Enlightened self interest versus simple altruism.
After talking with a friend who is an economist, and as a partial although incomplete economist in training I had to agree with his argument of altruism being inferior to taking a selfish stance in life.
Nothing organizes labor and resources as well as the market. Where there is cheap labor that can be utilized (this is a big assumption that needs to be explained), then selfishness will bring about a greater degree of change than trying to directly help the poor. Me buying goods produced in China or India will bring about more change than trying to help the impoverished and poor more than simply trying to give or deliver money directly to poor and impoverished people. This is because that money that I am paying some company to produce some good will go much farther and improve more lives than had I simply gave it directly to some poor individual. Regarding the assumption that labor can and will be utilized assumes first that labor exists in a politically ready and willing environment. So, for example, a state that is oppressive to opening up its national, private, and inefficient industries will not be able to benefit from the efficiency of the invisible hand. This is a serious issue that needs global support in facilitating open and educated leaders to the benefits of cheap labor that some do not comprehend. The knee-jerk reaction of any politician to benefitting from the cheap labor that they represent is a simple, 'fuck you'. Most politicians aren't educated enough or impartial to realize that cheap labor is a good thing in the short run because it attracts investment. Wages remain low in the 3rd world due to discriminatory immigration policies in western countries and if there was free movement of people between countries the poor countries would receive much larger gains in wages. So, if you're going to attack low wages, then you might as well attack immigration policies that allow the rich to live behind gates communities.
Now given, that the state is open to external markets and the subsequent investments made by another market, the organizing power of money will target the most in need by the amount of labor they are able to produce. No matter how superior machines are to humans, there will be industries that machines cannot compete with in terms of the low cost and lack of maintenance of human beings producing some good. For example, we will most likely never see machines producing simple goods like toys and clothing no matter how low the competitive cost of human beings. There is simply an absolute advantage (at least within my lifetime) of humans producing some cheap good rather than having a machine do it. Some services are immune to mechanization of labor, like plumbing, electricians, HVAC, repair, home building, auto repair, and teaching.
So, my point is that investing and buying goods from another country makes your efforts to help the poor the most because it does not create dependency on government funds and brings about education in terms of job skills and creates competition that further drives down cost (in the short term). China and India are countries that have displayed profound economic growth due to the above-mentioned conditions. The amount of poverty in China has dropped astoundingly due to neo-liberalism and open and free markets.
A common theme is that a few managers benefit disproportionately from said conditions of exploiting cheap labor; however, the net effect is that poverty, disease, and death from poverty have likewise gone down to a similar if not greater measure. Your employer might not care about you, as you're a simple substitute in the grand scheme of things; but, the person buying from you wants you to be there, producing and living to produce the goods s/he demands from your employer.
So, in essence, be happy that you're able to post here or elsewhere at leisure, without having to toil to make bread and milk, and don't feel sorry for the poor. I mean, the state of mind of feeling sorry for the poor is important; but, not very productive. You buying goods produced in China or India is a better response.
Nothing organizes labor and resources as well as the market. Where there is cheap labor that can be utilized (this is a big assumption that needs to be explained), then selfishness will bring about a greater degree of change than trying to directly help the poor. Me buying goods produced in China or India will bring about more change than trying to help the impoverished and poor more than simply trying to give or deliver money directly to poor and impoverished people. This is because that money that I am paying some company to produce some good will go much farther and improve more lives than had I simply gave it directly to some poor individual. Regarding the assumption that labor can and will be utilized assumes first that labor exists in a politically ready and willing environment. So, for example, a state that is oppressive to opening up its national, private, and inefficient industries will not be able to benefit from the efficiency of the invisible hand. This is a serious issue that needs global support in facilitating open and educated leaders to the benefits of cheap labor that some do not comprehend. The knee-jerk reaction of any politician to benefitting from the cheap labor that they represent is a simple, 'fuck you'. Most politicians aren't educated enough or impartial to realize that cheap labor is a good thing in the short run because it attracts investment. Wages remain low in the 3rd world due to discriminatory immigration policies in western countries and if there was free movement of people between countries the poor countries would receive much larger gains in wages. So, if you're going to attack low wages, then you might as well attack immigration policies that allow the rich to live behind gates communities.
