Didymos Thomas wrote:
Just to add some clarification: libertarianism has absolutely no interest in the well being of one class of people as compared to another. They do not seek "to increase the utility of the middle and upper classes". Libertarianism is concerned with the individual's rights, utilitarianism is concerned with the greatest happiness of all.
Under utilitarianism, it would be justified to ignore the rights of one individual, to make happier two individuals. Completely contrary to libertarianism.
Not quite true.
Libertarians recognize that there would still be a 'lower class' which would necessarily suffer more than the rest of society.
You are right, there is a strong emphasis on individual rights, and in libertarianism you cannot simply ignore the rights of one person, but there still are economic/social 'losers' and 'winners'.
Sure, I know the difference between Ethics and Morals. It is kind of like the difference between pagans and heathens. How about you? Do they got any ethics there in da mitten.
Do you know the difference between Kant's Categorical Imperative, Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Moral Subjectivism, Nihilism, and Existentialism?
That's what this thread is about.
So what? Am I supposed to deny our common humanity for the sake of a majority? Majorities are what is wrong with our society. When people think they can run others on the basis of a simple majority the society can go to hell by halves. Right now, over fifty percent are secure, happy, educated, meditated, and medicated. What about the rest? The majority can feed on the misery of the minority, and even when that minority is effectively erased, there will be another minority, and the process will continue. If you are looking for an everybody solution then include me in.
There is no economic system which has shown to effectively eliminate all misery and to increase pleasure for all.
No non-religious ideology claims to be fighting for the good of all - there will always be the losers who won't get as much 'pleasure' as they would in a different economic system. These losers might be the bourgeoisie in far-left economic systems or they may be the lower classes in liberal (in the traditional sense) societies.
Sir, I grew up on socialism. SLP socialism, and I would suggest you have your facts wrong. Socialist look for a democracy governing industry. Since industry rules our lives we must rule it. What does economic anarchy gain for any society but poverty, misery, waste, and war?
Socialism, in its traditional sense, is a transitional form from either feudalism or primitive capitalism to communism. Of course, this is the view of only communists, whether they be Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, or others. Other far-left wingers who are "socialist" do not believe in the "transitional state," but believe that socialism should be a permanent economic state.
Either way, both groups view socialism as an economic theory where capital is owned collectively "by the people," which usually means via a government (whether it be elected fairly or not).
What you're talking about sounds more like syndicalism (democratic control of industries) than socialism.
Either way, both systems are utilitarian. Both seek the increased pleasure of the majority.
Well, if you are honest there is hope. Have you read das Capital?
I've read most of it, but never all of it.
There are no socialist nations. There are socialistic nations. It is like calling us a democracy. We are not. We are democratic. We lean toward democracy. Some countries lean toward socialism.
Socialism as a theory may seem like an ideology. Since all peoples every where came out of some form of socialism as the first organization of society, what every socialist wants to do is to recreate the past in the future. Part of the problem with this plan is that when socialism was the only form of social organization it was very much forced upon people. The level of technology was low, and enemies everywhere required of each a great deal of social control. Those who believe mankind in his so called natural state was more free are wrong. Primitives are and were much more constrained in their behavior. This did not stop them from being happy or being human. But the facts were that no one had any choice in the matter. Increased technology and wide spread law has reduced the need for socialism and all forms of cooperative efforts. The survival that once depended upon every person working together for a common goal has been assured withthe concentrated labor of only a portion of the people. So, where is the need for socialism? Think about getting any part of the people to endure socialism without their recognizing the need for it. Shall we do it for justice? If I have mine then your justice is your lookout. Shall we have it to curb waste. As long as we cannot walk accross the ocean on waste, why the worry? We will have socialism; when we have no choice. When the waste becomes too great. When the energy runs out. When to keep the economy every right is destroyed. When there becomes only masters and slaves. That is when we will have socialism; when the people consent. It cannot be forced.
For the person asking me if I read Das Kapital
, you don't show very much knowledge of economic/social history, as written by Marx.
Tribal societies/primitive 'communism' -> slave societies -> feudal societies -> capitalism -> communism
As for your economic banter... I never argued for or against socialism.
I was simply using it as an example of a utilitarian ideology, which is definitely is.