Study: Brains of liberals & Conservatives may work differently

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dude what kinda thought provoking response do you expect from me if you just go on and say "capitalism is exploiative and everyone agrees with me" , instead of saying that everyone agrees with you why dont you go on and explain it to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Firstly, capitalism is an undemocratic system. You have no say in how private corporations are ran and they are as such effective tyrannies that have major effects on our lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes that I *should* have some say in how other people manage their affairs. I reject that. Is the fact that I can't tell my neighbor what he can and cannot watch on TV "undemocratic"?

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, only the top 15% of the US population over the past 10 years benefit from the capitalist system. The next 10% loses net worth. Just because it works to some extent does not make it the ideal or just.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cite?

Capitalism increases the standard of living for everyone. The fact that some people may consume more than they produce is their own problem. Further, net worth decreases (if you're adjusting for inflation) can be partially attributed to inflationary fiat monetary policy, which is a mercantilist policy, not a capitalist policy. This will usually *hurt* the poor and *help* the wealthy since poor people have a larger percentage of their wealth in cash.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. -- George Orwell

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look deep in you heart ( [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]) and philosophically consider the implications of capitalism: do you really think it isn't exploitative?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Capitalism *disincentivizes* war. Why do you think Coke and Pepsi are not battling it out in the streets every day? Do you think that would increase their profits?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
This assumes that I *should* have some say in how other people manage their affairs. I reject that. Is the fact that I can't tell my neighbor what he can and cannot watch on TV "undemocratic"?

[/ QUOTE ]

This comparison is invalid. The supposition is that you *should* have some say in how other people manage their affairs when the way they manage their affairs has an impact on you. Since everything everyone does has some impact on everyone else, we're left needing to draw a line somewhere saying "everything on this side of line is significant enough to worry about, everything on that side of the line is not." If what your neighbor watches on TV is on the "irrelevant" side of the line, the there is no need to force him to watch or not watch anything. Acknowledging that you should have a say in some of the things he does is not the same as saying that you should have a say in everything he does.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This assumes that I *should* have some say in how other people manage their affairs. I reject that. Is the fact that I can't tell my neighbor what he can and cannot watch on TV "undemocratic"?

[/ QUOTE ]

This comparison is invalid. The supposition is that you *should* have some say in how other people manage their affairs when the way they manage their affairs has an impact on you. Since everything everyone does has some impact on everyone else, we're left needing to draw a line somewhere saying "everything on this side of line is significant enough to worry about, everything on that side of the line is not." If what your neighbor watches on TV is on the "irrelevant" side of the line, the there is no need to force him to watch or not watch anything. Acknowledging that you should have a say in some of the things he does is not the same as saying that you should have a say in everything he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially if those things he does extracts resources from the earth in a non-sustainable manner. Then those "private" things he does all of a sudden impact millions of species and innumerable generations to come. To wipe out all the wildlife on his side of the fence (and by fence, let's say the 100,000 acres his company has fenced off) because he wants to use it for commercial farming sure as hell impacts others. So, please pvn, stop reaching for silly examples like watching tv and address real examples where private property indeed impacts others through its non-sustainable usage of natural resources.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you look deep in you heart ( [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]) and philosophically consider the implications of capitalism: do you really think it isn't exploitative?

[/ QUOTE ]

Free exchange that benefits everyone... nope, not remotely exploitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory, I agree with your sentiment. However, in practice, much of the wealth generated by capitalists is ultimately due to a claim on natural resources -- a mine, a forest, a river, vast sums of farmland, harvesting of wildlife, etc. It isn't really "free" exchange if a capitalist plunders a natural resource and adds some labor and then sells it back when he doesn't truly "own" the resource to begin with. Example: Those who hunted the buffalo to near extinction and profited handsomely by selling buffalo products never owned the buffalo to begin with, and their plundering of it robbed an entire people of an important natural resource which they were using sustainably. To say it was a free exchange between buffalo hunter and buffalo consumer is to completely neglect those adversely affected by the exchange who got no benefit whatsoever. Example: A capitalist company which lays claim to a mountain range and mines it for ore and profits handsomely only profits because they laid claim to a part of the earth and extracted its value -- they don't "own" the earth, they merely are able to hold this territory and exploit its value through social convention or superior force. If the source of private property is ultimately an exploitation of earth's resources (which can be argued to be "public" in the sense that our species both those living and those for generations to come as well as millions of other species depend on for existence and satisfaction), then private property is indeed exploitive in some sense. At least private property as it concerns fencing off a portion of the earth and its resources greater than needed for subsistence and saying "mine -- I call it first -- you don't like it? eat my guns".

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than fruitlessly disagreeing with that opinion, I will simply say that capitalism is simply people freely trading with each other. It does not necessarily have to involve monopolization of natural resources. If I painted a picture and you wove a basket and we traded them, that's capitalism.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
So, please pvn, stop reaching for silly examples like watching tv and address real examples where private property indeed impacts others through its non-sustainable usage of natural resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

tv may be a silly example, but almost anything anyone does can 'impact' others, since what 'impacts' someone is largely subjective (might not a gay couple getting married 'impact' someone who is homophobic, or a religious fundamentalist?).

