Communists, Don't Fear the Reaper....:D

[chequita guevara]

There does seem to be an innate sense of fairness in higher primates. IIRC, there was an experiment with chimpanzees, where if they were given some food, they were happy with it, unless they saw another group of chimps getting better food. Then they got upset.

We tend to equate fairness with justice, however we are an animal that has the ability to convince itself that what is untrue is true and what is true is untrue and to create system that proclaim what is unfair is what is just. Consider Jesus' parable of the field hands who contracted for a day of work and got the same pay as those who did only an hour. Those who worked ten times longer than the others felt it wasn't fair. Jesus argued that it was just, however, after all, they knew the rules from the beginning, and agreed to them.

This tends to be what justice means, a set of rules in which we can operate. We tend to dislike dictatorship, not because we don't have input. It's because of the arbitrariness, that fact that the leader can change the rules on a whim. We believe that having input can reduce the amount of arbitrariness (though as we see with our current Prez, that ain't necessarily so).

I would argue this is largely correct. The reason why we believe that democracy results in a more just system is because we believe that as you maximize the input from the social group, it becomes harder to create rules which are arbitrary and unfair. Because we equate fairness and what is just in our ideology, that would necessarily result in a system which would be more just.

This is why socialists, in general, believe in maximizing democracy and trying to reduce the distortions that power has upon it. Given a democracy in which people had equal input, a more just system would be created.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Thats too pragmatic an arguement.

[Kidlicious]

Posted by vel
Kid, nope....wouldn't misrepresent you. You're talking about the revolution....it's even in
your profile. My counter-revolution wasn't emotional either....just a counterpoint to you...

See the US has never been a true democracy. Democracy to me means each individual
has equal power. Popular vore, even if that were the case in the US, does not make a
democracy when the rich and powerfull can influence individuals and institutions.

Kid, your emotions are showing again....

And I admit it. Some truths are best communicated using emotions. There’s a limit to
the amount of emotionally charged writing people want to read though, and your a lot
better at it, so you get more critisism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Thats too pragmatic an arguement.

Sorry.

[Kidlicious]

Posted by Chegitz
There does seem to be an innate sense of fairness in higher primates. IIRC, there was an
experiment with chimpanzees, where if they were given some food, they were happy with
it, unless they saw another group of chimps getting better food. Then they got upset.

We tend to equate fairness with justice, however we are an animal that has the ability to
convince itself that what is untrue is true and what is true is untrue and to create system
that proclaim what is unfair is what is just. Consider Jesus' parable of the field hands who
contracted for a day of work and got the same pay as those who did only an hour. Those
who worked ten times longer than the others felt it wasn't fair. Jesus argued that it was
just, however, after all, they knew the rules from the beginning, and agreed to them.

This tends to be what justice means, a set of rules in which we can operate. We tend to
dislike dictatorship, not because we don't have input. It's because of the arbitrariness, that
fact that the leader can change the rules on a whim. We believe that having input can
reduce the amount of arbitrariness (though as we see with our current Prez, that ain't
necessarily so).

I would argue this is largely correct. The reason why we believe that democracy results in
a more just system is because we believe that as you maximize the input from the social
group, it becomes harder to create rules which are arbitrary and unfair. Because we equate
fairness and what is just in our ideology, that would necessarily result in a system which
would be more just.

This is why socialists, in general, believe in maximizing democracy and trying to reduce
the distortions that power has upon it. Given a democracy in which people had equal
input, a more just system would be created.

You go from “There does seem to be an innate sense of fairness in higher primates” to
“We tend to dislike dictatorship, not because we don't have input. It's because of the
arbitrariness, that fact that the leader can change the rules on a whim.” And “This is why
socialists, in general, believe in maximizing democracy and trying to reduce the
distortions that power has upon it. Given a democracy in which people had equal input, a
more just system would be created.” This socialist is like the chimps. I don’t care for
dictatorship because no man deserves to have all that power. I don’t care if he makes just
laws. It’s still unjust. And I’m going to be swinging from the trees and beating my chest.
:doitnow:

[Flubber]

Kid

My problem with your society was summed up in my experience with a union environment. After about 30 minutes working in a store, the manager called me in and told me to slow down. The central planners at head office had given him a certain staff allocation and if the work was done too quickly, he might lose his staffing quota( his fear is that someone from head office might come by and see all the shelves stocked with hours to go).

To me thats what you propose for an entire society. Quotas of work, unending arguments over how hard one job is over another and no incentive to ever ever ever progress. Add to that, I don't know how you get people to take on the tougher jobs ( and rotation of the population is not feasible if we are talking jobs that require special skills)

1. Why would anyone take a job as first engineer on the boat doing trans-pacific sailings hardly ever in sight of land when they can get the same job at the same pay visiting their favorite ports or frequently in their home port-- now the answer is extra money-- you offer extra until someone takes the job. Your answer will be to force someone which hardly seems more fair to the workers.

2. Why would anyone study for anything higher level if there are no benefits? I can take a job now at pay x or study (with all the stress that goes with exams etc) earning pay x to go to a harder job that earns pay x. People who really liked studying would find reasons to stay in school while others would never go. Personally, I doubt I would have gone on in school . .. there is something attractive about a medium effort job that requires minimal thought and which I NEVER have to worry about after hours.

3.


Actually, I think I would become a chess instructor, gym instructior, or teach swimming, or bicycling, white-water rafting, sailing.


Give me some time and I could come up with a bunch of sweetheart jobs that I am qualified for. I consider them hobbies now but there are people that are paid in those fields now and if it all paid the same . .. .


