The Self-Limiting Effects of Free Societies.

[bankside]

Hmmm..I've noticed that you left out what has been identified as "politically correct," or PC in our current vernacular.

Where every opinion, view, perspective, should be allowed a voice regardless of how ignert, repulsive, or retarded that it might come across with anyone with half a brain.

Now that's some "liberal schtick."

It seems to me that there was a point in time where "free societies" welcomed views, opinions, perspectives, and dissertations that "elevated" a question such as the one that you have posed here.

Instead it seams over the past 30 or so some odd years, especially here in America, not only can you be a MORON you can be a celebrity on a reality TV show. A celebrity without any known or discernible talent.

Would that be considered a "self-limiting effect" of a Free Society?

Other than a bit of difficulty in sorting out which person has half a brain, I agree with this.

 

[bankside]

Yes, Sam Harris goes there with the idea that we should occupy ourselves with the welfare of conscious creatures. I'm not sure that's quite utilitarian, but there is a lot of functional overlap.

 

[Benvolio]

I think you guys are overlooking actual human experience. People have benefited from free enterprise/capitalism and the resulting democracy more than anything else in history--by far. In 1800, the vast majority of people lived in abject poverty, and even the very wealthy did not have many comforts that the first world poor have today. Capitalism and democracy harness the individuals desire to benefit himself and his family for the benefit of all. Your precious socialism/liberalism/communism destroys that incentive and the ability to innovate.

 

[Rolyo85]

Another one in a proud tradition of moronic statements. Saying "socialism/liberalism/communism" as if those are interchangeable, is so bumfucking ignorant, that I can't even fathom a reality in which someone says it seriously.

Anyway, a good society has socialist elements, as well as capitalist, in balance. Neither is good on its own, as both victims of Communism, and generations of sad little children in factories can attest...

- - - Updated - - -

Another one in a proud tradition of moronic statements. Saying "socialism/liberalism/communism" as if those are interchangeable, is so bumfucking ignorant, that I can't even fathom a reality in which someone says it seriously.

Anyway, a good society has socialist elements, as well as capitalist, in balance. Neither is good on its own, as both victims of Communism, and generations of sad little children in factories can attest...

 

[Benvolio]

Another one in a proud tradition of moronic statements. Saying "socialism/liberalism/communism" as if those are interchangeable, is so bumfucking ignorant, that I can't even fathom a reality in which someone says it seriously.

Anyway, a good society has socialist elements, as well as capitalist, in balance. Neither is good on its own, as both victims of Communism, and generations of sad little children in factories can attest...

- - - Updated - - -

Another one in a proud tradition of moronic statements. Saying "socialism/liberalism/communism" as if those are interchangeable, is so bumfucking ignorant, that I can't even fathom a reality in which someone says it seriously.

Anyway, a good society has socialist elements, as well as capitalist, in balance. Neither is good on its own, as both victims of Communism, and generations of sad little children in factories can attest...

They are not interchangeable but they have core beliefs in common: that economic inequality as such is very bad, an ultimate bad thing, that equality is more important than freedom, that therefore, governments should sacrifice economic freedom for equality, either at once or in gradual increments, and that government ownership or total control of business is preferable to economic freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

Another one in a proud tradition of moronic statements. Saying "socialism/liberalism/communism" as if those are interchangeable, is so bumfucking ignorant, that I can't even fathom a reality in which someone says it seriously.

Anyway, a good society has socialist elements, as well as capitalist, in balance. Neither is good on its own, as both victims of Communism, and generations of sad little children in factories can attest...

 

[Benvolio]

That's precisely the problem, salaries of the poor in the United States have not benefited from the industrial revolution. You can't afford even the cheapest apartment on $15000 a year while providing for a family. The condition of the first world poor is a result of social safety nets devised in the 20th century. Otherwise, we would have the sprawling shanty towns you see in Manila, Jakarta, Mumbai, and elsewhere.

Our poverty is largely the result of two policies. If I mention the "I" word they will erase the post. The other major reason is welfare dependency. We hire people to be poor so liberals can use them as talking points.
It is wrong to say our poor have not benefited. The have a life style undreamable in many parts of the world or in1800. Who is so poor they don't have a toilet, shower, electricty, Clean water, TV and the ubiquitous cell phone?

 

[xbuzzerx]

They are not interchangeable but they have core beliefs in common: that economic inequality as such is very bad, an ultimate bad thing, that equality is more important than freedom, that therefore, governments should sacrifice economic freedom for equality, either at once or in gradual increments, and that government ownership or total control of business is preferable to economic freedom.

Correct. Because we have actual, hard evidence of what happens when you allow pure economic freedom. We call it the Robber Baron period of our history. It wasn't a good thing and it's nothing anyone wants to return to.

 

[Benvolio]

Correct. Because we have actual, hard evidence of what happens when you allow pure economic freedom. We call it the Robber Baron period of our history. It wasn't a good thing and it's nothing anyone wants to return to.

We have had even more evidence of what happens when economic freedom is limited. Not just the USSR and all its subordinated, or Obama's beloved Maxism, but all those countries who stagnated when they experimented with socialism. No one wants the age of of robber barons, but no country in history has experienced such a period of innovation and economic expansion. The big problem is that the liberals do not see how much they have in common with the socialists and communists, and therefore will not be able to avoid those extremes.

 

[xbuzzerx]

We have had even more evidence of what happens when economic freedom is limited. Not just the USSR and all its subordinated, or Obama's beloved Maxism, but all those countries who stagnated when they experimented with socialism. No one wants the age of of barons, but no country in history has experienced such a period of innovation and economic expansion. The big problem is that the liberals do not see how much they have in common with the socialists and communists, and therefor will not be able to avoid those extremes.

Exactly what about the corporate profit margins of today and the gap between the highest and lowest income earners of today, which approaches feudalist levels, is "not free enough" for you exactly?

Oh not to mention some of the lowest tax rates in history.

Please, make up more about how economic freedom is more curtailed than ever before.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I'm partial to "nitty gritty."

Now comes the nitty gritty. The best way for humans to survive in an unnatural existence, i.e. a highly evolved society, is to formulate a philosophical approach to what is best for humans. I gravitate towards utilitarianism. The most optimal state of affairs is a result of actions aimed to produce the most tangibly pleasant experience for most people. Can everyone agree on what that is? Now we have a bit more insight into why nations are more unified in a time of existential crisis.

Why does it have to be "nations?"

Just look at Hurricane Sandy as a recent example of what could be described as an existential crisis.

The nation didn't collectively come together, but communities did, neighborhoods did, and neighbors did.

Often times completely overlooking any racial differences, or amount of income, but rather by need that someone within their geographic area had, that another could fill while having experienced the same crisis, but on a less traumatic level thus enabling all to survive to the best of their abilities.

As has been pointed out by another poster, I don't see must socialism/liberalism/communism taking place within that actual real world example.

Do you?

 

[palbert]

Our poverty is largely the result of two policies. If I mention the "I" word they will erase the post. The other major reason is welfare dependency. We hire people to be poor so liberals can use them as talking points.
It is wrong to say our poor have not benefited. The have a life style undreamable in many parts of the world or in1800. Who is so poor they don't have a toilet, shower, electricty, Clean water, TV and the ubiquitous cell phone?

Are you truly that ignorant? Wake up and visit the inner cities or parts of non-urban America.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

no land of a any sign UN a free or a society a lot otnda words fa it fa eons
this a not news

thankyou

may death be mor kind ta them wot nose this fa eons ans do nothin