the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Skepdick »

commonsense wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:18 pm Are you saying that capitalism fits into the definition of socialism??
I am saying that the English definitions are irrelevant if two systems are structurally identical.

I am also saying that if your definition fails to capture the current structure of the current system as-is, then you are talking about an "ought" not an "is".

So you have yourself the typical, dichotomised/antithetical mud-slinging contest of "my shit is better than your shit", but objectively both shits are the same shit.

It's all part of the Game of Thrones plot. Real change comes from the ground up.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:29 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:19 pm What you describe is exactly what has happened. In spite of all attempts to control speech communism/socialism are being voted in everywhere.

I have no use for any political system and regard them all as evil. Intellectually, I am opposed to them all.
OK.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:19 pm I do not trust in any system or agency to produce outcomes of any kind, except bad ones.
So you believe all systems produce bad outcomes ?
Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:29 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:19 pm I trust only in what I can choose and do working with those whom I personally can trust and do business with and relate to socially to produce any outcomes that matter to me or them.
You just described a political system. People self-organizing to achieve common goals that matter to them.
A small-scale system, but a political system none the less.

Would you say the outcomes of your small-scale political system are bad?
Fair question. What I mean by a political, "system," is a system imposed by force, what is normally called a, "state," or, "government." I do not regard totally voluntary behavior of individuals, even when it involves a great deal of organization, as a political system.

Now I have no objection to you calling that a, "political system," because technically it is what politics ought to be, how individuals relate to one another in a society, but that is not what is usually meant, I think, by a political system.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:29 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:19 pm No system is going to produce some kind of world or society one likes and the worst horrors ever visited on human beings have been the result of such systems.
Then why do you form business institutions?
I do not recall saying I did. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by business, "institutions," but if you are referring to, "corporations," those are only possible in the context of a government or state. Individuals cannot just decide to call their business a corporation (meaning they are protected from personal responsibility for what their company does).

If you mean by business, "institutions," the facilities for doing business, how else would individuals be able to produce most of the products of this world without factories, or store the products without warehouses, or ship them without trucks and railroads, or sell them without stores? How would you get your car filled with gas without gas stations, or your car repaired without repair garages? So long as every participant in any enterprise does so voluntarily they benefit everyone. What could be wrong with that?
Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:29 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:19 pm I do not oppose, except in principle, any political system. I am apolitical, not anti-political. Work for and have any political system you believe in and can manage to implement; it's not going to work but it's your life and emotional and physical energy you'll have to spend on it, not mine. I'll not fight you, but I certainly will not part of it and will live as I choose in spite of any system.
Why do you believe that your institutions are going to work if you are so cynical about the institutions of others?
Private businesses in which everyone is voluntarily a participant can only work so long every individual, worker or customer, is satified their association with that business is to their own benefit. If the business exists, it is because it is working to satisfy everyone involved, if it is not working, it will cease to exist. Only businesses subsidized and controlled by a government can exist without being benevolent.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:08 am Fair question. What I mean by a political, "system," is a system imposed by force, what is normally called a, "state," or, "government." I do not regard totally voluntary behavior of individuals, even when it involves a great deal of organization, as a political system.
The system wasn't imposed by force. The system is imposed voluntarily. It is authorised to use force on behalf of the people voluntarily participating in the system.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:08 am Now I have no objection to you calling that a, "political system," because technically it is what politics ought to be, how individuals relate to one another in a society, but that is not what is usually meant, I think, by a political system.
I understand the distinctions in meaning - but in practice governments, businesses etc. are just different social institutions/structures incorporated for different social purposes.

They operate under different mandates, but they are effectively instrumental.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:08 am I do not recall saying I did. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by business, "institutions," but if you are referring to, "corporations," those are only possible in the context of a government or state. Individuals cannot just decide to call their business a corporation (meaning they are protected from personal responsibility for what their company does).
Then ignore the label. People come together so they can work on projects of shared interest towards a common purpose.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:08 am If you mean by business, "institutions," the facilities for doing business, how else would individuals be able to produce most of the products of this world without factories, or store the products without warehouses, or ship them without trucks and railroads, or sell them without stores? How would you get your car filled with gas without gas stations, or your car repaired without repair garages? So long as every participant in any enterprise does so voluntarily they benefit everyone. What could be wrong with that?
What I mean is that if you start a backdoor pizzeria with your cousin, or a multi-national like Pizza Hut - is still an institution. They serve the same function, but there is a difference in scale.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:29 pm Private businesses in which everyone is voluntarily a participant can only work so long every individual, worker or customer, is satified their association with that business is to their own benefit.
And what about the involuntary participants? Externalities are a thing.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:29 pm If the business exists, it is because it is working to satisfy everyone involved, if it is not working, it will cease to exist. Only businesses subsidized and controlled by a government can exist without being benevolent.
There is a converse to that. Benevolent, but economically unsustainable entities can only exist when subsidised by governments.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 7:24 pm You seem to confuse socialism with a sort of communist dictatorial regime.
Not "confuse." The former inevitably precipitates the latter, and then dictatorship. Look at Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Zimbabwe...pick your country, and as soon as it went Socialist it began to decline in that direction.

Then ask yourself if it's wise to play that game again. After all, every single new regime imagines that it will do "real Socialism," and the only reason every last one of the others failed is that they were "not real Socialism." But every single time they are wrong, and people die. That's not a cycle we should ever repeat.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by henry quirk »

The former inevitably precipitates the latter

always

this...

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

...always results in...

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the state
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by henry quirk »

and, this...

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state

...always degrades into...

