Civil Rights, Basically

[Orbit]

The Communist Manifesto isn't that great. It's a pamphlet with a lot of pathos.
Das Kapital otoh is the "spot-on description of how capitalism works". It is an academis work, not the agenda of a political party. It is mandatory reading for most students of economics.

Das Kapital goes into more detail, but the manifesto covers it concisely and clearly, and has the advantage of being a short book.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, I owned you an answer in another thread.
The problem is that there are 2 kinds of cooperation. Yours and top down Alpha Male. Both are natural and both work.
And if I am at the top or near it, I don't need to improve the quality of life for all humans.

You have to start be asking: What can we observe? Well, we can observe more than you claim is a fact.

Or, if you are really smart, you can herd people from behind with a cattle prod.
That's not a "smart" saying, I've just seen people do it that way.

 

[joe1776]

This sort of communitarianism is notorious for needlessly impeding on the rights of others on grounds of nothing more than morality. Drinking and get drunk annoy a lot of people, for example, but favoring that community desire and banning alcohol was a miserable failure. Many claim being gay and being in an interracial relationship are wrong. They would needlessly ban it.
Amd then we move onto books, movies and music. The community shouldn't be able to micromanage such things. Nor should they be able to ban porn and sex toys.
I agree with the rest.

I agree with your comments but my OP isn't about communitarianism which gets into matters well beyond the basics.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure but again the point would be to cooperate with the majority, or whoever has the biggest stick.
Or in a capitalist system, whoever has the most money.

Power, whatever form it takes, political, enforcement, financial.
Political power is very complex. You have to be either very smart, not me, or very lucky.
The problem with communism is no one is smart enough for it.
With capitalism it is a lot easier to figure out where the money is.

The problem is thinking you have to be some sort of super genius is a problem. A lot of it just comes down to who you know.
I'd reckon you are smart enough. But you're connections? I don't know but I'll just assume that's a no.

 

[Nakosis]

The problem is thinking you have to be some sort of super genius is a problem. A lot of it just comes down to who you know.
I'd reckon you are smart enough. But you're connections? I don't know but I'll just assume that's a no.

Yes you are right. Depends on what form your genius takes. Even if you are super smart you can starve.

Being a super manipulator genius of your fellow man, hard to go wrong there.

I never liked manipulating people. Just not my thing.

I would say a base level of cooperation is necessary to succeed/be successful. A lot of other factors which affect a groups success more.
And that is the problem. No one is smart enough to juggle all of the factors to come up with a precise answer. Which makes a reliance on the specialist in the OP a risk.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which makes a reliance on the specialist in the OP a risk.

Not necessarily. Such as surgeons, auto mechanics, HVAC personnel, lawyers, and so many others. People can and often do learn much on their own, but refined specialization allows people to focus on one area, thus allowing them to generally excell futher than others (and often times their material is what teachers the self taught).

 

[Nakosis]

Not necessarily. Such as surgeons, auto mechanics, HVAC personnel, lawyers, and so many others. People can and often do learn much on their own, but refined specialization allows people to focus on one area, thus allowing them to generally excell futher than others (and often times their material is what teachers the self taught).

I'm just saying you can't rely on them for your specific needs. Aren't you the specialist when it comes you your own unique needs.
Like when I go to a medical specialist, they advise on different courses of action but tell me I have to decide which course is best for me in my situation.

 

[Stevicus]

"To understand anything, start by asking: What is its essential nature?"

A society is essentially a cooperative endeavor aimed at improving the quality of life for all cooperative citizens.

Cooperation makes specialization possible. Specialists can do everything better. Thus, a society offers individuals a higher quality of life than they could achieve if they were on their own in the wild.

Citizens are expected to cooperate by trading in their absolute right to do anything they please for the benefits offered by the cooperative effort.

The inevitable conflicts between an individual citizen's rights and the welfare of others in their society must always be decided in favor the group. Citizens can play their music as loud as they like, provided it doesn't annoy the neighbors. Citizens should not have an absolute right to own a military-grade weapon.

Overall, I agree with your position that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. A collective can still survive with the loss of a few individuals, but the individuals can never survive without the collective.

But we don't really have much of a collective in the United States, not in any real sense. As a nation, our primary focus has been on individual rights and individual freedom. Of course, this never meant the absolute right to do whatever one pleases, but it hasn't really been "liberty and justice for all" either.

