February 22, 2005
-
topic: a good life, THE good life
It’s now 3:43am, I’ve just re-read a post from a year ago. It’s probably the most powerful post I’ve ever written, my daily journal from a 21-day Outward Bound South Africa course i instructed. It’s long, but it’s one of the few narrative entries I have, and I’ve been reliving the entire experience as I’ve re-read it. I think my writing is the greatest asset I leave myself…as I’ve captured so many thoughts, experiences, and life lessons that I can now go back to and build on. As my co-instructor Menzi said on the course, “Do not think only of the size of the mountain ahead of you. Look back and acknowledge the great distances you have covered just to get where you are. You have arrived where you are one step-at-a-time. Now keep walking.”
I didn’t realize it at the time, but my recent trip down “is there a god?” lane has strengthened my resolve in embracing life in the here and now.
I had a great chat w/ my pops today about many topics, and I brought up intermarriage. I wanted to know why he cared about me marrying a Jewish girl, even though we’re not a religious family. We both share similar views on god and religion, but I have been in this limbo w/ regards to intermarriage, believing I would marry only a Jewish girl, but feeling as though my reasons were fairly shoddy (as it turns out, the word shoddy comes from a material known as shoddy which was worn during the civil war. it was of such a poor quality, it basically disintegrated in the rain, hence the expression “shoddy” my dad is full of such facts that i’m not always able to appreciate).
I actually got one reason for marrying Jewish that resonated with me. In many ways, Judaism is a club. It’s a club that has lasted for generations, and it’s a club that exists worldwide. Last year, I was able to share in a shabbat dinner and partake in a seder (a ritual dinner for the holiday of Passover), while in South Africa. It didn’t matter who I was, it only mattered that I was a member of the club.
Without god, it’s clear how Judaism can be viewed as a club. It’s got a membership, rituals, and like most organizations, it has a wide-range of members. In fact, as a result of varying viewpoints about what the club/religion of Judaism is about, there have been several splits in the religion based on beliefs regarding ritual and other matters.
So…while I have had many reasons to not buy into religion, and several reasons to rebel against religion, my dad pointed out that it might be to my advantage to remain a member of this club. And in fact…there’s a large number of Jews who have embraced Judaism merely for its secular/social benefits. My dad also said that being Jewish means to be part of something historical. True…we don’t have a family tree that shows how our lineage dates back to the time of Abraham. But…unlike the Italians, Irish, English, etc. Jews are a culture that have been without a home for quite some time, kicked out of nearly every country they’ve lived in. Yet…they have maintained their identity. Anyways…the point about belonging to a club meant more to me than the existential dilemma of being a person w/ no historical roots except Judaism.
My dad and I don’t speak very often, so I tried to get the most out of it. We also discussed my life dilemma (what am I doing w/ my life?) He went on to drop in some Sheakspeare, which I wasn’t expecting at all: “To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be falst to any man.” Ultimately I want to be honest to myself about religion, and it’s more important to me to follow those aspects of Judaism that will help me lead a good life, (compassion towards others) and to help me lead THE good life (social/spiritual happiness).
As I said at the beginning of this post…thinking about religion has clarified life for me a bit, and has strengthened my views on how to live both a good life, and THE good life.
I find life is hardest when I can’t find answers to life’s questions. Did I make the right decision to spend the last 6 months as I have? Am I making the right job decision now? Am I wrong for being irreligious? Should I settle down?
Clarifying my thoughts on religion puts life back into the category of “managable.” I have a grip on the world and life. I also have a strengthened view that there is no objective truths about what we think of as “life.” For some, this is scary, but realizing this is actually the most powerful tool to living the good life. Most things in life are ingrained into us as objective truths, and suddenly, we find ourselves in their boxes. In order to think independantly, we need to embrace the arbitrariness of life.
I also believe, in order to live well, we must embrace the finiteness of life. Human life is finite, and likely, human existence as well (do you think we’ll still be around in one trillion years, and will 2004 have any relevance on the year 2,000,000,000,004?)
Again…my conclusions may sound depressing, but depression as I defined it before, often stems from an inability to “manage” life. In Tuesday’s with Morrie, there’s a quote about death. “We can’t start living until we’ve accepted that we’re going to die.” When we are able to come to grips with the big questions in life, I feel we can smile for conquering (if temporarily) our inability to grapple with the question, as well as the fact that once we accept death (i know…gruesome thinking, yuck!!!) as Morrie said, we’re free to live. We’re free to be true to ourselves.
My dad said the Peace Corps was a unique program, because it created jobs for those who wanted to do something positive for humanity, but who didn’t want to join the rat-race. Although probably the most famous gov’t program for such a cause, I don’t have a single friend who even considered the program. Most of the people I know joined the rat-race! This reveals to me that people are trapped by the box, and have not embraced the arbitrariness of life that tells us there is 0 objective truth beyond the opinions of our society, that entering the rat-race is a natural progression after college. In addition, this reveals that many have not embraced the finiteness of life, for it’s hard to believe that a person who embraced their own mortality would remain in the rat-race for very long.
Anyone who has traveled will most likely have discovered what I mean by arbitrariness of life. From sports, to food, to music, to accents, to language, to politics, to relationships, to traditions, “to thine own be true.” Perhaps many Americans only know one life. But I think there are many who recognize the toxicity of our culture.
Topic: back to history/politics
Also…I gave my dad a copy of Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History.” My dad is a history buff, and he was quick to point out the slant in the book. “The facts are indesputable, but it’s not like other countries didn’t commit equal acts.” This combatted one of the quick conclusions I made about America being one of the worst countries, without really having much knowledge of foreign countries. But…my dad, like most historians, are able to point out that an unsanitized version of American history is not an easy one to swallow.