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are owned by private owners, and regulated (controlled) by the state
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

free enterprise

Post by henry quirk »

:thumbsup:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Immanuel Can »

And this...
henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 2:54 pm an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are owned by private owners, and regulated (controlled) by the state
...always degenerates into this...

an economic and political system in which a country's private owners are dispossessed, 're-educated,' persecuted, incarcerated, tortured and murdered by the state
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 3:42 pm And this...
henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 2:54 pm an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are owned by private owners, and regulated (controlled) by the state
...always degenerates into this...

an economic and political system in which a country's private owners are dispossessed, 're-educated,' persecuted, incarcerated, tortured and murdered by the state
exactly

socialism & capitalism always become state-socialism & state-caplitalsm, and state-socialism & state-capitalism are pretty much the same damn thing, and slavery (what both are) always ends with desperate but resigned Belindas and jailed or dead Henrys

save a Henry: support free enterprise, natural rights, the chartered minarchy

save yourself: support liberty
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 3:55 pm save a Henry: support free enterprise, natural rights, the chartered minarchy
Will do.

Save the whales, too...collect the entire set.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by henry quirk »

Save the whales, too

I'd rather eat them
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by commonsense »

.
Last edited by commonsense on Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by commonsense »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:49 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:08 am Fair question. What I mean by a political, "system," is a system imposed by force, what is normally called a, "state," or, "government." I do not regard totally voluntary behavior of individuals, even when it involves a great deal of organization, as a political system.
The system wasn't imposed by force. The system is imposed voluntarily. It is authorised to use force on behalf of the people voluntarily participating in the system.
That’s just it—the system is “imposed” voluntarily when individuals opt in. Those individuals who at some time want to voluntarily opt out, as is their prerogative since they chose to volunteer, they are reminded that they could be forced to stay in. It is force, or the possibility of force, that compels them to stay.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Immanuel Can »

The problem comes back to this:

Which "ideal"?

Which "pragmatics"?


Some so-called "ideals", like, say, racial purification, world domination, prone submission to Allah, or the Worker's State, can be viewed as an "ideal" by many, and indeed have been, by many. But so what? No "balance" between that "ideal" and "pragmatics" will make either good, in such cases.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:49 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:08 am Fair question. What I mean by a political, "system," is a system imposed by force, what is normally called a, "state," or, "government." I do not regard totally voluntary behavior of individuals, even when it involves a great deal of organization, as a political system.
The system wasn't imposed by force. The system is imposed voluntarily. It is authorised to use force on behalf of the people voluntarily participating in the system.
There is no government that does not exist by force. One lie that is told to justify that agency of force is that is on behalf of the people, but of course the second any of the people would choose not to have that government they will discover what the force is for. In any country where there is a government, no one has a choice about whether they will be governed by the government or not. The day you are born you are assigned a government birth certificate, and in most countries a government assigned number (SS in the United States, for example). The moment one begins to work and produce an income the government will take some of it away. You do not have any choice about taxes--they are not voluntary.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:49 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:08 am Now I have no objection to you calling that a, "political system," because technically it is what politics ought to be, how individuals relate to one another in a society, but that is not what is usually meant, I think, by a political system.
I understand the distinctions in meaning - but in practice governments, businesses etc. are just different social institutions/structures incorporated for different social purposes.
Businesses and government are completely different things. A business must produce a product and service that others are willing exchange whatever wealth their own product efforts have produce for those products or services. They can only exist so long as what the produce is desired by potential customers and no one is obliged to buy any companies products or services.

A government produces nothing of value and can only expropriate what others have produced or use others to produce things (paid for with stolen, i.e. tax, money) and citizens are obliged or forced to accept what the government foists on them (like government education) whether they want it or not.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:49 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:08 am I do not recall saying I did. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by business, "institutions," but if you are referring to, "corporations," those are only possible in the context of a government or state. Individuals cannot just decide to call their business a corporation (meaning they are protected from personal responsibility for what their company does).
Then ignore the label. People come together so they can work on projects of shared interest towards a common purpose.
Perhaps in clubs and recreational activities, but in fields of wealth production, every individual has their own objective, to provide a service (as when an employee, for example) or produce a product, (as a business owner, for example), in pursuit of their own income, each pursuing their own objective. Very few employees of most companies have any shared interest in either a company's purpose or others working in the that company they do not directly interface with. Why would they? So long as everyone is free to voluntarily participate in their part of any enterprise it will benefit everyone involved. No one needs to be part some socially cooperative effort toward some noble common purpose.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:49 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:08 am If you mean by business, "institutions," the facilities for doing business, how else would individuals be able to produce most of the products of this world without factories, or store the products without warehouses, or ship them without trucks and railroads, or sell them without stores? How would you get your car filled with gas without gas stations, or your car repaired without repair garages? So long as every participant in any enterprise does so voluntarily they benefit everyone. What could be wrong with that?
What I mean is that if you start a backdoor pizzeria with your cousin, or a multi-national like Pizza Hut - is still an institution. They serve the same function, but there is a difference in scale.
Obviously, but what's the point. They're all good so long as they are all voluntary.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:29 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:08 am Private businesses in which everyone is voluntarily a participant can only work so long every individual, worker or customer, is satified their association with that business is to their own benefit.
And what about the involuntary participants? Externalities are a thing.
No business can force anyone to participate with them in any way, either as a worker or as a customer. Only governments can force people to do thing or not do things.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:29 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:08 am If the business exists, it is because it is working to satisfy everyone involved, if it is not working, it will cease to exist. Only businesses subsidized and controlled by a government can exist without being benevolent.
There is a converse to that. Benevolent, but economically unsustainable entities can only exist when subsidised by governments.
Since a government produces nothing of value that anyone would willing pay for, to subsidize anything, a government must first confiscate (steal) wealth produce by those who do provide goods and services people willing pay for. Any business that survives on government subsidies is essentially a crooked business supported by stolen money.
Post Reply