POG Politics Thread Version 3
Come on in! Since Dustin is taking his ball and going home, it's time to start a new politics thread.
I thought capitalism was the economics of liberalism
lololololol
just what ny needs, more rich people
Everywhere, businesses want rich people.
No. Capitalism requires the suspension of liberal values (inherent moral value* of the individual person, equality of opportunity, freedom of choice, etc) which is why capitalism is so easy to attack on moral grounds.
Capitalism (the use of land/wealth for the production of more rather than simple enjoyment or sustenance) arose as a consequence of developments in trade and manufacturing technologies.
While the aristocrats were enclosing their lands and removing the peasantry to the cities to become industrial laborers, they espoused liberal ideals to legitimize their own seizure of power from the crown, but they did not "practice what they preached" if you'll forgive the cliche.
The tactic of telling people that the values of liberalism were served through the deprivation of those values has been perfected by the Right for hundreds of years since.
*
It's worthwhile to expand on "inherent moral value of the individual" for this point.
Non-liberal societies find morality sourced in ancient texts or fables and in privileged someones.
Liberal societies may take guidance from these sources, but the ultimate or core source of moral right-ness in liberalism is within the individual themselves. It is this internalization of previously external morality that distinguishes liberalism from non-liberalism.
Socialism would then be development of liberalism which seeks to ameliorate the paradox of inconsistent moral rectitudes among people by advancing one's understanding of their "self" to a more distributed notion than that of one's bodily limit.
The wnba players signed a new deal and people cheer for it, but maybe for the wrong reasons.
Socialism would then be development of liberalism which seeks to ameliorate the paradox of inconsistent moral rectitudes among people by advancing one's understanding of their "self" to a more distributed notion than that of one's bodily limit.
I don't know what to tell you man other than you have no idea what you are talking about
Feels like you just don't have the necessary background in political philosophy to engage with these ideas. I might start there.
I don't know what to tell you man other than you have no idea what you are talking about
Feels like you just don't have the necessary background in political philosophy to engage with these ideas. I might start there.
A fine place to start!
Locke on liberal political ethics:
On the other end of the spectrum, more scholars have adopted the view of Dunn (1969), Tully (1980), and Ashcraft (1986) ... hold that when Locke emphasized the right to life, liberty, and property he was primarily making a point about the duties we have toward other people: duties not to kill, enslave, or steal.
Most scholars also argue that Locke recognized a general duty to assist with the preservation of mankind, including a duty of charity to those who have no other way to procure their subsistence (Two Treatises 1.42).
Hume on the pan-individualist basis of morality:
Hume’s project is “to discover the true origin of morals, and of that love or hatred, which arises” (T 3.3.1/575) when we contemplate our own or other people’s character traits and motives. He traces the moral sentiments to sympathy. Sympathy is a psychological mechanism that explains how we come to feel what others are feeling. It is not itself a feeling or sentiment and so should not be confused with feelings of compassion or pity. Hume appeals to sympathy to explain a wide range of phenomena: our interest in history and current affairs, our ability to enjoy literature, movies, and novels, as well as our sociability. It is central to his explanations of our passions, our sense of beauty, and our sense of what is morally good and bad.
Rousseau on the incongruence of liberalism with capitalism:
This establishment [of the state] amounts to the reinforcement of unequal and exploitative social relations that are now backed by law and state power. In an echo of Locke and an anticipation of Marx, Rousseau argues that this state would, in effect, be a class state, guided by the common interest of the rich and propertied and imposing unfreedom and subordination on the poor and weak. The propertyless consent to such an establishment because their immediate fear of a Hobbesian state of war leads them to fail to attend to the ways in which the new state will systematically disadvantage them.
That would be the good reason. Seems they mostly enjoy people who aren't them but vaguely *like* themselves getting richer.
pwns, there's something to be said for the raising of expectations of one's own self-worth and -potential as a result of a similarly situated individual's elevation, yeah?
"Something" like a 1 out of 10 and people give it a 7 out of 10. Similarly situated debatable. But rooting for labor is good.
*filthy facts*
i think some of the wnba players were making shockingly little.
could be way off here, but i think some even kinda big time players(for the W) made like 70k a year. they would have to go play overseas during the off season to make more money.
they'd live in pretty meh team housing. at home, and abroad.
players like caitlin clark and angel reese make millions from advertising, but their wnba contracts are a pittance. vaguely remember angel making 70k
but no one should be making millions a month. no one.
im not really educated on this BUT... i don't think the big time players unions are labor. some of them are billionaires. in what kind of a world is a billionaire going on strike cuz they aren't getting paid enough?
i would guesss league minnimum for baseball is over a million, maybe even 2. and TONS of benefits.
for nfl i think its around a million(they only play 17 games)
basketball. don't like men's basketball.
wnba might be 40k a year? but i think there is a huge loophole where they can pay players a lot less.
also sucks that Cesar Chavez was a rapist and child molester *sigh*
absolutely insane that the one woman says she kept it secret because she was THAT dedicated to the cause of the farmworkers movement. she thought accusing him would destroy the movement.
really glad she finally spoke up though. light is the best disinfectant. this ****ing bullshit really needs to stop! just ****ing treat people with ****ing decency and respect! jfc! it shouldn't be that hard!
funny, this read as off to me so i clicked the quoted posts for context and it pulled up the replies above it
turns out he’s calling something a “false equivalence” while not even understanding what’s being referenced. we’re talking about the native population collapse, and he somehow jumps to a completely different “great dying” because he googled the phrase and grabbed the first result he saw
that’s kind of the pattern. buzzwords first, understanding later - which is a good reminder of why i put him on ignore in the first place
as for your point, it’s debatable and there’s actual literature behind both sides, but just saying “wrong” isn’t really an argument so it's nice to see your later follow ups after this post
also sucks that Cesar Chavez was a rapist and child molester *sigh*absolutely insane that the one woman says she kept it secret because she was THAT dedicated to the cause of the farmworkers movement. she thought accusing him would destroy the movement. really glad she finally spoke up though. light is the best disinfectant. this ****ing bullshit really needs to stop! just ****
i think if we dug deep on most powerful people we'd find these situations - a lot of it is simply a matter of access
first page of results, sure
Spoiler
but looking up "great dying 1600s" yields:
Spoiler
which, harkening back to
90% of of the natives were killed off by disease before the pilgrims or any other colonies ever arrived - are they to blame for that?
still kinda scratches the head a bit, eh?
I really don't think it's a matter of access.
my guess is that powerful people tend to be pieces of ****.
oh for sure, it takes a certain kind of narcissistic ahole to want to run for politics/leadership etc in most situations
i mean ghandi forced his teenage grandnieces to sleep naked in bed with him "to test his celibacy"
so yeah def agree and you're right i should have specified it's more about access for those kind of people - most people have that kind of "access" but don't do anything about it because they have no interest
first page of results, sure
Spoiler
but looking up "great dying 1600s" yields:
Spoiler
which, harkening back tostill kinda scratches the head a bit, eh?
you wouldn't be scratching your head if you followed up and asked what year the mayflower arrived you dimwit
you are truly astounding in that you rarely get people this level of stupid this interested in engaging in these kinds of discussions - you need to be studied for science