Now given, that the state is open to external markets and the subsequent investments made by another market, the organizing power of money will target the most in need by the amount of labor they are able to produce. No matter how superior machines are to humans, there will be industries that machines cannot compete with in terms of the low cost and lack of maintenance of human beings producing some good. For example, we will most likely never see machines producing simple goods like toys and clothing no matter how low the competitive cost of human beings. There is simply an absolute advantage (at least within my lifetime) of humans producing some cheap good rather than having a machine do it. Some services are immune to mechanization of labor, like plumbing, electricians, HVAC, repair, home building, auto repair, and teaching.
So, my point is that investing and buying goods from another country makes your efforts to help the poor the most because it does not create dependency on government funds and brings about education in terms of job skills and creates competition that further drives down cost (in the short term). China and India are countries that have displayed profound economic growth due to the above-mentioned conditions. The amount of poverty in China has dropped astoundingly due to neo-liberalism and open and free markets.
A common theme is that a few managers benefit disproportionately from said conditions of exploiting cheap labor; however, the net effect is that poverty, disease, and death from poverty have likewise gone down to a similar if not greater measure. Your employer might not care about you, as you're a simple substitute in the grand scheme of things; but, the person buying from you wants you to be there, producing and living to produce the goods s/he demands from your employer.
So, in essence, be happy that you're able to post here or elsewhere at leisure, without having to toil to make bread and milk, and don't feel sorry for the poor. I mean, the state of mind of feeling sorry for the poor is important; but, not very productive. You buying goods produced in China or India is a better response.
Comments (97)
1.) High wages for their labor are not the only thing that the "poor" people you refer to are not getting. They are not getting safe work environments. They are not getting humane working conditions such as regular bathroom breaks, lunch breaks, etc. They do not have the legal right to unionize and collectively bargain. They, it is my understanding, are being treated with absolutely no dignity--they, as I understand it, are treated like horses and other non-human animals that do work.
2.) When you buy "goods produced in China or India" and similar places the price does not include externalities such as people being dispossessed and seeing their indigenous culture destroyed; families being broken up as people who have been dispossessed and had their culture destroyed in rural areas migrate to urban areas to find work; pollution and other environmental destruction that is caused; etc.
3.) Most importantly, being altruistic means acting out of concern for the welfare of others and in the interest of others. If "buying goods produced in China or India" is thought to be in the best interest of others and done out of concern for the welfare of others then it is altruistic.
So psychopaths control the markets; tell me something I don't know. Is your friend Gordon Gekko?
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0012282/quotes
Why waste time educating leaders? Just bribe, blackmail, or threaten them. There's plenty of money available for those kind of things, because it's not wasted on labour costs.
Yeah, he's my pal, I have a chat with him every night 8-)
It can always be argued comparatively that the poor just have it worse off. That's not the topic though. But, if you insist, I would like to point out that every nation with a demographic of 'poor' individuals is/are always worse off than those who are relatively better or well off instead. I have nothing aginst some socialism for the poor, and I suspect any politician that runs for office in a noncorrupt nation will be answerable to the poor also. So, in the end, the poor eventually get what they need through work and voting. Which, brings to fray the need for strong and stable governments that encourage open markets and intellectual freedom.
In regards to your second point... I would argue that eventually, all externalities have to be accounted for in the end. Typically prices reflect the typical externalities accounted for. Sadly all externalities cannot be accounted for and if some are omitted, then the taxpayer is left to pick up the tab.
Straw man!