This isn't to say that I don't sympathize with your point--I'm just doubtful that the problem is inherent in private property or private ownership of land since most of the cases where a huge business comes in, gobbles up lots of land, and uses it in ways that negatively impact others are also cases where they need the State to help them ignore the rights of people who might be already using the land in question, or to get out of compensating those who suffer damage (pollution, etc) as a result, or to help 'legally' squelch competition, or to get 'legal' ownership of land they haven't homesteaded, etc.

I think its much less clear that problems such as the ones you describe will occur without statist intervention, merely through the act of individuals and companies owning land).

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you look deep in you heart ( [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]) and philosophically consider the implications of capitalism: do you really think it isn't exploitative?

[/ QUOTE ]

Free exchange that benefits everyone... nope, not remotely exploitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory, I agree with your sentiment. However, in practice, much of the wealth generated by capitalists is ultimately due to a claim on natural resources -- a mine, a forest, a river, vast sums of farmland, harvesting of wildlife, etc. It isn't really "free" exchange if a capitalist plunders a natural resource and adds some labor and then sells it back when he doesn't truly "own" the resource to begin with. Example: Those who hunted the buffalo to near extinction and profited handsomely by selling buffalo products never owned the buffalo to begin with, and their plundering of it robbed an entire people of an important natural resource which they were using sustainably. To say it was a free exchange between buffalo hunter and buffalo consumer is to completely neglect those adversely affected by the exchange who got no benefit whatsoever. Example: A capitalist company which lays claim to a mountain range and mines it for ore and profits handsomely only profits because they laid claim to a part of the earth and extracted its value -- they don't "own" the earth, they merely are able to hold this territory and exploit its value through social convention or superior force. If the source of private property is ultimately an exploitation of earth's resources (which can be argued to be "public" in the sense that our species both those living and those for generations to come as well as millions of other species depend on for existence and satisfaction), then private property is indeed exploitive in some sense. At least private property as it concerns fencing off a portion of the earth and its resources greater than needed for subsistence and saying "mine -- I call it first -- you don't like it? eat my guns".

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than fruitlessly disagreeing with that opinion, I will simply say that capitalism is simply people freely trading with each other. It does not necessarily have to involve monopolization of natural resources. If I painted a picture and you wove a basket and we traded them, that's capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in other words, you don't know how to defend capitalism when it comes to natural resources and exclusive use of territory and will stick with simple examples like painting a picture and weaving a basket and completely ignore the reality that modern capitalism and thus modern private property is based on the exchange of products produced by things like oil, ores, timber, agricultural products, etc., etc., etc., which are claimed for exclusive use by private property proponents such as yourself. Then please don't be a proponent for capitalism except in the limited cases of things like individuals trading pictures and baskets if you can only defend that model, rather than look at that simple model and think it *must* apply to all transactions and claims of private property even when you yourself can't make a case for it.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, please pvn, stop reaching for silly examples like watching tv and address real examples where private property indeed impacts others through its non-sustainable usage of natural resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

tv may be a silly example, but almost anything anyone does can 'impact' others, since what 'impacts' someone is largely subjective (might not a gay couple getting married 'impact' someone who is homophobic, or a religious fundamentalist?).

This isn't to say that I don't sympathize with your point--I'm just doubtful that the problem is inherent in private property or private ownership of land since most of the cases where a huge business comes in, gobbles up lots of land, and uses it in ways that negatively impact others are also cases where they need the State to help them ignore the rights of people who might be already using the land in question, or to get out of compensating those who suffer damage (pollution, etc) as a result, or to help 'legally' squelch competition, or to get 'legal' ownership of land they haven't homesteaded, etc.

I think its much less clear that problems such as the ones you describe will occur without statist intervention, merely through the act of individuals and companies owning land).

[/ QUOTE ]

People didn't need state intervention to hunt buffalos to near extinction and deprive a people of a natural resource they depended on. But wave your hands and blame the state for everything. (And I'm not a proponent of the state.)

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
tv may be a silly example, but almost anything anyone does can 'impact' others, since what 'impacts' someone is largely subjective

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct - which means that the alternative subjective opinions must be arbitrated.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
People didn't need state intervention to hunt buffalos to near extinction and deprive a people of a natural resource they depended on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor has the state done anything to curb consumption of other limited goods. In fact, with 4 year election terms the state at any given point in time has no incentive to restrict consumption of a resource that is due to run out in 5+ years.

I find your objective of managing resources for the greater good to be admirable. I am not sure I believe that resources can be broken into categories of "Critical and public and must be protected" and "Not critical or public and let proprety rights do what it will". It seems to me that the natural state of man is to convert resources available in useless forms to something valuable to be used, and to constantly adapt to changing availability of resources and changing preferences. While the outcome of the process is certainly difficult for those that struggle to adapt, I don't see how that automatically means that those who struggle to adapt have a right for things to remain the same.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
People didn't need state intervention to hunt buffalos to near extinction and deprive a people of a natural resource they depended on. But wave your hands and blame the state for everything. (And I'm not a proponent of the state.)




[/ QUOTE ]

Hunting buffalo was military policy, aimed at the destruction of the plains Indian’s economy. This policy was to benefit land grant railroads. The harvesting of buffalo for meat and hides, is not what drove them to near extinction.


One example of Government policy to destroy buffalo