As I mentioned earlier about the Peace Corps, my dad said FDR was one of the first presidents to pay people to do work that benfited society. My dad is not a political ideologue (hence…i’ve very rarely discussed politics w/ him), but it was refreshing to hear how the concept of paying people to create art was undertaken by the gov’t. Also…like the current war in Iraq, my knowledge of the Great Depression is greatly sanitized.
the following picture is dedicated to ganryu…i found the following pictures here:
During the Great Depression, unemployment was high. Many employers tried to get as much work as possible from their employees for the lowest possible wage. Workers were upset with the speedup of assembly lines, working conditions and the lack of job security. Seeking strength in unity, they formed unions. Automobile workers organized the U.A.W. (United Automobile Workers of America) in 1935. General Motors would not recognize the U.A.W. as the workers’ bargaining representative. Hearing rumors that G.M. was moving work to factories where the union was not as strong, workers in Flint began a sit-down strike on December 30, 1936. The sit-down was an effective way to strike. When workers walked off the job and picketed a plant, management could bring in new workers to break the strike. If the workers stayed in the plant, management could not replace them with other workers. This photograph shows the broken windows at General Motors’ Flint Fisher Body Plant during the Flint sit-down strike of 1936-37.
Looks like South Africa here…
Squatters in Mexican section in San Antonio, Texas. House was built of scrap material in vacant lot in Mexican
section of San Antonio, Texas. March 1939. Photographer: Russell Lee.
Funny tabloid…don’t you think.
Durham, North Carolina, May 1940. Photographer: Jack Delano. “At the bus station.”
Comments (25)
FDR’s New Deal did lots more than create art. Huge public works, CCC, TVA… All created real jobs and expanded economic possibilities.
Art? Art is nice, but does it serve any real purpose? Artists will create art regardless, it is not in the place of government.
“If the workers stayed in the plant, management could not replace them with other workers. “
This is what I hate about unions. Did God give them the right to take away the corporation’s freedom to hire whoever the hell they want? This is when union power, probably thanks to mob connections, started to go too far.
here’s where theory and ideology bother me. Yes…art absolutely 100% serves real purpose in society. It serves as much purpose as anything else. Want me to prove it. I don’t aim to try, because some philosopher has probably proven it, and some philosopher has probably disproven it. There is more to life than maximizing profits, and if the gov’t wants to add culture in the form of art to the country in order to make a statement that we our sole purpose on this planet is not to increase market efficiency, than so be it. If the gov’t expanded Peace Corps and Ameria Corps, more people would go into jobs that benefited humanity, instead of jobs that generally do nothing other than help people make more money to buy more crap than they need. Is it the place of the gov’t? It all depends, I say paying artists to create art through my tax dollars is better than having that artists sell out his dream and become an investment banker.
People have free will…their rights are not derived from God. Did anybody give the corporation the freedom to not give people an honest wage? Again…if unions have become corrupted, that’s one thing, but when corporations seeking nothing other than profits are willing to give work to the lowest bidder, than corporate power has gone too far.
“…art absolutely 100% serves real purpose in society. It serves as much purpose as anything else. Want me to prove it. I don’t aim to try, because some philosopher has probably proven it, and some philosopher has probably disproven it. There is more to life than maximizing profits, and if the gov’t wants to add culture in the form of art to the country in order to make a statement that we our sole purpose on this planet is not to increase market efficiency, than so be it. If the gov’t expanded Peace Corps and Ameria Corps, more people would go into jobs that benefited humanity, instead of jobs that generally do nothing other than help people make more money to buy more crap than they need. Is it the place of the gov’t? It all depends, I say paying artists to create art through my tax dollars is better than having that artists sell out his dream and become an investment banker.”
A real artist exists regardless to one’s government. Was it the patrons of art that created Michalangelo or Yevgeny Zamyatin, or would they exist anyway? I think they would have existed anyway. If the people want art, the people can organize and build it and house it. The Pepisco sculpture gardens is an example of a corporation giving people a nice place to have a picnic for the hell of it. I would rather have people get together and volunteerily fund the arts than having the gov’t put guns to peoples heads and telling them they have to.
“People have free will…their rights are not derived from God. Did anybody give the corporation the freedom to not give people an honest wage?”
The corporation can pay 2 cents an hour, but no one would work for it. People have free will, they can decide they will work for such a wage or they can deny it. People have free will, they can organize the workers together and protest, but it is simply not right to physically impose their will onto a corporation by preventing it by excercising its free will: hiring different workers. Organization is fine, but not when it rids people of their freedoms, including those that belong to the corrupt unions that exist today.
“Again…if unions have become corrupted, that’s one thing, but when corporations seeking nothing other than profits are willing to give work to the lowest bidder, than corporate power has gone too far. “
Not true, the corporation has one responsibility: to be profitable. That’s what corporations do. It is just for a corporation to be as profitable as possible as long as it does onto others as it wants done onto it. The job of the worker is to work as hard as possible. The job of the farmer is to farm as best as he can. However, no human is fully just, and no one, including the corporation, are ever fully just. However, if the corporation kills people left and right with a dangerous workplace, then it is the right of the people to quit their job and work somewhere else.
in theory, i agree w/ some of what your said. in reality, however, i disagree. Sure, everyone has “the right,” or “the freedom,” to choose any form of work they want. You’re right that corporations are free to choose any wages they want, but I don’t believe it to be the case that people are free to accept or not accept low-wage work. Do people who accept jobs at a place like Holiday Inn, which at one point banned their workers from forming a union, have a choice as to whether or not they accept a sub-minimum wage job as a housekeeper? If they quit their job, the alternative is no job. Since corporations are interested in profits, many are interested in paying their workers as little as possible. Some recognize that it’s in their interest to pay their workers well in order to keep them doing some of the most menial jobs in America. Others recognize that there are more people than their are jobs, and therefor, it’s a race to the bottom in terms of paying wages. If people are lining up for work, you’re going to offer them as little as possible, and in most cases, this results in not having enough money to live a comfortable life.