I think part of the problem is not so much a misunderstanding of an individual's responsibilities to a larger society. As you say, citizens are expected to cooperate, and for the vast majority of the citizenry, they do so willingly and in good faith that their fellow citizens will reciprocate.

I think a large part of the problem is that we have a collective society which has been founded by and continues to operate according to various political principles which are often expressed as trite sayings and political slogans - used in songs and become part of the overall patriotic dogma which Americans are born and raised with and conditioned to believe.

What you appear to be saying, in a nutshell, is that "freedom" (for lack of a better word) is impractical and not a very effective way to run a society. I would tend to agree with that central idea, in principle. My only real complaint in this context is that we continue to lie to ourselves and everyone else that "America is a free country." That's never been true. Because it is impractical. But if it's not practical, then why do we say it? Is it just some sort of slogan that makes people feel good, yet has no real substantial meaning?

 

[Ponder This]

"To understand anything, start by asking: What is its essential nature?"

A society is essentially a cooperative endeavor aimed at improving the quality of life for all cooperative citizens.

Cooperation makes specialization possible. Specialists can do everything better. Thus, a society offers individuals a higher quality of life than they could achieve if they were on their own in the wild.

Citizens are expected to cooperate by trading in their absolute right to do anything they please for the benefits offered by the cooperative effort.

The inevitable conflicts between an individual citizen's rights and the welfare of others in their society must always be decided in favor the group. Citizens can play their music as loud as they like, provided it doesn't annoy the neighbors. Citizens should not have an absolute right to own a military-grade weapon.

What is an "absolute right to do anything they please"? There is no such thing. "Absolute right" is rhetorical, not informative.

What do you mean by "the inevitable conflicts between an individual citizen's rights and the welfare of others in their society must always be decided in favor of the group"? Individual rights benefit the group.

Politics is about the question of who has what power. Power is always weilded by individuals or small groups of individuals (such as branches of government, local governments, and citizens). I think you agree that no one individual or small group of people within a society may weild all the power. Even if one person comes along who would make all the "right" decisions, it is not necessarily that one person's place to do so even if it would benefit everyone. There is, necessarily, a limit to the powers of government.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Citizens should not have an absolute right to own a military-grade weapon.

Define military grade weapon. No US soldier is going to war with an AR (ArmaLite) -15.

 

[Heyo]

Overall, I agree with your position that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. A collective can still survive with the loss of a few individuals, but the individuals can never survive without the collective.

I don't think that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". They are equal. Every democratic society has special protection for minorities against the tyranny of the majority.
Unless there is a very good reason to protect the "the many", the rights of "the few" should not be curtailed.
(E.g.: the right to bodily autonomy was upheld during Covid, even so mandated vaccination could have saved millions of lives.)

But we don't really have much of a collective in the United States, not in any real sense. As a nation, our primary focus has been on individual rights and individual freedom. Of course, this never meant the absolute right to do whatever one pleases, but it hasn't really been "liberty and justice for all" either.

The US has its focus on curtailing the rights and liberties of people outside the US. The only thing the collective US agrees upon is having the biggest military in the world - and to use it.

What you appear to be saying, in a nutshell, is that "freedom" (for lack of a better word) is impractical and not a very effective way to run a society. I would tend to agree with that central idea, in principle. My only real complaint in this context is that we continue to lie to ourselves and everyone else that "America is a free country." That's never been true. Because it is impractical. But if it's not practical, then why do we say it? Is it just some sort of slogan that makes people feel good, yet has no real substantial meaning?

Liberties curtail each other. My impression is that many in the US, when they speak of freedom, they mean being able to do what they want without repercussion or contemplating the freedom of others.
Liberty is not practical with people who don't value the liberties of their neighbours as much as their own. In a society where people fight for their rights (and those of others), tolerate behaviour that doesn't infringe on their rights and others and know the difference, liberty is not only practical but almost a logical consequence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We can also observe the alpha males are often bad for societies. Frequent warring, inner conflict, deadly struggles to fill voids in power, and whether it improves things or not many are overthrown. This societal instability does no one any good, as even the alpha male who leads it must live in paranoia.
The Art of War is the oldest text I'm aware if that promotes treating those under your command with decency to enforce loyalty, amd even going as far to treat prisoners well to win them to your side.
So whether it's ancient knowledge or modern management, we know treating those under you with respect, dignity and improving their situation will improve your own. To not accept that is basically on par with not accepting evolution.

