That's the declaration of independence, not the constitution. Our constitution is based on that declaration and we are still living under it. Anyone thinks it can't be improved or were people of the era the wisest of them all?
Are we a failed state?
- Thread starter horusd
- Start date
That's the declaration of independence, not the constitution. Our constitution is based on that declaration and we are still living under it. Anyone thinks it can't be improved or were people of the era the wisest of them all?
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Lots of room for improvement in the constitution all right. In fact, we should just wipe it away and start from scratch.
Looking to the past is essential. We may disagree with individuals like Pearse or the founding fathers or whoever, but they had a vision of something essentially good. A set of ideals that spoke to perhaps eternal notions of a just society and human relations. Some ideas just have that lasting power, and we recognise their essential truths as "self-evident"; such as all men are created equal. We may distain Communism with good reason, but is naked Capitalism with socialism for the rich so much better? Is saving a bank so much more worthwhile than a school? Is consumption the answer, as Noonan said yesterday? Or have we just been made mean-spirited, cynical, miserable and disenfranchised by a system that bled us dry socially as well as financially?
As a moral guide Christianity has failed in the main in this country. We replaced it with the property market, greed, comsumption, spin and political expediency.
Moaners and cribbers were told to go and commit suicide. Yet the Idealism inherent in sometimes angry criticism is often lost in a relativism. We're not that bad, others are the same or worse. Great so, we can all sit back.
Apart from all other criticism that could be made or moral grounds, economically the system has failed utterly leaving us reliant on the mercy of strangers, and in their thrall too.
As a moral guide Christianity has failed in the main in this country. We replaced it with the property market, greed, comsumption, spin and political expediency.
Moaners and cribbers were told to go and commit suicide. Yet the Idealism inherent in sometimes angry criticism is often lost in a relativism. We're not that bad, others are the same or worse. Great so, we can all sit back.
Apart from all other criticism that could be made or moral grounds, economically the system has failed utterly leaving us reliant on the mercy of strangers, and in their thrall too.
Communism is a all encompassing philosophy, close to a religion. Capitalism is an economic model. They are not comparable.
As for a fair society well that's what we all want, the question is what's fair?
Should people be able to keep the fruits of their labour or should everyone have the same? For most people the answer is somewhere in between but where?
As for fairness and equality before the law, that requires politicians that are willing to legislate on social issues (something the FG and in particular Labour are good at but FF are useless at) and we need civil servants who are competent and willing to frame legislation that will stand up before the courts. Unfortunately over the last 10 years the Supreme Court has been the major instrument of social reform in this country. In general they've done a good job but it's not their job to do.
Here’s a question; What are our duties as citizens?
As for a fair society well that's what we all want, the question is what's fair?
Should people be able to keep the fruits of their labour or should everyone have the same? For most people the answer is somewhere in between but where?
As for fairness and equality before the law, that requires politicians that are willing to legislate on social issues (something the FG and in particular Labour are good at but FF are useless at) and we need civil servants who are competent and willing to frame legislation that will stand up before the courts. Unfortunately over the last 10 years the Supreme Court has been the major instrument of social reform in this country. In general they've done a good job but it's not their job to do.
Here’s a question; What are our duties as citizens?
Very interesting points Purple. And you hit the nail on the head about a balance between duties and rights as citizens. Ultimately the state is it's citizens, and at least a partial reflection of what they want. Re-electing the likes of C.J. Haughey & Lowry have consequences.
Apathy, igorance and indifference matter too. These traits, amongst others, allow politicians & the powerful to get away with a lot.
As for Communism and Capitalism being apples and oranges, I'm not so sure that this is entirely correct. Both are based on views of human nature, and justify themselves with reference to this view. Communism envisions a rational order. Man is free if he is "enlightened by reason " and has freedom to do what is rationally good. He will want to create an rational paradise and must be led by force to it, if neccessary.