I understand you’re well-educated and have strong ideological beliefs, but I think the world does not work as our ideologies would have us believe. Do you believe that a poor person who works in a factory with sickening health conditions should have no rights as a worker, other than the right to quit their job and wind up with no job? I follow the libertarian desire to not have the gov’t interfere, and the fact that gov’t interferance is often a bumpy road, however, the reality is that wealth gives people more freedom. Wealthy people can choose to work in an office, while poor people are forced to work in dirty factories. Wealthy people can send their kids to nice private schools, while poor people would have nothing without public schools. Wealthy people can give money to influence politicians, while poor people are left to choose between two corporate-influenced politicians. Without gov’t interferance on some things, America is a country of truly free wealthy people, and free mostly in name only poor people.
in theory, i agree w/ some of what your said. in reality, however, i disagree. Sure, everyone has “the right,” or “the freedom,” to choose any form of work they want. You’re right that corporations are free to choose any wages they want, but I don’t believe it to be the case that people are free to accept or not accept low-wage work. Do people who accept jobs at a place like Holiday Inn, which at one point banned their workers from forming a union, have a choice as to whether or not they accept a sub-minimum wage job as a housekeeper? If they quit their job, the alternative is no job. Since corporations are interested in profits, many are interested in paying their workers as little as possible. Some recognize that it’s in their interest to pay their workers well in order to keep them doing some of the most menial jobs in America. Others recognize that there are more people than their are jobs, and therefor, it’s a race to the bottom in terms of paying wages. If people are lining up for work, you’re going to offer them as little as possible, and in most cases, this results in not having enough money to live a comfortable life.
I understand you’re well-educated and have strong ideological beliefs, but I think the world does not work as our ideologies would have us believe. Do you believe that a poor person who works in a factory with sickening health conditions should have no rights as a worker, other than the right to quit their job and wind up with no job? I follow the libertarian desire to not have the gov’t interfere, and the fact that gov’t interferance is often a bumpy road, however, the reality is that wealth gives people more freedom. Wealthy people can choose to work in an office, while poor people are forced to work in dirty factories. Wealthy people can send their kids to nice private schools, while poor people would have nothing without public schools. Wealthy people can give money to influence politicians, while poor people are left to choose between two corporate-influenced politicians. Without gov’t interferance on some things, America is a country of truly free wealthy people, and free mostly in name only poor people.
“in theory, i agree w/ some of what your said. in reality, however, i disagree. Sure, everyone has “the right,” or “the freedom,” to choose any form of work they want. You’re right that corporations are free to choose any wages they want, but I don’t believe it to be the case that people are free to accept or not accept low-wage work. Do people who accept jobs at a place like Holiday Inn, which at one point banned their workers from forming a union, have a choice as to whether or not they accept a sub-minimum wage job as a housekeeper?”
Yes, they have a choice, to work somewhere else. Sadly, until we improve immigration policy, things like this will happen. However, I do beleive there is no need for minimum wage, because it hurts people’s freedom.
“If they quit their job, the alternative is no job.”
Yeah, that’s the point. So you can choose to starve or take what someone is willing to give you. It is called free will.
“Since corporations are interested in profits, many are interested in paying their workers as little as possible. Some recognize that it’s in their interest to pay their workers well in order to keep them doing some of the most menial jobs in America. Others recognize that there are more people than their are jobs, and therefor, it’s a race to the bottom in terms of paying wages. If people are lining up for work, you’re going to offer them as little as possible, and in most cases, this results in not having enough money to live a comfortable life.”
We are not to concern ourselves with giving everyone a comfortable life, for it is far too relavite of a term. If peopel provide GOOD work, they will be paid well. If they are expendable and unskilled, too bad. People should not be allowed to live comfortably if all thye can do is make coffee at starbucks, and even they make better than mininum wage.
“I understand you’re well-educated and have strong ideological beliefs, but I think the world does not work as our ideologies would have us believe. ”
Yeah, people are greedy, and they know they can outweigh unviersal freedom with the demands of the faction to resdistirubte wealth regardless of merit. Just because we do not live in ehaven does not mean I cannot criticize what we got.
“Do you believe that a poor person who works in a factory with sickening health conditions should have no rights as a worker, other than the right to quit their job and wind up with no job?”
Probably, I am not 100%. It is like education. People might be too stupid to educate themselves, so it is in the interest of the whole to protect society and protect them. People might be dumb enough to keep working somewhere very dangerous, so it might be in the interest of society to prevent that. However, I trhink it is more liekly than not market outcome is not improved by protections in the workplace.
“I follow the libertarian desire to not have the gov’t interfere, and the fact that gov’t interferance is often a bumpy road, however, the reality is that wealth gives people more freedom.”
Not true. We all have an equal amount of freedom. Satisfying material desires and having food in your stomach ios not freedom. Freedom is deciding how you will live and die.
“Wealthy people can choose to work in an office, while poor people are forced to work in dirty factories. Wealthy people can send their kids to nice private schools, while poor people would have nothing without public schools. Wealthy people can give money to influence politicians, while poor people are left to choose between two corporate-influenced politicians. Without gov’t interferance on some things, America is a country of truly free wealthy people, and free mostly in name only poor people.”
I disagree. Wealth is relative. People would rather be rich in love than money most of the time. So how do you equate it? You cannot. the onyl thing you can provide to all people eQUALLY is the ability to execute their own free will. Freedom, to me, is msot important.
By the way, I never got your email, and let me know what you think of my holocaust argument.
yeah man. I feel ya. Im jewish and my parents all pressure me to bring home a nice jewish girl but my family is super a-religious. its very weird. and I often wonder-maybe it would be just eiser to find a nice jewish girl, something we can relate on. but then, the light shines, and you realize that love knows no color boundry or religion so neither should you.
being jewish is like a club. I identify with people soley on that basis alot as do all the other jews i know. its like “oh your jewish?” nice! maybe all the years of abuse have given us a collective pride and sense of comradory- no matter how religious you are.
nice site btw
are you back in baltimore?
craig:
there’s something inherent in many of your arguments that i think is worth exploring further, and it involves your generalizations about people with little wealth. when you say people might be to dumb to choose a safe place to work, this is the type of statement that i think requires a deepening analysis. It seems your libertarian ideology is partially a response to those who are able to free-ride from gov’t interferance, and who would sink otherwise, but your initial argument against something like federal regulation of health safety shouldn’t be, “people are stupid for working in bad working conditions, it’s their fault.”
