Equality

@Aedes,

Fido, I may not understand Fascism very well, and so I'd love your explanation and conception of it, but I was under the impression that it kinda requires an objective will? Maybe, yes, no... There is the general will, but there is no objective will, and good riddance! The term madness would transcend the conceptions of the human mind. The only objective will that I can think up.. well objective desire I suppose... is that of a pleasure-based society.

In a truly fascist regime, would it not become extremely difficult for some people to grasp the meaning of equality due to its lack of purpose?

And we need chaos.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

If your economy has no object you do not have an economy

An economy cannot have an objective. 'Economy' is an abtract concept, not an entity with goals and motivations. What I said was that 'my economy' (i.e. free market capitalism) is not directed toward an objective: i.e. the progress of the economy is not being directed by legislation or dictatorial fiat. The course of the free market is a function of the natural and free interactions between soveriegn individuals, doing as they wish with what they own.

The course of an economy under any other system is a function of the desires of a leader, board of experts, etc, in so far as those desires are compatible with reality of course. In any kind of collectivist system, whether you like to call it fascism, communism or feudalism, some entity, the national government, the local soviet, the feudal lord, et alia direct the market toward a goal they have selected: 10% more cotton production, 4% lower unemployment, etc.

Quote:

...Fascism has nothing to do with central planning...

Historically, fascism is accompanied by some sort of central plannning: rationing, price or wage controls, government production goals and standards, etc. The ideal of fascism is that the individual should be sublimated for the national interest. Allowing a free market economy to function would be antithetical to this ideal. For example, a 'speculator' or 'hoarder' might be acting against the national interest (as determined by the government) and treated accordingingly: assets seized, killed, etc. Go read about Italy and Germany in the thirties and during the Second World War. In fact, please read anything before you post again.

0 Replies

@nicodemus,

Fascism is a sort of meaningless term. I mean it's more than anything an ultranationalistic authoritarian central system that gained power by being opposed to nearly everything -- anti-conservative, anti-liberal, anti-communist, anti-religion, anti-class, etc. Except for the case of Spain there was an expansionist agenda, and in the Nazi and Japanese extremes of it there was also the social-Darwinian agenda (i.e. merciless treatment of "lesser" people).

But this describes the "syndrome" of fascism. It's not really an ideology with objectives, though, the way (for instance) socialism or democracy is.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Whether or not any sense of equality exists would depend on what's being measured. We've talked of capabilities, effort, genetics, political consideration, intellect, ego and more. Each one of these would net a distinctly-different answer (and each of those would illicit vastly-different responses).

Nicodemus, if I look at your posts, I see a common thread (emphasis added):

nicodemus wrote:

... what about those who dont produce, who simply feed off the belly of the system and keep a low profile, would you make the productive members of society pay for thes parasites.

nicodemus wrote:

What about the chronically unemployed. The ones who are hired and fired in the same day, these are the people who drag the system to its knees and its best with it...

nicodemus wrote:

... what about the chronic failure in high school who sees attending such a public institution as a social day... Should the system really bend over backwards for such a waste of resources

I get the distinct impression you're not really talking about 'equality' so much; but more expressing your bitterness towards those you feel are the scum of society; those lazy people who just want to mooch off the backs of hard-working 'good' people. Folks who drop out for lazy or slovenly reasons.

If I understand correctly (what it is you're railing against here), my honest response is probably a bit too harsh for decorum in this setting. But I would like to leave with three thoughts:[INDENT]1. Hate and resentment find a way to express themselves: For the embittered, there will always be someone to 'blame'. Throughout history, these have almost always been labeled 'lazy' and 'parasitic'. Human history is saturated with similar labellings; almost none of which time has shown to be justified.
[/INDENT][INDENT]2. One should take care not to assume they know why someone is in a particular state. The fact of the matter is that for each of these 'Unfordly' people there is a reason. Yes, laziness abounds, as do those mindsets that don't fit neatly into a greed-conforming economy. But let's not judge an entire group of people without at least acknowledging that their reasons and motivations are many and varied.

