, this isn't a dissertation on geometry. I don't need to provide logical proof, just empirical data, which I did. You can open any history book or archive and check to see if there really were wars before this time, but I hope you can trust me.

However, while we're discussing logic, disproof and proof are not the same thing. Whereas proof shows that logically a statement must be true, disproof shows that a statement must not be true. This latter process you will find much easier in the world of theories, which is why all real scholars (apart from mathematicians, who still find use for the former) today favor it. All theories are assumed to be true until it is demonstrated that they logically lead to a false conclusion. If A implies B, the contrapositive must also be true - that is, if B is false then so is A.

I have put forth that records from the beginning of history, plus the pervasiveness on all scales of violence among humans today, evidence the inherence of violent behavior to human nature. Now it is your job, if you wish to continue this debate in an intelligent manner, to show how this is false by taking my interpretation and following it logically to an untrue conclusion. Alternatively, you can show me evidence that contradicts my interpretation of the evidence I have already presented. I have done my part in this discussion so far; the burden now lies on you. I hope this explanation has helped you bear it.

 

The burden pf proof lies on anybody trying to prove a point.

All you have done is regurgitate human nature fallacies, and nonsense that has no place in an intellectual discussion. None of it is proof. None of it is evidence. None of it is acceptable. as I have stated such social fallacies are irrelevant in any proper discussion regarding social function and economics. There is no reasonable justification for abiding by disillusionalparadigms. Not only are they unproductive, they have no basis in reality.

 

It was an interesting discussion, cool skill. Thanks.

 

YW. Get lost.