2 other things about art:
first…you make a radical claim to make your point by saying, “I don’t think the gov’t has a right to put guns to our heads to make us create art.
second…i’m assuming (and i might be wrong) that the art projects paid for during FDR’s presidency were for the public. So…while there were, and will continue to be artists, FDR attempted to do two things, first, to create more public art (maybe it was painting a mural in an urban city), and second, it helped people w/ artistic skills to find work. The problem I see w/ a free-market, is that the market does not always represent what people want, and the market does not always reflect what people are capable of contributing. Why do stock brokers and investment bankers get paid more than teachers? Is it because the market values them more? I think most people think more highly about teachers, but they get paid less, and in some cases, not enough to want to be a teacher. Why do baseball players make millions, while working as a public defendant you get paid beans. Clearly…wages do not reflect the general public’s views on how much a person is worth, rather, wages reflect how much money a job can produce. Teaching produces little wealth, while Paul O’Neil can excite people to spend $50 for tickets, and $100 for his jersey, and then to pay $5 for a hot dog at the game.
“We are not to concern ourselves with giving everyone a comfortable life, for it is far too relavite of a term. If peopel provide GOOD work, they will be paid well. If they are expendable and unskilled, too bad. People should not be allowed to live comfortably if all thye can do is make coffee at starbucks, and even they make better than mininum wage.”
I’m interesteed in 2 things here. First of all…as i’ve shown, i want to question your statment that if people provide GOOD work, they will be paid well. Please define good work!!! Is good work only what has monetary value? How do you explain professional athletes pay? Is it that they entertain and serve as heroes? How do you explain why businessmen get paid more than teachers? Is one more valuable/good than the other?
The second things is your statement about Starbucks employees, which leads me to another thought. Do you think people who work at Starbucks are only skilled in making coffee, or, do they work at Starbucks because it pays relatively decent and provides health care? People have many skills…but will develop job skills based on what employers best take care of their workers.
But…I wanted to make a last important point about your continued generalizations about people based upon their jobs and wealth. I didn’t take your statement personally…but I found it ironic because my roommate in college worked all through college at Starbucks. He is now a manager, and while he is now paid more because he has more skills and more responsibilities, I think your comment that someone who would be making coffee at Starbucks is “expendable and unskilled,” is judgemental, stereotypical, and unsophisticated. A good mechanic has a great deal of skill, but gets paid a fraction of someone whose only skill is to hit a baseball. Why are those who are paid little seen as expendable and unskilled?
craig:
“Yeah, that’s the point. So you can choose to starve or take what someone is willing to give you. It is called free will.”
So…you’re absolute most important philosophical value, is freedom. Well…I’m not going to say freedom is a bad thing, ultimately, I cherish the freedoms I have as an American. And as I’ve said before…a free person can be happy w/ almost nothing. However…to say that a person has free will in choosing whether or not they should work for $2/hr. and risk their health and safety, or choose to be unemployed, is making “freedom,” your god, and ignoring other values such as dignity. There is no dignity in working in a sweatshop, thereby making freedom irrelevant.
If there’s 100 people, and 1 person holds all the wealth, and the other 99 are forced to work for next to nothing, completely at the mercy of the 1 person, their freedom is tarnished through a reduction in what it means to be human. Should shops still allowed to have the freedom to put up signs, “Whites only?” Sure…it’s their free will to do so. By having laws against discrimination, even if this involves “putting a gun to people’s heads,” as you’ve put it, and stripping people of their “freedom to discriminate,” I believe the gain in dignity and fairness is equal to the sacrifice of freedom.
“there’s something inherent in many of your arguments that i think is worth exploring further, and it involves your generalizations about people with little wealth. when you say people might be to dumb to choose a safe place to work, this is the type of statement that i think requires a deepening analysis. It seems your libertarian ideology is partially a response to those who are able to free-ride from gov’t interferance, and who would sink otherwise, but your initial argument against something like federal regulation of health safety shouldn’t be, “people are stupid for working in bad working conditions, it’s their fault.” “
I think you misunderstand. If people blatantly work in hellish conditions, then they are stupid. People who “need protection” are the desperate that as of this very moment are working in inner-city sweatshops as we speak. Regulations might be a non-issue in their entirity, though as I said, I have not decided fully.
“first…you make a radical claim to make your point by saying, “I don’t think the gov’t has a right to put guns to our heads to make us create art.
second…i’m assuming (and i might be wrong) that the art projects paid for during FDR’s presidency were for the public.”
That does not matter. Do I have the right to stick you up for your money, and build art and display it to the public? How is it any different? The only difference is that the majority voted representatives in that impose things on the totality of the population. So, the question is, is art worthy of denying people their property? Morally, I say no, being that it serves no purpose to protect people’s property and the order of society (an extension of protecting property).
“So…while there were, and will continue to be artists, FDR attempted to do two things, first, to create more public art (maybe it was painting a mural in an urban city), and second, it helped people w/ artistic skills to find work.”
Who cares? Those artists hurt the economy and put people out of work. So what’s more important, people starving or some pretty pictures? The most beautiful art is all around us. A sunset is infinitely more beautiful than any art I have ever seen.
“The problem I see w/ a free-market, is that the market does not always represent what people want, and the market does not always reflect what people are capable of contributing.”
That is simply not true, art has existed as long as humantiy has.
“Why do stock brokers and investment bankers get paid more than teachers? Is it because the market values them more? I think most people think more highly about teachers, but they get paid less, and in some cases, not enough to want to be a teacher.”
Sadlyt, the expertise of investing money on farming makes more profits than actual farmings. but so does inventing better metal alloys compared to mining the metal. It is a matter of expertise and the kind of it. People are not stupid because they are stock brokers. If they are just stock brokers, they contribute to society by making the economy more efficient and that helps everyone. Immediately assuming all doctors, all lawyers, or all stockbrokers are unjust is jsut being jealous of successful individuals. Yes, a lot are snakes, but a lot of teachers are snakes, a lot of teamsters are snakes, hell, the jerks at TCBY treated me like crap when I was a kid. The only difference is that a doctor, lawyer, or stock broker when unjust can hurt a lot more people.