Capitalism roughly centres around freedom from interference. To be and do what one wants. But inherent in this view, is the idea that once man is free from interference, he is really free. But this cannot be entirely true. An impoverished poor man might be free in this sense, but not have any means to exercise his freedom. Thus freedom here is an illusion. A recent award winning documentary "Inside job" points to systemic corruption within American Capitalism, and an unholy alliance between academia and finance propogating and precipatating the recent financial crisis. Details of the documentary are [broken link removed] So in a sense, this kind of Capitalism is a "doctrine".
Freedom is a hot topic in political philosophy. A very thoughtful and seminal article was published in 1958 by Professor Isaiah Berlin of Oxford. The text of it is here. It's a bit academic, but also really interesting.
Apathy, igorance and indifference matter too. These traits, amongst others, allow politicians & the powerful to get away with a lot.
As for Communism and Capitalism being apples and oranges, I'm not so sure that this is entirely correct. Both are based on views of human nature, and justify themselves with reference to this view. Communism envisions a rational order. Man is free if he is "enlightened by reason " and has freedom to do what is rationally good. He will want to create an rational paradise and must be led by force to it, if neccessary.
Capitalism roughly centres around freedom from interference. To be and do what one wants. But inherent in this view, is the idea that once man is free from interference, he is really free. But this cannot be entirely true. An impoverished poor man might be free in this sense, but not have any means to exercise his freedom. Thus freedom here is an illusion. A recent award winning documentary "Inside job" points to systemic corruption within American Capitalism, and an unholy alliance between academia and finance propogating and precipatating the recent financial crisis. Details of the documentary are [broken link removed] So in a sense, this kind of Capitalism is a "doctrine".
Freedom is a hot topic in political philosophy. A very thoughtful and seminal article was published in 1958 by Professor Isaiah Berlin of Oxford. The text of it is here. It's a bit academic, but also really interesting.
The American founding fathers talked about liberty a lot but they were, for the most part, opposed to Capitalism and capitalists. Jefferson said that capitalism was the enemy of liberty. He saw it as an economic model that was incompatible with a society based on liberty and individual freedom. The capitalism he talked about was Wall Street capitalism, not individuals holding on to the fruits of their own labour. He understood (like Marx) that wealth distribution and liberty were linked. What he didn’t envision (and Marx missed completely) was the emergence of a property owning and wealth holding middle class.
Wealth redistribution should be part of an overall package to ensure equality of opportunity, it should not overly limit the freedom of the individual. The American declaration of independence is a marvellous document. It sums up what a society should aim towards when it says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
This was a direct attack on the authority of King George the III and his government, a government that was (to quote another American) not of the people, by the people or for the people. Communism enslaved the individual to the will of the state and any system of government that disenfranchises the citizen is to be opposed.
Z
z107
Guest
No. I just happen to live here.
Our 'democracy' consists of the choice of the following:
1. FF/FG/Labour. (The ruling eternal party)
2. Sinn fein (The token opposition)
3. Independents (probably aligned to the ruling party, but almost certainly of the parish pump variety)
If I want to be greedy, arrogant and shallow, then that's my decision. I can't see how this has anything to do with the state.
Ireland is indeed a failed state. It's being going further and further downhill since the state was formed. We are getting to the stage now where is it finally eating itself. Nothing short of a revolution will solve it as we need to oust our dictatorship and replace it with something new and innovative. (eg, government by machine)
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
So move away from the keyboard and create your own choice. It's an open system.
Z
z107
Guest
It's not an open system.
If you want a revolution, you will get arrested and sent to prison.
'Democracy' costs too much money, and you'll never oust those that are firmly embedded.
Much of Orwell's fiction has come true in cronyism. We have absolutely nothing even remotely resembling true capitalism.
First of all free market capitalism does not center around people being able "To be and do what one wants.". A classical liberal idea would be that people should be free to do what they want with their person and property, so long as it does not do harm to other people and their property. If this simple rule of non-aggression is adhered to and enforced, then selfish interests become irrelevant or even beneficial to others.
More importantly though, you make a fundamental mistake in assuming that we actually had something that even remote resembles free market capitalism and freedom from interference. Western societies may well have a significant amount of freedom, but especially in the economic realm we do not enjoy freedom. I would have expected more from someone well versed in the field of logic ;-)
Any poor man who is free to pick up a shovel and is not paid to not pick up the shovel, does enjoy freedom and will enjoy the fruits of free labour.