3. When we adversely judge an entire group of people, based on a preconceived notion and/or without just grounds, we are guilty of prejudice.
[/INDENT]I hope you find the answers you seek - Thanks!

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes:....If we are looking for excuses to deny to people their rights there is no end to it... This was once our entire land, and it is a common wealth..People who carved part of the public conquest, as this country is, taken from King and Natives, should understand that private property is only a trust, and it still must do what it would have done in public hands, and support the whole people...Now; I have never heard of any society that did not have some slugs... So what??? Slugs have rights, and not absolute; but minimum... But in societies which had equality, democracy, and a universal claim to justice; even when they did not have differences in wealth, had people compete for honors... People who care seek to raise themselves above the mean, and unless equality is protected for them, their children will not be able to do even so much against a greater impediment... We are crazy to believe that the qulaities that make one person of one generation great will in the least be inherited by the next... So for the good of society, and for the benefit of the individual. All wealth, all power, and even all honors should be returned to the common wealth where they belong.... This is our common property, and it is the futility so many face in trying to have any, when some have excess, that ruins so many... One should not have to be an asss to be wealthy, nor only be born to be rich... We are a common wealth, and wealth in private hands may seem a benefit, and a just reward, but it is a trust, which must continue to support society, because we have long ago reached the point where we support wealth that will not even trouble to support its own defense... Property is not a right, but a reward... It is not absolute, but a trust, and a good for a good... We all must benefit, and demand benefit.. And we should recognize that hereditary wealth is hereditary political power, and it steers the government where it would without any consideration for public good... And we must choose whether we will see this situation deteriorate into some grizzly end... Hereditary wealth means hereditary government even while that has been so often been proven intolerable... We need equality...

BrightNoon wrote:

An economy cannot have an objective. 'Economy' is an abtract concept, not an entity with goals and motivations. What I said was that 'my economy' (i.e. free market capitalism) is not directed toward an objective: i.e. the progress of the economy is not being directed by legislation or dictatorial fiat. The course of the free market is a function of the natural and free interactions between soveriegn individuals, doing as they wish with what they own.

The course of an economy under any other system is a function of the desires of a leader, board of experts, etc, in so far as those desires are compatible with reality of course. In any kind of collectivist system, whether you like to call it fascism, communism or feudalism, some entity, the national government, the local soviet, the feudal lord, et alia direct the market toward a goal they have selected: 10% more cotton production, 4% lower unemployment, etc.

Historically, fascism is accompanied by some sort of central plannning: rationing, price or wage controls, government production goals and standards, etc. The ideal of fascism is that the individual should be sublimated for the national interest. Allowing a free market economy to function would be antithetical to this ideal. For example, a 'speculator' or 'hoarder' might be acting against the national interest (as determined by the government) and treated accordingingly: assets seized, killed, etc. Go read about Italy and Germany in the thirties and during the Second World War. In fact, please read anything before you post again.

Economy is a moral concept, which is to say, not a physical one, but as with all concepts, it is an abstraction, and yet, very general as with all moral concepts...I have been trying to learn to Greek, and one of the first words I learned was Okois, House... And it is from this word that we get economy... Essentially, house management; since every household must manage its resources against its desires...So, while economy is an abstraction, the reality it abstracts is still as real as it has always been, so it has a object as well as a subject...

Now, I need to move on today; but I would say that I have been reading: The German Catastophe by Friedrich Meinecke, and economis who holds an opinion advanced by others that the competing forces in society for some time have been nationalism and socialism; but that, because of a certain retardation of devolpement in Germany these both came to the fore at nearly the same moment in time...
On the other hand, to assume every society that sublimates individual will to community survival is fascist, is wrong... Fascism is a particular form of tyranny, and in the instances we know of it, combining nationalism with socialism it was neither national, nor socialistic, but internationist, and anti socialist... There are many reasons that people surrender a part of their individual will to others...All people do it to a degree for every relationship.. Every form of relationship demands a sacrifice and self is the usual victim... But economy demands the same thing... No one can have it all, and everyone, even the most powerful in society, must give something of their wealth and power to have what they want of the relationship...If you want want a model for fascism, look to feudalism, as that was what it was: Industrial feudalism...