“Why do baseball players make millions, while working as a public defendant you get paid beans. Clearly…wages do not reflect the general public’s views on how much a person is worth, rather, wages reflect how much money a job can produce. Teaching produces little wealth, while Paul O’Neil can excite people to spend $50 for tickets, and $100 for his jersey, and then to pay $5 for a hot dog at the game.”
But your argument is faulty. Sports can be like art. The lights, the field, the story, the emotion…it can be beautiful. The government already subsidizes it too much! People pay for art from the artist doing work more useless than the farmer who feeds us. But that is the nature of the profession. I know farmers, whoa re not rich, but are far happier than people much richer. There are some things money cannot by. An artist or teacher does not have to make a lot of money to be happy. Ask any teacher, they would rather see no child left behind be scrapped then be paid ten grand more.
“I’m interesteed in 2 things here. First of all…as i’ve shown, i want to question your statment that if people provide GOOD work, they will be paid well. Please define good work!!!”
Good work is something someone wants to pay for, from a doctor, to a prostitute. If there is market demand for something, providing for it is good work.
“The second things is your statement about Starbucks employees, which leads me to another thought. Do you think people who work at Starbucks are only skilled in making coffee, or, do they work at Starbucks because it pays relatively decent and provides health care? People have many skills…but will develop job skills based on what employers best take care of their workers.”
People who have skills will work somewhere better than starbucks. people at times work at a starbucks so long, they attain new abilities, and they become managers and such…and there is nothing wrong with that. All that matters is being good at what you do, no matter what you do happens to be.
“But…I wanted to make a last important point about your continued generalizations about people based upon their jobs and wealth. I didn’t take your statement personally…but I found it ironic because my roommate in college worked all through college at Starbucks. He is now a manager, and while he is now paid more because he has more skills and more responsibilities, I think your comment that someone who would be making coffee at Starbucks is “expendable and unskilled,” is judgemental, stereotypical, and unsophisticated.”
I wrote the above not even knowing you wrote this! You see, he has skills greater than just making coffee, and therefore, he is doing something better which proves my point. Being skilled gets you better jobs.
“A good mechanic has a great deal of skill, but gets paid a fraction of someone whose only skill is to hit a baseball. Why are those who are paid little seen as expendable and unskilled?”
My father is an automotive technician, and if I did not have to left hands, I would follow in his footsteps. It takes a lot of skill and intelligence to be a good technician. However, his skills and smarts have rewarded him, and he has moved to automotive education and consulting. He was doing well when he did fixed cars as well, once owning 3 businesses. He was and still is a damn good technician and business man, no matter his personal flaws.
“So…you’re absolute most important philosophical value, is freedom. Well…I’m not going to say freedom is a bad thing, ultimately, I cherish the freedoms I have as an American. And as I’ve said before…a free person can be happy w/ almost nothing. However…to say that a person has free will in choosing whether or not they should work for $2/hr. and risk their health and safety, or choose to be unemployed, is making “freedom,” your god, and ignoring other values such as dignity. There is no dignity in working in a sweatshop, thereby making freedom irrelevant. “
You are better working for dirt and having freedom than having a roof over your head and food to eat as a slave. I want the freedom to live and die, not be a slave.
“If there’s 100 people, and 1 person holds all the wealth, and the other 99 are forced to work for next to nothing, completely at the mercy of the 1 person, their freedom is tarnished through a reduction in what it means to be human.”
However, what you are describing is not the result of what I say. LArgely it is the result of the heavily bureaucratic system we have in place.
“Should shops still allowed to have the freedom to put up signs, “Whites only?” Sure…it’s their free will to do so. By having laws against discrimination, even if this involves “putting a gun to people’s heads,” as you’ve put it, and stripping people of their “freedom to discriminate,” I believe the gain in dignity and fairness is equal to the sacrifice of freedom.”
I would say serving all customers improves market outcome. However, I do believe people have the right to serve whomever the hell they want. People should be free to hate, but I am in the minority. However, the state has no right to discriminate and uphold discrimination.
I’m always fascinated when libertarians (and the hard right) insist that the only responsibility governments have is to make a profit. If that’s really the only human responsibility, well, this is why I believe libertarians are simply self-deluded anarchists. They’re self-deluded (unlike the hard right which knows they want rules for the poor but not the rich), because they actually believe they have a theory. Well, if GM’s only responsibility is to profit, that can be true for me. So if it’s profitable for me to steal their cars, why would the government intervene?
“I’m always fascinated when libertarians (and the hard right) insist that the only responsibility governments have is to make a profit. If that’s really the only human responsibility, well, this is why I believe libertarians are simply self-deluded anarchists.”
Was John Locke an anarchist? In his second treatise, he mentioned that men should be totally free, but the problem of anarchy exists, so you need a government capable of protecting private property. That does not sound like anarchy to me, but I do believe that you insist that two entirely different things are the same as a tactic to end conversation without considering the premises of the argument at hand.
Furthermore, it is improper argument to question my motives, because it is a poor attempt at distracting someone from the fact you cannot debunk the argument at hand, and if that is so, you have no right to disagree with it.
“They’re self-deluded (unlike the hard right which knows they want rules for the poor but not the rich), because they actually believe they have a theory. Well, if GM’s only responsibility is to profit, that can be true for me. So if it’s profitable for me to steal their cars, why would the government intervene?”
Because it is immoral. If you cared to read at length the intercourse of words between Dan and myself in the other post of his, you would come to understand how in this argument, the issue of morality, would answer you question. Your question is so poor, it reveals you have not read anything.
libertarianism is essentially amoral. not immoral, neccessarily, but amoral. It becomes immoral if you insist that the only rights to be protected are property rights, because at that point you’re ensuring social stratification. Why should property rights matter more than the right of someone to appropriate health care? Or the right of someone to a decent wage? If you make those decisions you’re no longer talking about “freedom,” and instead you’re simply a shill for wealth preservation.