{Sarcasm on}

Actually Kid I love your society. There is never any economic stress and I might as well spend all my resources on crap since if anyone does better than me and has more stuff , you will redistribute anyway. Plus, I don't see how you can fire me since I don't see starvation as very fair. I'll do some chores for the doc so he signs off on a medical certicate so I don't get sent to cold or dusty climates ( the coal mines).
So where do I sign-- Dibs on the chess instructor job!

{sarcasm off}

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There does seem to be an innate sense of fairness in .. . etc etc

had equal input, a more just system would be created.

Che --

Kid-- I have no idea what you just tried to say in response except you obviously don't like socialists?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

See the US has never been a true democracy. Democracy to me means each individual
has equal power. Popular vore, even if that were the case in the US, does not make a
democracy when the rich and powerfull can influence individuals and institutions.

I think I know what you mean by equal power. you are referring to financial power right?? and here I can agree that it is difficult to win an election without financial resources. But the solution is to find some like-minded people and convince them to support and finance you. Your message will get out. Even without it, your message will get out.

Actually , a well organized group can also wield power disproportinate to their numbers, even without financial wealth. Try it sometime . .. get together a group of 20-30 people upset with a local issue. If they present even a halfway sensible rationale, they will often "win" the issue, even if opposed to a well financed developer. Politicians need dollars but they need votes more

[Velociryx]

Che, Flubber...great posts!

LC - Forgot one from earlier. Yes...I understand that arguing hypotheticals can sometimes lead to some interesting insights.

I also understand that more often than not, this does not turn out to be the case.

For example, by your same logic re: the "Just Tyrant" I could ask Kid how he'd handle pay rates for a Four-Armed man digging ditches (I mean, he'd be doing twice the work, so he should get twice the pay, right?)....but while this might be an entertaining exercise (and about as likely as your Just Tyrant example), it really doesn't get us anywhere, simply because if Implementation were to begin tomorrow, how many four-armed men would you see in the work crew?

If you answered "none," you'd be spot-on.

I don't mind debating in hypotheticals, so long as they can reasonably be expected to occur. Both your earlier example and mine just now, fail to meet that basic test, and as such, they make amusing asides, but do nothing in the way of proving or disproving anything.

Note to Kid: Accepted (re: the argument from emotionality and my taking more flak for it)

and in the future, if you tell me I'm full of bullcrap when referencing your flip-floppiness on your positions, I will not hesitate to eviscerate you with your own words. I showed what I felt was considerable restraint then, and against my better judgement (for Spiff, actually). Forewarned is forearmed.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You go from “There does seem to be an innate sense of fairness in higher primates” to “We tend to dislike dictatorship, not because we don't have input. It's because of the arbitrariness, that fact that the leader can change the rules on a whim.” And “This is why socialists, in general, believe in maximizing democracy and trying to reduce the distortions that power has upon it. Given a democracy in which people had equal input, a more just system would be created.”

Granted, I could have drawn it out more, gotten more detailed, but really all I wanted to do was for people to follow the outline. Plus, these really long posts in which you and -Vel- are engaging are tiresome to read.

This socialist is like the chimps. I don’t care for
dictatorship because no man deserves to have all that power.

You missed the point. Higher primates want to be treated the same as others of their kind. As a higher primate, it is rather likely this tendency exists in us innately as well, but we can be trained to overcome these feelings and believe that what is unfair and unequal is Just.

Consider the fact that many women consider their second place status as Just beause God made them that way. Very often, they are cruelest to women who try and free themselves. We are perfectly capable of accepting a king's rule as just, depending on the circumstances. In other words, what is Just is socially determined. The only way we can attempt to achieve an objective sense of the Just is by linking it with something that has a real world grounding. In this case, our innate sense of fairness.

The problem is, of course, that one person's emotions are just as arbitrary as the next. Just like observable phenomena, however, I argue that the wider the net of people you include, the closer you approximate an objective view of reality, or in this case, an "objective" sense of what is fair. This is why democracy is the superior system from a scientific standpoint. Not simply because we were raised to think that way.

I don’t care if he makes just laws. It’s still unjust.

Only by a modern definition of what is Just. The vast majority of people in the world live under the arbitrary and dicatorial rule of another, even in the free world. In the free and capitalist world, we call that person, boss. That we have a limited choice between bosses doesn't mitigate that, and most people accept it. It's only the unreasonable ones like you and me that disagree.

And I’m going to be swinging from the trees and beating my chest.

You have fun and let me know how that works for you.


edit: forgot a paragraph

[Velociryx]

Popular vore, even if that were the case in the US, does not make a
democracy when the rich and powerfull can influence individuals and institutions.

Kid, out of curiosity, what would you do, precisely, to mitigate this problem?

Even with equality of condition set (everybody has the exact same of wealth and "stuff"), there are other natural abilities that can be used to sway the masses.

A compelling speech-maker, extreme good looks, great passion, focus....

How would you propose to deal with these? And if you opt not to deal with these, would not the folks who possess these gifts become the "new elite" in your fully egalitarian society?

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Vel

He would complain if one of the other speakers brought a bullhorn or built a bigger soapbox to speak from-- ignoring his ability to acquire these things in favor of a rant that he should share in theirs

[JohnT]

Well, I'm sure the neighboorhood bullhorn or soapbox co-ops won't allow such blatant inequality!

[Flubber]

oh and che-- your previous post was completely clear-- I don't know what kid's issue was there.

[Flubber]

welcome johnt-- didn't realize you were a reader of this one