To say that Jefferson opposed capitalism entirely depends on your definition of capitalism. True free market capitalism which even Karl Marx defined as buyers being free to buy and sellers being free to sell without government intervention, is certainly something that Jefferson was in favour of. But he was very opposed to the already emerging Hamiltonian big government economic interference and federal cronyism.
Those famous words of unalienable rights have been very much morphed into something entirely different. The pursuit of happiness simply indicates that every person should be free to pursue happiness. As you say it is equality of opportunity, but what we have is a system that tries to force an equality of outcome; rather than a freedom to pursue happiness it is now system of trying to guarantee happiness.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Excuses, excuses. The reason that you'll never oust those that are firmly embedded is nothing to do with money. It is because your views are held by a tiny minority.
you wouldn't go to prison if you won your revolution, but is that likely to happen since the majority of people in Ireland currently don't hold your views?
The challenge for you, is to get off your tush and convince us that you're correct. All revolutions start small, they start with some little spark that ignites a flame that builds from there, some quickly like in Egypt recently, some slowly like in this country in the early part of the 1900s and take years to come to pass, but they all started somewhere.
So convince me !!
Or are you just another one of the "down with that sort of thing" brigade?
Yep, I agree with that.
Chris yer a cheeky wan with your logic jibe
. If you carefully (tut,tut) read my post you would note the "roughly" conditional -get ye to specsavers. There is a classical academic distinction between" freedom from interference" and "freedom to be what one wants" as markers of the essential difference between capitalist-like liberal systems and rational systems like Communism. As this isn't an academic forum I stuck with broad relevant notions. I also didn't say we had Capitalism. We have a kind of hybrid. My central point is that we often assume that freedom from interference is best. That people should be entitled to the fruits of their labour etc. Intuitively this seems attractive, (as Purple has pointed out with some proviso's). However, given that much wealth & property is inherited; land etc, and this was at one time the property of all, re-distribution is neccessary. Mere (lawful )freedom from interference is a neccessary but not a sufficient condition for true freedom. Even if we cannot say exactly what that consists of. Purple rightly points this out in his post.
"Any poor man who is free to pick up a shovel and is not paid to not pick up the shovel, does enjoy freedom and will enjoy the fruits of free labour."
This, I'm afraid is overly simplistic. For example, a large part of human life concerns caring and being cared for. Childhood, old age, maternity etc. We would not say that carers who choose to voluntarily care for others, their children, parents etc can go and pick up a shovel. I don't want to stray too far off-topic, but I suggest you look up Elizabeth Anderson's "What is the Point of Equality?" available here. Her critique is insightful.
Last edited:
The pursuit of happiness is also a view of human nature which, whilst perhaps broadly true, is not entirely so. It is quite legitimate & logical to forgo happiness for other ends. A life dedicated to service is a case in point.
Regardless, there is no agreement of what happiness even is, and the idea of pursuing it, whilst superficially attractive is likely illusory. Viktor Frankel (survivor of the Nazi death camps) suggests that man's real need is not happiness but meaning*. If this is true (and I think it is) it is a game-changer.
What has morphed in America (and much of the West) is that this pursuit of happiness has been morphed into consumerism and aquisition. A fact utilised by business to achieve their ends. Beneath it lies the belief, and the empty promise, that the more you have, the happier you are.
I'm not sure that equality of opportunity cuts the mustard either. Not all people are born equal in the sense of resources.The disabled, the poor are examples. The aim of equality is (arguably) to equalise the starting positions not the outcomes, as you suggest. This is a complex academic issue which Anderson addresses in her article, and it's far from a simple and uncontenious idea of everyone can pursue happiness period. As Berlin points out in his article, the aims of men are many, and it's not obvious that all egalitarian values, such as freedom, equality etc are compatible.