Your argument is that economic strength needs to be respected, valued, and protected, but no other kind of strength (physical? being great at theft?). Realize that you are making a moral choice there, to respect one set of human gifts more highly than another. After all, the Bible repeatedly insists that charity be required of both people and the state, so refusing to support social welfare programs is immoral based on the same text that says theft and murder are immoral.
This is my point all along. Stop creating this image of righteousness about yourself and admit that you believe in free market capitalism because you expect to do well under it and don’t want to share. Everything else is simply a smokescreen.
“libertarianism is essentially amoral. not immoral, neccessarily, but amoral.”
However, if one were to believe that libertarism is the only form of government not tyrannical, then a tyrannical government is immoral, and so you cannot seperate the two.
“ It becomes immoral if you insist that the only rights to be protected are property rights, because at that point you’re ensuring social stratification. Why should property rights matter more than the right of someone to appropriate health care? Or the right of someone to a decent wage? If you make those decisions you’re no longer talking about “freedom,” and instead you’re simply a shill for wealth preservation.”
By saying this, you as usually blind yourself to the truth. I have made it clear that freedom is not a high standard of living. Freedom is making your own choices. Do you like freedom or do you want it limited? stop dodging the issue and admit it to yourself. You want tyranny to uphold relative standard of living mininum.
“Your argument is that economic strength needs to be respected, valued, and protected, but no other kind of strength (physical? being great at theft?). Realize that you are making a moral choice there, to respect one set of human gifts more highly than another. After all, the Bible repeatedly insists that charity be required of both people and the state, so refusing to support social welfare programs is immoral based on the same text that says theft and murder are immoral.”
I am using an abstract argument, not an ad verucundum (sp?) argument. The bible is nothing more than words. Debunk my argument instead of wishing to ignore it, as usual. You think that by throwing out totally irrelavant counter arguments, that my argument is debunked. Let’s deal witht he argument at hand.
“This is my point all along. Stop creating this image of righteousness about yourself and admit that you believe in free market capitalism because you expect to do well under it and don’t want to share. Everything else is simply a smokescreen.”
Again, you attack my motives and disrespect me. Shut the fuck up and stop talking to me, treat me like a decent human being. I have been more than fair to you and have went at length to argue abstract morality and libertarianism. you are so fucking blind, you onyl care about my stereotypical (assuming I am rich uncle moneybags) “motives.” I dare to say the fact you show a lack of character and intelligence in your arguing shows your belief system is ill-concocted (i probably made that word up) and you cannot possible defend it against a superiorly developed system and superior arguer, which makes you resort to ad hominems. I respond in this fashion, because it is my last resort to force you to realize how you conduct yourself.
My belief system might not be superior to a leftist version or any other, but my personal perception of the role of government is better conceived and backed than yours, and this results in you not arguing against my points, but rather myself.
I am done talking with you.
ha! wow, what indignation. My view of economics/social morality is shared by, what 500 million Europeans, 20 million Canadians, 200 million Russians, a billion Chinese, plus every “pre-industrialized” society around the world, the governments of every NATO nation outside the US, and 80% of the world’s economists, but I have no back up for what I say, it’s all completely wrong.
You whine in one comment that stealing is immoral, then begin cursing when I point out that you’re being selective in your adaptations of western moral structures. You present yourself as an archetype of libertarianism then can’t handle being criticized.
For Dan, and for the record, I don’t think you’re rich, you’ve said you’re not, claiming an Algeresque “Ragged Dick” status. and I have no reason to doubt that. And I’m not arguing you as a person, c’mon, grow up. I’m arguing with the rationale behind your arguments. It’s simply not possible to argue with your “points” without challenging the underlying assumptions and motivations. Your arguments come out of those, I assume, unless you’re just quoting Fox News or Hillsdale College “economists.”
But also, for the record, I don’t think I’m inconsistent at all. I believe that economics and government only exist within a moral universe. I don’t think a starving 10-year-old is free even if he has no parents to create rules for him. I don’t think a 30-year-old homeless mom of two is free either. I, like most of the world, believe that there is no freedom without a basic right to life. And if you have no right to shelter, to access to food, to health care, you have no right to life, and thus no freedom. Because without those basic things you have zero life choices.
Freedom requires economic rights. Democracy requires economic rights. You think I’m making those theories up, apparently, but if so, I’m making it all up along with virtually every political leader in the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Greece, Spain, Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Vatican, Hungary, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Denmark…
craig:
“You are better working for dirt and having freedom than having a roof over your head and food to eat as a slave. I want the freedom to live and die, not be a slave.”
I’m not one of those people that will say that you’re making a mockery of the word slavery…however, I do believe that having some of your money taxed away for public interests (whether they work or not is another debate…but the intent of taxation is to provide a public good such as schools and to help the poor gain access to healthcare), does not render you a slave. Since we do not live in a libertarian society, do you feel like a slave? Since all taxes render us slaves, is it then irrelevant the other qualities that make life liveable, such as the various other freedoms afforded to us? Since we’re all technically slaves in our non-libertarian world, can we not then consider living standards, and the idea of economic freedom, meaning, having enough wealth for food, housing, education, healthcare…? I disagree w/ your belief that we are slaves, and therefore, I think your point that it’s acceptable for people to work in sweatshop conditions is incorrect. And…even if I agreed that being poor and “free” were better than being rich and “a slave,” both the poor and rich are taxed, and are both slaves (irregardless of tax rates). Also…back to my original point, if a person has the choice between not working, and working in awful conditions, and his level of “freedom” is the same in both conditions, than, clearly they really do not have a choice, and they do have to take the work provided. So…I still don’t see those people as “stupid,” a term I’m still confused as to why you put on those who don’t have access to move up the economic ladder. I think the word freedom has many uses. What about the freedom to live without fear? What about the freedom to be treated with dignity? Are these not freedoms? Do you see a difference between the freedom of speech, and the freedom to keep all of your property?
thenarrator:
I have to again interject w/ your debating.
“Stop creating this image of righteousness about yourself and admit that you believe in free market capitalism because you expect to do well under it and don’t want to share. Everything else is simply a smokescreen.”