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Fascism is a sort of meaningless term. I mean it's more than anything an ultranationalistic authoritarian central system that gained power by being opposed to nearly everything -- anti-conservative, anti-liberal, anti-communist, anti-religion, anti-class, etc. Except for the case of Spain there was an expansionist agenda, and in the Nazi and Japanese extremes of it there was also the social-Darwinian agenda (i.e. merciless treatment of "lesser" people).

But this describes the "syndrome" of fascism. It's not really an ideology with objectives, though, the way (for instance) socialism or democracy is.

It was still tyranny as described by Aristotle, and Plato... Yet the economy was one proved very economical indeed, and that was Feudalism...In that economy almost everyone was required to sublimate their individuality, and only a handful of nobility could be real...The object of primitive communities, while sublimating the individual will at times never lost sight of individual freedom as a goal shared, even while experienced in the community... Essentially, the defense of community and individual freedom required common goals and labor; but not without consent, and while no one could possibly feel free outside of community, within, freedom was total, and for this there is evidence...Still, as with ethics: custom. or character; these were qualities one got from their people, and people could not, in the past, conceive of themselves apart from their communities, and while we try; we are not more successful than they....

1 Reply

@Fido,

If there is no individual will then what is the purpose to individual freedom? What happens when the objective will gets a deserter and that deserter is technically a minor threat to the objective. The objective will has become so established that people will think anything becomes moral if its against the person against the objective will. Well I suppose for non-hypothetical purposes lets call it general will.

And what happens to responsibility? Citizenry is not responsibility, it is just a reciprocity of moral intents. The responsibility moreso comes in, not just when one adheres to a moral goodness me thinks, but when one has the ability to understand when the moral needs to be changed and questioned.

You're not purifying your individuality when you as an individual have nothing to offer.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

If there is no individual will then what is the purpose to individual freedom? What happens when the objective will gets a deserter and that deserter is technically a minor threat to the objective. The objective will has become so established that people will think anything becomes moral if its against the person against the objective will. Well I suppose for non-hypothetical purposes lets call it general will.

And what happens to responsibility? Citizenry is not responsibility, it is just a reciprocity of moral intents. The responsibility moreso comes in, not just when one adheres to a moral goodness me thinks, but when one has the ability to understand when the moral needs to be changed and questioned.

You're not purifying your individuality when you as an individual have nothing to offer.

Did I say there was no individual will??? People have never survived as individuals, nor have they enjoyed freedom as individuals... It is our country that makes our freedoms possible by agreeing to defend them...In fact every community is formed out of a defense of rights, with rights being essential to life, since no one can live without them...If your community does not defend your rights it is not your community, but your enemy... But the rights are social, and equal, defended together, and enjoyed together... And that freedom was traditionally enjoyed only within the community...Out side, that is, in the no man's land between communities; everyone had to be careful, and less than free, very conscious of cause and effect...In the past, and very many places today, people accepted group responsibility...If you did something stupid toward another group, being too free, you might get away with it, but your whole community might be punished...That is what is happening in Gaza...From the perspective on group responsibility there is no innocent... All might be held guilty for the actions of a few...You must remember that in Western Law, the theory of individual guilt or innocence is very recent...The theory of individual equality is very recent, and individual responsibility...Even the idea of individual confessions of sin is very recent, and whole communities believed they were saved or damned together... But you cannot take individual freedom for granted...It always rests on the ability and desire of your community to defend it...And you see; we do not have to be guilty of any great crime to be found guilty... What did the victims of 911 do??? Perhaps nothing... If our government wrongs others, or stands behind people that do; those folks feel no obligation to hit hard targets while targets of opportunity wait... The world is very much like it once was... And when you hear some one in our government say they want to bring the rule of law to others; they mean the rule of our law, to replace law that they have had for far longer... The difference is that their law works..They may cut off more heads, and a few hands; but mostly, people are responsible for their own, and people behave themselves because of those moral restraints... The more law we have the more lawlessness we have until the system is ready to break...That is because peace is the first object of our law, and once the rich and powerful have peace they do not pursue justice, thinking they can do without it...We cannot do without it....The Muslim, having an absolute right to justice, is not justified in peace without justice..In fact, peace without honor is unjustified....And you know, that our behavior, and the behavior of our friends has no prospect of bringing peace, so clearly that is not the object... They will keep fighting, and we will keep on killing, and unless we run out of targets it will be so forever..