We agree. The only thing to note is that it is an appeal to emotion. To me that is okay, because I like living in cooperative society.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you feel unable to justify them?

in short with the standard of rational and evidence it is not possible to justify morality as far as I can tell. I am an emotionalist when it comes to morality and ethics as per meta-ethics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or, if you are really smart, you can herd people from behind with a cattle prod.
That's not a "smart" saying, I've just seen people do it that way.

Well, if you can get it to work, it is natural and a part of how the world works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you are observing things that haven't happened. The alpha male, autocratic rule hasn't been successful in getting people to cooperate. That's why kingdoms have been displaced by democracies.

Yes, and then we hit the limit of induction and what we can observe in real life. Democracies can be replaced with something else and it has happened.

 

[joe1776]

Overall, I agree with your position that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. A collective can still survive with the loss of a few individuals, but the individuals can never survive without the collective.

But we don't really have much of a collective in the United States, not in any real sense. As a nation, our primary focus has been on individual rights and individual freedom. Of course, this never meant the absolute right to do whatever one pleases, but it hasn't really been "liberty and justice for all" either.

I think part of the problem is not so much a misunderstanding of an individual's responsibilities to a larger society. As you say, citizens are expected to cooperate, and for the vast majority of the citizenry, they do so willingly and in good faith that their fellow citizens will reciprocate.

I think a large part of the problem is that we have a collective society which has been founded by and continues to operate according to various political principles which are often expressed as trite sayings and political slogans - used in songs and become part of the overall patriotic dogma which Americans are born and raised with and conditioned to believe.

What you appear to be saying, in a nutshell, is that "freedom" (for lack of a better word) is impractical and not a very effective way to run a society. I would tend to agree with that central idea, in principle. My only real complaint in this context is that we continue to lie to ourselves and everyone else that "America is a free country." That's never been true. Because it is impractical. But if it's not practical, then why do we say it? Is it just some sort of slogan that makes people feel good, yet has no real substantial meaning?

IMO, you are on the right track in identifying the problem in America. The "trite sayings and political dogma" condition many Americans to think that their rights should be absolute.

A hunter-friend told me that he didn't have any use for an assault rifle, but he thought that someone who did should have the right to own one. The thought of cooperatively trading in that right for the welfare of others didn't occur to him.

 

[joe1776]

What is an "absolute right to do anything they please"? There is no such thing. "Absolute right" is rhetorical, not informative.

Mountain Man has the absolute right to do as he pleases, but if he moves into town, he's entering a cooperative endeavor which will require him to trade in some of those rights for greater benefits of the endeavor.

What do you mean by "the inevitable conflicts between an individual citizen's rights and the welfare of others in their society must always be decided in favor of the group"? Individual rights benefit the group.

You're mistaken. Individual actions might benefit the group but individual rights do not.

Politics is about the question of who has what power. Power is always weilded by individuals or small groups of individuals (such as branches of government, local governments, and citizens). I think you agree that no one individual or small group of people within a society may weild all the power. Even if one person comes along who would make all the "right" decisions, it is not necessarily that one person's place to do so even if it would benefit everyone. There is, necessarily, a limit to the powers of government.

If a government can "make all the right decisions," it should have all the power it needs to implement those decisions. It would be foolish to give it less.

 

[Secret Chief]

in short with the standard of rational and evidence it is not possible to justify morality as far as I can tell. I am an emotionalist when it comes to morality and ethics as per meta-ethics.

I can see that supposedly rational judgments are coloured by emotion, or at least argued that they are.

 

[joe1776]

Yes, and then we hit the limit of induction and what we can observe in real life. Democracies can be replaced with something else and it has happened.

The wheels of progress in governing grind slowly because the people in power want to hold onto it. We don't need to replace democracies, we just need to upgrade the concept routinely as we do a piece of software.

 

[Heyo]

The wheels of progress in governing grind slowly because the people in power want to hold onto it. We don't need to replace democracies, we just need to upgrade the concept routinely as we do a piece of software.

Currently the trend goes more into the other direction, downgrading democracy and this is world wide. People will only miss their rights when they lose them.