* Man's Search for Meaning. (1946)
Well, you did say that Orwell's fears have come true with capitalism, but I agree with you that we have a hybrid system. I generally tend to correct people on this misconception that especially the current crisis proves that capitalism has failed, because it is very misleading. People have too often tried to ridicule my free market capitalism beliefs with Michael Moore style comments like "stupid, capitalism has failed and socialism is now the only answer".
NB: I'm not saying that you are one of them ;-)
I understand your point, but as long as inherited assets were originally legally acquired, then taking those assets away is a serious infringement of freedom and property rights. If you start off with a situation where everyone owns the same and 50 years later some people own more than others, then it is either because they acquired them through coercion, fraud or theft (in which case there is an important role for government) or they bought assets from people that were free to sell and chose to do so.
While I can see how the idea of forced redistribution seems appealing, and in the short run even a logical solution to solve the problem, I believe that it has much more detrimental affects on the wealth and well-being of less well off people in society. Let me explain.
There is a commonly stated anecdote that says that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is simply not true. As the rich get richer the poor get richer too. Rich people invest their money in businesses and ventures that overall lead to increased productivity and provide jobs to people. Rich people get richer when businesses become more successful and productive, and wages have a direct correlation to productivity. Poor people in Ireland are infinitely better off than poor people Egypt because the total level of wealth is higher and it is acquired in a relatively free system.
Now, when you take from one small group of people, the rich, in order to give to another group of people then you reduce the incentive on the rich to create more wealth. In addition you create a situation where the poor become dependent on the hand outs and are discouraged to figure out a way to better their lot. So while in the short term their is a benefit of wealth redistribution, the long term effects are extremely damaging.
My argument was more down the line that in a free society people are free to pursue what ever goals and objectives they set themselves. I agree that a lot of our lives involves caring for others, and in my opinion this has greatly diminished in western societies. But these activities of caring for family, friends and neighbours are not a new phenomenon, they are ingrained in humans. And this caring side was not a problem before the introduction of wide spread welfare systems.
I'll take a look at that article.
You are absolutely right that there is no definition of happiness, it is entirely subjective. But someone that dedicates themselves to lets say a charitable service is doing so out of the "self interest" of having the satisfaction of having helped other people. Every human action is driven by the pursuit to be in a subjectively better situation than before. For some people it is the accumulation of consumer goods, and for other people it is helping others.
100% agree, happiness has become synonymous with consumption and materialism.
I wouldn't include the poor in lacking "resources". I believe that people are far more resourceful than is made to be, especially when they have to pull themselves out of a bad situation. But you raise an important point about the equality of opportunity.
There are countless examples, where especially the poor are at a disadvantage because of government intervention. Rich people and large businesses have the resources to overcome government rules and regulations. Poor people and small business do not have the same resources, which means that there is not a level playing field. Freedom to utilise your person and property without doing damage to others, and without the intervention by government levels the playing field for everyone.
Indeed I would go further and say that the egalitarian values of freedom and equality are completely incompatible - and in general one must choose to prioritise one or the other.
The big problem with communism is that it is unnatural - it goes against the laws of nature. Competition is encoded in all our genes. 'Survival of the fitest' applies to us as much as any other animal on the planet. We cannot ignore it.
An interesting thing about inheritance is that, generally speaking, wealth follows the genetic line. It follows successful genes from generation to generation - while individuals may die, their genes survive.
While not perfect, capitalism is a lot closer to the natural order of things than communism.
The best society is one with equal opportunity, not equal wealth. Where everyone is allowed to realise their potential. Where everyone has the chance to get educated/skilled, work hard and earn a good living and those who work hard get to keep the fruits of their labour and pass them onto future generations.
An interesting thing about inheritance is that, generally speaking, wealth follows the genetic line. It follows successful genes from generation to generation - while individuals may die, their genes survive.
While not perfect, capitalism is a lot closer to the natural order of things than communism.
The best society is one with equal opportunity, not equal wealth. Where everyone is allowed to realise their potential. Where everyone has the chance to get educated/skilled, work hard and earn a good living and those who work hard get to keep the fruits of their labour and pass them onto future generations.