0 Replies

@nicodemus,

Holiday; individual people have only their lives, and from that perspective do not have the ability to judge the vision of their communities...People are mortal, and we live and die while the community with the help of all continues to live...It represents, not only genetic survival, in your case, of your common genes; but also the survival of the knowledge of generations past to the beginning of time... Mother knows best, and so does your community... That is why morality is life, always supporting health and strength for its members, the members of the community; and traditionally for that goal, for the greater good, and for the survival of ones people, individuals would die...Do you not marvel at how quickly Christianity swept over the new world, and over the pagan tribes of Europe... It is because Jesus was already as much their hero as ours... No man hath greater love than to lay down his life for his brother... The highest ethic of all primitives is self sacrifice...Martyrdom for the Muslim... What was unexpected of Jesus has been expected of all ancient people... That is the price of life, and of community, that no one wants to pay, and yet must be accepted if it becomes ones fate, since to run out on ones own is beneath even an animal...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Did I say there was no individual will??? People have never survived as individuals, nor have they enjoyed freedom as individuals

Yes I agree, thankyou.

Fido wrote:

It is our country that makes our freedoms possible by agreeing to defend them

No that would be a particular will. Coercive powers seem to be centralized.

Fido wrote:

In fact every community is formed out of a defense of rights, with rights being essential to life, since no one can live without them

Community is a mindset, why does it need to be established? Is it not enough for people to be self interested in being compassionate and respecting to everybody as if treating them like fellow neighbors. Why do we need to establish anything. You see, once we make an establishment then we have to therefore adhere to something; and people can be inertive and apathetic. And then there is automatically a limit set to how citizen-like a person is in his moral behaviour when he adheres whatever reciprocity to fellow man he has with the the established esteem of a solid form of 'citizenship'.

Communal moral behaviour should/can only emerge through the paradigm/mindset humanity has. And we are selfinterested, egocentric beings. The moral structuring of an individual is always going to remain inherently individualistic/subjective, even if it appears to adhere to the objective/norm. So the moral structuring if we want a structuring that is, must wrap around the fact we as individuals want something fulfilling to the ego in return. So community is always a sort of artificial thing, really. It's just a measurement of how much reciprocal altruism a person applies to fulfilling his self interest.

So yeah, this defence of rights is just an attachment to a normative ideology/morality. It's false community. I have no problem with it, there just has to be an open mind. The communal will cannot be forever right; it can be mislead, and is susceptable to this if everybody is not equal. There must be equality before a true community, otherwise the ones with more control will continue to centralize their influence.

Fido wrote:

If your community does not defend your rights it is not your community, but your enemy

Sure. And enemies should be praised not necessarily punished. I wonder if indeed we had no enemies we'd be a pure pleasure-based society if all we had was equality? (or close enough to it)

Fido wrote:

In the past, and very many places today, people accepted group responsibility

Yes, reciprocity, mutual benefit.

Fido wrote:

And you know, that our behavior, and the behavior of our friends has no prospect of bringing peace, so clearly that is not the object... They will keep fighting, and we will keep on killing, and unless we run out of targets it will be so forever..

So is not community just a classification of the level of mutual agreements interaction has in fulfilling eachother's egoistic desires as opposed to zero sum selfishness?

Fido wrote:

Mother knows best, and so does your community... That is why morality is life

??? Imposed for the sake of benefit I suppose you mean???

Fido wrote:

Do you not marvel at how quickly Christianity swept over the new world

Disturbing really...

0 Replies

@nicodemus,

Holiday; people need to learn to unite their wills without conceding power... You might ask why a gang of criminals can often be more successful that an elected government...I think it is because people are more organized around evil as it were than good...Good is a very general idea with a thousand paths to it..Try to organize for good and politics, which is the personality of any organization, will sap the strenght of the people... Those people who organize for evil only need to suit themselves, because all their goals are the same goal, so there is no difference between no personality and a common personality with them...They do not allow poitics, personalities except the leader's personality, and for him there is a cult...