Craig has been arguing, in my opinion, on a philosophical and political level. I have to side w/ him and say that your personal attacks are non only irrelevant to debating the issues, but, I find them to be insulting as well. What you call a smokescreen are legitimate arguments, which you should be attacking with arguments of your own. It’s a difficult task to prove motives, and you can find out more about Craig to get at those motives, but my guess is that Craig does not argue for libertarianism out of greed. I think he does believe that in a free market, he does expect to do well because he will work hard, and while he may not want to share his wealth through gov’t taxation, there is no reason to believe he will not give back, either through time or money, to those less fortunate.
Craig has shown a moral argument why we cannot steal, and has a moral argument why private property must be protected. While it’s true he hasn’t put out a moral argument why we must help the poor (except if it increases market efficiency, something i’m still confused by), i don’t think he’s been selective in choosing his moral arguments.
“It’s simply not possible to argue with your “points” without challenging the underlying assumptions and motivations.”
I agree and disagree. I actually think it’s best to argue the points. Take privatization of social security…do we argue it’s wrong because Bush and the republicans are behind it, and because they want to actually dismantle social security, and because they’re against all public programs…or, do we argue why their points are wrong and why our points are better?
Also…i don’t think craig has accused you of making your theories up, and I don’t think listing all the countries that support your theories is proof that your theories are correct, no more than Craig’s arguments are true because Aristotle or Locke says so.
What i’m interested in, from both sides, are more real world examples. Arguing ideology is like arguing who was the greatest baseball team of all time (I’m in between the ’69 and ’86 Mets). The important questions are where are we today, how did we get here, and where are we going. I’m the least informed of the 3 of us (and the others reading this), but I believe, in general, while I’m in a pretty good lot, there’s a whole world out there that isn’t. I believe human history to this day has been full of much to be sad about (yes…being sad about something is my moral argument, i’m working on it). The Holocaust, Hiroshima, AIDS, racism, education, all these things make me sad. I can’t prove they’re immoral, or what affect they have on “hamony of the soul or the state,” as Craig has put it, or what affect they have on the market. Anyways…maybe we can find a particular issue to look into related to gov’t spending, maybe Medicare, Medicaid, or any other less-known program for the poor, and see what the real effects are.
-dan
ex)
Bush’s budget cuts small business assistance, workforce development, community economic development, public health and safety, Medicaid, housing assistance, public transit, food stamps, childcare and much more.
Craig: does the sacrifice of freedom through taxation, outweigh all of these forms of programs? do you agree that their are some underlying social programs that have led to the creation of these programs? do you believe those underlying problems are moral problems, important problems, irrelevant problems? do you believe the free-market would do a better job at addressing those problems than the programs created to solve those problems? do you believe it’s more important that we leave these problems to the desires of individuals in the market, rather than take property (tax), to address those problems? can you think of any ways in which these programs can be changed, but not eliminated, in order to address the problem in a way the free-market would not do?
Thenarrator: could you elaborate on some of these programs, what they do, and how they address the underlying causes for those programs better than the free-market would.
Because Dan, it is all about world view and motivation. Here’s the thing. You can say that the American economy is better because Michael Eisner can make as much as he wants and keep his effective tax rate at 20% (and thus the “possibility” of achieving great wealth and self-controlling it is perceived as the highest “good”) or you can say it is better for everyone to have a home and health care even if that means the richest will not be as wealthy or as “in control of their own destiny” (thus, believing that alleviating the suffering of the poor is the highest good). We can fight this all day, and there’s no pure conclusion: Is the German standard of living (guaranteed housing, health care, college education, vacation time) better than that in America (more money, more SUVs, more boats). The only way to compare those choices, because they use completely different scales, is based in our moral views of the world.
When I say “capitalism is amoral,” craig shouldn’t get upset. He should agree wholeheartedly. He calls himself a libertarian. The heart of libertarianism is that the government should not be involved in moral decision making. If you want to wear a seat belt, wear one. If you want to feed or educate your child, do it. If you want health care, negotiate a price, if you want to pollute, that’s your choice. If you have all the food, oil,whatever, you can charge whatever you want. I’ve got to say, I’m shocked that anyone could find this argument surprising. Has anyone read A Christmas Carol recently? The capitalist argument has always assumed all this, with the arguments that “this system lifts many (not all) boats” and that “an underclass is essential to maintain both a cheap labor pool and as a threat/cautionary tale to warn the would be lazy.”
To be a capitalist is to blame those who remain poor for their own state. It is essential to the idea. Success is good, and it is human greed that the system plays to. Human greed drives half the people, fear drives the rest. To not be sufficiently fearful of falling to the bottom has always been held up as a moral failure.
So, what makes me a socialist, what makes Germans and Brits and the Irish and French socialists, is the moral decision that life freedoms are more valuable than economic freedoms, or at least are more essential. What makes craig a libertarian (in my view) is a belief in the opposite.
So we can throw numbers back and forth all day, but what matters is not the numbers. Europeans look down on our concepts of freedom and democracy because America’s ideals do not match their moral standards. Americans look down on Europeans because we view them as lazy and uncompetitive: things we think represent moral failures. These are fundamental differences of motivation and world view, which explains why, if I say Germans live better, craig thinks I’m crazy, and when he says he’s free, I think he’s nuts.
“a billion Chinese”
Wow, what a ringing endorsement! They work like hell and with their government, what do they have to show for it? China is the perfect example for why I am right, the dangers of losing ALL of your freedoms.
I just had to point that out, I’ll get back to responding to the rest of Dan’s concerns.
P.S. Capitalism is amoral, but the reason I think it is better is an issue of personal morality. There is a difference.
“does the sacrifice of freedom through taxation, outweigh all of these forms of programs? do you agree that their are some underlying social programs that have led to the creation of these programs? do you believe those underlying problems are moral problems, important problems, irrelevant problems? do you believe the free-market would do a better job at addressing those problems than the programs created to solve those problems? do you believe it’s more important that we leave these problems to the desires of individuals in the market, rather than take property (tax), to address those problems? can you think of any ways in which these programs can be changed, but not eliminated, in order to address the problem in a way the free-market would not do?”
