It's now a thing: lying flatism!

[exchemist]

I assume that the history of Buddhism and other dharmic religions in Asia could also be an influence on something like this via its influence on Asian cultures. Monastic and ascetic traditions are many centuries old, after all, and some of the ideas in the article (such as voluntarily staying single and living a minimalistic lifestyle) seem to echo a monastic or ascetic mindset in some ways.

Yes I expect it draws on that tradition. But primarily, it seems to be a rejection of the officially sanctioned ethos of working hard for more and more trivial material possessions.

Singapore, under Lee Kuan Yew went through a similar crisis a few decades ago, I seem to recall. People were on paper wealthy and comfortable but, to the consternation of the government, were unhappy and felt empty, according to surveys, and stopped having babies. Lee Kuan Yew's reaction, characteristically, was to have a government drive to build theatres, concert halls etc and to try to dragoon people into attending them!

 

[PureX]

But nowadays the country is productive enuf
to support people who don't want to work.
The word I hear from employers I know is that
they can't find lower skill workers who are sober
& willing to work.
A machine shop owner I know said his 1 sober
employee was recently hooked on meth by
another employee. He's had it....his business
has gone up for sale.

Creating a culture of hopelessness does that to people. But I guess it never occurred to your friend to incentivize the people working in his shop. To provide a pathway to a better life. Nope, never that. Easier to just blame them, instead.

 

[Revoltingest]

Creating a culture of hopelessness does that to people. But I guess it never occurred to your friend to incentivize the people working in his shop.

What a convenient presumption on your part.
To dis capitalism without casting that same
jaundiced eye toward socialism is to bury one's
head in the sand.

Russian political jokes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Excerpted....
"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay."
(The joke hints at low productivity and subsistence-level wages within the Soviet economy.)

 

[vulcanlogician]

But nowadays the country is productive enuf
to support people who don't want to work.
The word I hear from employers I know is that
they can't find lower skill workers who are sober
& willing to work.
A machine shop owner I know said his 1 sober
employee was recently hooked on meth by
another employee. He's had it....his business
has gone up for sale.

Well maybe that shop owner guy can go get a job somewhere. Sober employees are a valuable commodity these days I hear. Maybe he could get involved in the local meth business. Sounds like it has an expanding customer base. He could get in at the ground floor.

 

[Heyo]

Well maybe that shop owner guy can go get a job somewhere. Sober employees are a valuable commodity these days I hear. Maybe he could get involved in the local meth business. Sounds like it has an expanding customer base. He could get in at the ground floor.

:creative:

 

[Revoltingest]

Well maybe that shop owner guy can go get a job somewhere.

He easily could.
He has no firm plans because it
could take some years to find a
buyer for a business in a very
limited market.

Sober employees are a valuable commodity these days I hear. Maybe he could get involved in the local meth business. Sounds like it has an expanding customer base. He could get in at the ground floor.

Nah, he's one of those old school
do the right thing types. But he
could make a really good living
doing custom machine work.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Nah, he's one of those old school
do the right thing types.

Oh, I forgot. You are a socialist.

I suppose I should explain things from the vantagepoint of capitalism.

Under capitalism, it is correct to invest in enterprises that are expanding in the marketplace. A truly free market will reward you for doing so.

Even though crystal meth is obviously destructive to individuals and communities, you can't go around judging the laws of supply and demand, can you? An expanding business is an expanding business. The invisible hand slapped away woodshops and installed meth labs. Isn't capitalism beautiful? You socialists will never see the beautiful system of checks and balances.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I forgot. You are a socialist.

Oh, that signature is gone.
It ran its course.
I'm back to using the dictionary definition of "socialist".

I suppose I should explain things from the vantagepoint of capitalism.

Under capitalism, it is correct to invest in enterprises that are expanding in the marketplace. A truly free market will reward you for doing so.

Even though crystal meth is obviously destructive to individuals and communities, you can't go around judging the laws of supply and demand, can you?

I readily judge many things.

An expanding business is an expanding business. The invisible hand slapped away woodshops and installed meth labs. Isn't capitalism beautiful? You socialists will never see the beautiful system of checks and balances.

Meth is illegal, so going into that business
has risks too severe to justify the ROI.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Meth is illegal,

But from a libertarian perspective, should meth be illegal?

The fact that it is illegal is only a social incident. Your woodshop friend, ideally, ought to be able to quit woodworking and go into meth, no problem. I agree, there are important moral issues with doing that. But, libertarianism says there should be no legal ramifications for doing such.

 

[Revoltingest]

But from a libertarian perspective, should meth be illegal?