You may think the advance of Christianity is disturbing, but it was built upon the original family value of self sacrifice... Group survival is the means to have individual survival... Central control, or tyranny of any sort makes the sacrifice of the individual meaningless...Look at Hitler, and the Nazis...In the end they were dragging the entire people on the pyre with them, trying to destroy the ability of the people to produce for future needs...In their eyes, they had not failed the people, but the people had failed them...Such is the end of all concessions of power... And under a democracy, we do not do that...First, one may not give power one does not have, and no one has the power to do evil, so when they do evil it is a crime...We can only give the authority to do good, or to lead us in doing good...Some one represents the will of the people, but that is all they may do, legitimately... The authority, like the control must come from the people, and that is the proof we do not have a democracy, because we are led by the nose, driven by necessity; and no one asks us for consent, or even our opinions...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

And under a democracy, we do not do that

We are hardly a democracy. Western society is more a monarchy except we cast a ballot to get the leader. It's not hereditary monarchy, it's the ballot-orial monarchy, or maybe the mediatrical monarchy. Democracies requires the people utilize the sovereign and become contributing to it and willingly participate and want to be a part of that.

Community first requires people's pleasures to revolve around the ability to have leisure time in which to focus it.

Fido wrote:

The authority, like the control must come from the people, and that is the proof we do not have a democracy, because we are led by the nose, driven by necessity; and no one asks us for consent, or even our opinions...

Couldn't agree more.

It seems that evil is not intended, rather just a higher level of selfishness. The problem with goodness is that people have to intend upon it and not just wish it. It has to be in one's self interest to be a citizen. But ultimately, all the morals are revolving around one's own ego, and not intended primarily at the community.

One can strive or desire to be helping the community and be a part of it, but community is only a classification, a measure; and it is not really a true sense of will... that would just seem irrationally altruistic. But I think we are in agreement here or I might just be even more confused. Surprised

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Economy is a moral concept, which is to say, not a physical one, but as with all concepts, it is an abstraction, and yet, very general as with all moral concepts...I have been trying to learn to Greek, and one of the first words I learned was Okois, House... And it is from this word that we get economy... Essentially, house management; since every household must manage its resources against its desires...So, while economy is an abstraction, the reality it abstracts is still as real as it has always been, so it has a object as well as a subject...

Now, I need to move on today; but I would say that I have been reading: The German Catastophe by Friedrich Meinecke, and economis who holds an opinion advanced by others that the competing forces in society for some time have been nationalism and socialism; but that, because of a certain retardation of devolpement in Germany these both came to the fore at nearly the same moment in time...
On the other hand, to assume every society that sublimates individual will to community survival is fascist, is wrong... Fascism is a particular form of tyranny, and in the instances we know of it, combining nationalism with socialism it was neither national, nor socialistic, but internationist, and anti socialist... There are many reasons that people surrender a part of their individual will to others...All people do it to a degree for every relationship.. Every form of relationship demands a sacrifice and self is the usual victim... But economy demands the same thing... No one can have it all, and everyone, even the most powerful in society, must give something of their wealth and power to have what they want of the relationship...If you want want a model for fascism, look to feudalism, as that was what it was: Industrial feudalism...

Are you just trying to annoy me? (and no, please don't respond to this question with some long, heartfelt sermon about my narcissism)

I am simply saying this; in a laize faire free market system such as I am advocating, the society does not direct the course of the economy via legislation or direct regulation, with the exception of tarrifs and other indirect taxes. The economy is the manifestation of individual actions as they incidentally relate to one another. On the other hand, in a collectivist system, such as fascism, communism (theoretical or as practiced), medieval feudalism, etc, some authority backed by the brute force of the state (police, army, the lord's retainers, etc) issues orders in some manner to direct the economy very specifically. Do you understand? I'm not asking you to agree. I don't understand the confusion, much less your responses to me, as they don't seem to even attempt a refutation, but rather opine on loosely related issues.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know