That is certainly a mouthful and I am afraid of reiterating what I have already said to often, so I will give a quick answer. People should be free to do what they want, because humans are creatures with the freeist will on Earth. However, if this impedes on another’s property, steps should be taken to prevent this. Such a system creates as much prosperity as possible. At the same time, there will always be people who need and or want help. It is advisable to help these people, because we would want someone to help us. However, it is against our freedom as individuals to force people to help other people, because no longer are they performing an act of charity, it would be an act of coercion.
If our society was SO corrupt, that the only way to prevent mobs of people destroying everything in their path and hurting the whole so much that they HAD to be bought off, then, in the interest of increasing market outcome and in essence protecting property, should the government step in. However, unless we hit this point, which a short term economic downturn does not qualify as total anarchy, should we force people to help other people. Giving people the wrong idea that they are ENTITLED to helps exacerbates the problem. Therefore, we must be resilient and like a good society believe in to each their own, and that the individual’s merit determines their destiny.
“‘You are better working for dirt and having freedom than having a roof over your head and food to eat as a slave. I want the freedom to live and die, not be a slave.’
I’m not one of those people that will say that you’re making a mockery of the word slavery…however, I do believe that having some of your money taxed away for public interests (whether they work or not is another debate…but the intent of taxation is to provide a public good such as schools and to help the poor gain access to healthcare), does not render you a slave.”
It renders me in part, any infringement on free will takes us as animals and not humans. Russian Serfs often paid Obrok instead of work, and obrok was nothing more than money. So are we serfs to the bureaucratic system in America? Are we slaves? Not in the strict sense of the word, but we do indeed share qualities with them, namely the worse, the inhibbiting of freedom. The more we tax and expand the role of government, uncoincidently, the more freedoms we lose, from the not so important (drugs) to the very important (speech.) I think it is the role of humans to oppose all infringements on our freedom. Leftists expect too little from humans. That’s why they believe in coercive charity and redistribution of wealth: they believe people are not smart enough to work for themselves and people are not charitable enough to help others. I think everyone is better served with the oppurtunity to get a job than to get a handout. People should be encouraged to work, but sadly and listen to any sociologist, we encourage people they are inherently screwed. We are very inventive creatures, we are better than that.
“Since we do not live in a libertarian society, do you feel like a slave? Since all taxes render us slaves, is it then irrelevant the other qualities that make life liveable, such as the various other freedoms afforded to us? Since we’re all technically slaves in our non-libertarian world, can we not then consider living standards, and the idea of economic freedom, meaning, having enough wealth for food, housing, education, healthcare…?”
To degrees. I am free to decide what I do for a living, but I am unfree to do many financial and personal decisions. A slave on a plantation was free to do certain things, but far less. So yes, I do admit, I am by no means a slave literally, or a serf literally, but to a degree, as long as our freedoms are inhibbited, we are.
“I disagree w/ your belief that we are slaves, and therefore, I think your point that it’s acceptable for people to work in sweatshop conditions is incorrect.”
Why? They can choose not to. They do not have to, and people can choose not to buy the products.
“And…even if I agreed that being poor and “free” were better than being rich and “a slave,” both the poor and rich are taxed, and are both slaves (irregardless of tax rates).”
Being economically poor does not make you a slave. Work does not make you a slave. Slavery IS having your freedom taken a way. In reality, libertarianism is more like “rich and free” as opposed to “poor and slave.” However, if I can have a “high standard of living” but be told what to do and how to live every second of the day or have freedom and just have the essentials, I would choose freedom in a heart beat. MAterial things hardly make us happy, they only immediately gratify us, and we can have everything under the son and not be happy. However, if we are free to think and to act as we choose, you cannot put a monetary value on that.
“Also…back to my original point, if a person has the choice between not working, and working in awful conditions, and his level of “freedom” is the same in both conditions, than, clearly they really do not have a choice, and they do have to take the work provided.”
They can choose to starve, they can move to a rural area and do agricultural work, they can do a lot of things. They can “take one for the team,” work their butt off, and give their children to have a better life. Unless one is totally inept in this country, they are not going to be left with “work in a sweatshop or die.” Even a friend of mine who illegally immigrated from China got out of that situation, and he’ll be a teacher and make fun money. But that is all through hard work, not hand outs, or anything like that. People will not have those awful conditions if they workthemselves out of it. If you hinder the economy, you DAMN people to be in those situations. No one forces you to work, but if we live in a society with work, I think the society should aim to maximize the product from its works, not inhibit it, because logically, inhibitting work will only hurt more people. It is common sense.
“So…I still don’t see those people as “stupid,” a term I’m still confused as to why you put on those who don’t have access to move up the economic ladder. I think the word freedom has many uses. What about the freedom to live without fear? What about the freedom to be treated with dignity? Are these not freedoms? Do you see a difference between the freedom of speech, and the freedom to keep all of your property?”
Freedom of dignity? Is there something inherently wrong with working in a factory? So is there even such a thing? Freedom to not live in fear? I am afraid of certain things that no matter what the government cannot provide for, so is it really a freedom or a fact of life?
Freedom is making your own decisions. Deciding to say what you want, do what you want to do for a living, give to whichever charity you choose in any amount, what to do with your spare time…freedom is nothing more than choice. You advocate a system that gives us less choices, thus making it inherently unfree, and the more you make a system unfree, the closer to slaves we become. It is all about choice my friend.
“While it’s true he hasn’t put out a moral argument why we must help the poor (except if it increases market efficiency, something i’m still confused by)”
It is hard to prove why we should help anyone who is not ourselves. However, I PERSONALLY feel obligated to be a big brother, help a kid not ruin his life, so he can become a productive member of society. IF I was fantastically wealthy, I would help youth literacy programs, because reading and writing is what helps people advance. I believe people should help others in the interest of the whole so that the whole benefits the giver, because the giver lives in a better society. If everyone gave, we would all be fantastically better off. That’s why I believe in charity, but I cannot concoct an abstract argument on why charity should be forced for its benefits at the expense of freedom. It is not inherently immoral not to help other people, in my opinion, it is just stupid. The smart thing to do is be a good person.