It's a difficult issue because a more libertarian society
(ie, maximizing personal & economic liberty) depends
upon rational ethical players. But people aren't all that
way. And some drugs tend to make them less suitable
for a free society. So there should be a balance struck.

One way might be to legalize meth, but have taxes
finance treatment & support programs to minimize
health damage, crime, & other deleterious effects.
I'm not advocating that, just illustrating how it might
be addressed in a manner more libertarian than
current policy.
My approach is to consider all available policies offered
by the parties in power, & advocate for whichever is
the most libertarian & effective.

The fact that it is illegal is only a social incident. Your woodshop friend...

He finishes huge titanium ingots to
prepare them for further processing
by others. No trees are injured.

...ideally, ought to be able to quit woodworking and go into meth, no problem. I agree, there are important moral issues with doing that. But, libertarianism says there should be no legal ramifications for doing such.

I suggest that you not treat libertarianism as
only some doctrinaire version. Consider that
we can steer the country in a direction with
more liberty, even though it'll never actually
become libertarian.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Oh, that signature is gone.
It ran its course.
I'm back to using the dictionary definition of "socialist".

Sure. I guess the dictionary has the most trustworthy definitions of words. Philosophers are the greatest idiots of all time. Instead of asking what words mean, we ought to declare what they mean. But it shouldn't stop with definitions or meanings. We should declare all sorts of other things too. Not only is the dictionary the final word on what words mean, the official spellings of words, as agreed upon in 1872, will be the permanent, correct spelling of that word.

The same holds for definitions, or things we mean when we say things today.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure. I guess the dictionary has the most trustworthy definitions of words.

Better than the personal definition of
random commies on the internet.

Philosophers are the greatest idiots of all time. Instead of asking what words mean, we ought to declare what they mean. But it shouldn't stop with definitions or meanings. We should declare all sorts of other things too. Not only is the dictionary the final word on what words mean, the official spellings of words, as agreed upon in 1872, will be the permanent, correct spelling of that word.

The same holds for definitions, or things we mean when we say things today.

My view of language is that it evolves.
You can try to fix it to some place & time, but
it won't cooperate. It is what it is at the moment
only, & lexicographers will update dictionaries
based upon observing common usage.

 

[vulcanlogician]

random commies on the internet.

Either name names, or don't name names. You should refrain from using phrases like this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Either name names, or don't name names. You should refrain from using phrases like this.

We don't call out people with 3rd person references.
Against the rules.
Also, you missed the mirthful use of "commies".
But I cut slack to Vulcans, who are humor challenged.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I suggest that you not treat libertarianism as
only some doctrinaire version. Consider that
we can steer the country in a direction with
more liberty, even though it'll never actually
become libertarian.

The exact same thing goes for socialism. A country can be steered into a more socialist direction without becoming another USSR or North Korea.

My view of language is that it evolves.
You can try to fix it to some place & time, but
it won't cooperate. It is what it is at the moment
only, & lexicographers will update dictionaries
based upon observing common usage.

Yes, which is why it's important to keep in mind that until or unless dictionaries are able to include definitions accommodating the numerous schools of thought within a given political ideology, one dictionary definition won't suffice to describe the entire range of ideologies that fall under an umbrella term (e.g., socialism and communism).

 

[Revoltingest]

The exact same thing goes for socialism. A country can be steered into a more socialist direction without becoming another USSR or North Korea.



Yes, which is why it's important to keep in mind that until or unless dictionaries are able to include definitions accommodating the numerous schools of thought within a given political ideology, one dictionary definition won't suffice to describe the entire range of ideologies that fall under an umbrella term (e.g., socialism and communism).

And the anti-dictionary faction is heard from.

 

[Debater Slayer]

And the anti-dictionary faction is heard from.

I used your own statement to demonstrate the problem with trying to narrow down a diverse set of ideologies to one dictionary definition.

 

[Revoltingest]

I used your own statement to demonstrate the problem with trying to narrow down a diverse set of ideologies to one dictionary definition.

You & I are at opposite ends of the spectrum
between narrow vs broad numerous definitions.
I find your usage of words makes it difficult to
discern meaning.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You & I are at opposite ends of the spectrum
between narrow vs broad numerous definitions.
I find your usage of words makes it difficult to
discern meaning.

I see the reality of such encompassing ideologies as indeed broad and impossible to cover in a single definition.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see the reality of such encompassing ideologies as indeed broad and impossible to cover in a single definition.

I notice though that criticisms of capitalism
on RF seem to use narrower ad hoc definitions.
The "nuance" works severely against it.
I prefer a single standard, ie, dictionary
definitions of all economic systems.
From that, adjustments can be discussed.