Quoting Galuchat
What kind of argument is that? Of course, it would be better to educate them and value the opportunity of free markets. The only reason why poor countries remain poor is due to poor leadership and corruption.
That's not true. They remain poor because the rich use their money to divide them and buy their leaders. They also remain poor because of lack of patience, not waiting for the right opportunity to pounce. Not having killer instinct. The combination of those two reasons are the causes of poverty, + lack of resources in some cases.
Quoting Question
Ahh, that species of men who think they know the rules of money but actually don't. An economist is to an entrepreneur like a boxing historian is to Muhammad Ali ;)
But obviously it is nothing at all like that. The miner, the farmer, the blacksmith does not get the value of his labour because things are not arranged as a market of that sort at all. Rather, the mine owner, the landowner, the 'entrepreneurs' literally take a cut between every exchange between others, impoverishing them all. The 'market' is institutionalised robbery.
Quoting Agustino
Or a biologist to a tapeworm. Again, the image one is supposed to have of the entrepreneur is of the shopkeeper, or travelling trader, facilitating the exchange between others and taking in exchange the means of their own livelihood. But in fact, the market makers are market fixers.
Quoting Agustino
Not so much a marketplace then, as a battlefield, where rather than add value to the community, one seeks to take value from others. And a battlefield is a place that adds no value, but destroys it, and redistributes the remains on an arbitrary and unequal basis.
Yes agreed.
Quoting unenlightened
Which is fair game unenlightened. The entrepreneur assumed the risk, bought the mine (or rights to exploit its resources), hired the miners (who have a guaranteed pay at the end of the day), negotiated the deals, established a distribution network for the products, hoped the products would sell in sufficient volume, etc.
Who else should take the biggest cut? The miner? The miner had it easy. All he had to do was take the gold out. His pay was fixed. Whether he did an average job or a fantastic job - he still got paid. The entrepreneur didn't. He absolutely had to make it work.
Quoting unenlightened
I don't follow.
Quoting unenlightened
I was talking about why countries are poor. Leaders absolutely must have killer instinct, otherwise they cannot capitalise on opportunities and make their countries strong and powerful. Even Ghandi had a very developed killer instinct, otherwise he would have failed to bring down the British Empire. And if they don't, then their countries will be ruled by other countries and subjugated. That's just how the world is. You're either a powerful country, and then you rule over other countries and set the terms - or you're a small country and forced to accept whatever others force you to do in order to be permitted to survive.
I don't know about that. We have a bunch of homeless people--a bunch of people who have no regular shelter and who have trouble acquiring food, we have a bunch of people who are unemployed or who can't find a decent job that pays well, we have a bunch of people with either no healthcare or who have to worry about whether they'll not go bankrupt should something happen to them that requires any sort of hospital stay, we have a bunch of people who can't afford a home, etc. If that's a good organization of labor and resources, maybe we should try a "bad" organization of labor and resources for a bit.
Exactly. And that would be Fascism.
Again, this is the image that is projected. But starving entrepreneurs who have lost everything,throwing themselves out of their high rise offices, are rather exceptional, whereas starving miners, dead miners underground, miners dying of respiratory disease in poverty, are commonplace; these are the people taking the real risks. Even farmers take far more risk than entrepreneurs.
They don't take them as risks. For them it's more risky to spend their time trying to start a business selling chickens from one city to another while having their family starve than to go down the mine and have a fixed pay at the end of the month. I've worked with construction workers in the past, and many people who work such jobs think in these terms. Many would not actually want to go through the fuss of starting and owning a business or doing something else more complicated.
Quoting unenlightened
Are you kidding me? Most entrepreneurs out there fail. Even those who succeed, they fail more times than they are successful. The personality that is required to be a successful entrepreneur is very very different than the common personalities generally found around the world.
That is Fascism, I think you would have to say; I'm not talking about something that could possibly happen somewhere, but what is happening all the time and everywhere. But I have no interest in arguing about the labels you think we should apply.
