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?
What parts of this would you disagree with (having cut some of the warmongering stuff);
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.
No. I just happen to live here.Citizenship:
Perhaps the biggest failing of all can be levelled at the citizens of this state.
Many of us, perhaps most of us, behaved like spoiled children over the last 10 to 15 years. We became greedy, arrogant and shallow. We all wanted to be net recipients of the states largess and while many of us were increasingly aware of what our rights were few of us asked ourselves if we had any responsibilities as citizens. This is a democracy and we are the state; the book stops with us. We have failed, we are the failed state.
So move away from the keyboard and create your own choice. It's an open system.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)
So move away from the keyboard and create your own choice. It's an open system.
Much of Orwell's fiction has come true in cronyism. We have absolutely nothing even remotely resembling true capitalism.Orwell's 1984 envisioned a world dominated by a machine-like political system. His greatest fear was communism. But much of his fears have come true within 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.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".
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
...
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.
...
...
...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.
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".I also didn't say we had Capitalism. We have a kind of hybrid.
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.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.
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."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.
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.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.
100% agree, happiness has become synonymous with consumption and materialism.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 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.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)
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.it's not obvious that all egalitarian values, such as freedom, equality etc are compatible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?