Quoting Agustino
You confirm my point. If you can fail, and fail and fail and then succeed, then failure is not a serious risk. Clearly the penalty for failure is carried by others, who lose their livelihood, their health their pensions, their lives.
I disagree. Failure is a serious risk, and sets an entrepreneur back for a long time. Most entrepreneurs would quit anyway, and go back to being miners. Those who stick with it, stick because of a certain personality - despite the risks, and the sacrifices that they have to make.
I agree. Also, greed is good, but globalism is great.
Adam Smith's invisible hand.
I'm all for market forces to operate here. If there is a terrible shortage of willing business people, then their value is increased. But there is a glut, and their value does not decline because they rig the market.
Quoting Agustino
What fairytale is this plagiarised from?
Yes, there is a glut who barely make a living out of it while working 10x harder than your average employee. I posted this in the Shoutbox thread, but basically like this woman here:
Well if she works ten times as hard as the average employee, she deserves ten times the reward, minus whatever percentage we need to take off to cover all the stuff we want done that doesn't make money directly, like mending the road, defence, justice, child protection, etc. In a better run economy, such arbitrary cut offs are avoided, also healthcare is one of those things taken out of taxation. But the clever business person get's around these things by setting up another, 'arms length' company to employ another 49 people with no health insurance, and another, and another...
And then they earn, not a bare living, not an average wage, not 10 times the average wage, not 100 times the average wage, but an obscene and unjustifiable amount. I'm all for rewarding businesses that grow by providing a service and contributing to the economy in a legal and ethical way, but Bernie is right to suggest that healthcare is one of the costs of labour, just as paying them enough to feed and shelter themselves is. And if you can't afford that, you can't afford to employ people.
Okay but that means additional manpower in terms of accounting and legal issues. So on top of the stress of starting and investing a large amount of money in opening new places employing 49 people, you also have to do it under different companies. A different company starts at 0 revenue. How easy will it be to get a loan on that company, especially if it's a limited liability one? Extremely difficult. If you get a loan on your parent company, then how do you transfer it to the sibling company? Does the sibling company get a 0% interest loan from the parent for that money? See, all this financial juggling isn't easy to do or set up. I have a few crazy ideas for loopholes too, it's not that easy to execute them.
Quoting unenlightened
Yeah, provided they can execute some very crazy and risky strategies, sure. But that's normal.
Quoting unenlightened
I don't think so. An employer should pay what the employee is willing to work for. Why should it be otherwise? I think even minimum wage levels are a problem. It makes starting a business more difficult. I might be willing to hire completely inexperienced people and give them large responsibilities, but obviously I would want to control the payment. We should be making it easy for entrepreneurs, the whole economy should be based around small independent producers. Right now, we're doing everything in our power to make life a hell for the entrepreneur.
Quoting Cavacava
Depends on the country, that's another unfortunate thing that companies are FORCED to make such contributions. It drives costs with salaries to 30-60% higher in many countries with all the additional taxes needed to be paid.
I who work as an entrepreneur (well self-employed really) get 0 benefits atm. Tough life being an entrepreneur eh? But I'm not complaining, unlike some people.
It should be otherwise because it is unfair. It encourages an economy of desperation. As long as there are desperate people, starvation wages will be the norm. And of course low wages lead to low consumption which is bad for business. What the entrepreneur wants of course is to pay his own staff a pittance and for everyone else to pay well, so that there will be consumers for his product.
Quoting Agustino
I don't think I have forwarded that notion; it is generally something that employers use to trumpet their social value, like they're doing their workforce a favour.
Quoting Agustino
Yes you are complaining; your whole response to me is about how hard done by you and your fellow heroic business folk are. As a former business person myself, my heart bleeds, of course.
Okay, so let us think, where does desperation come from? Is it a material thing? I don't think so. It's more of a spiritual thing. One can be content with the idea of starving, then one will not despair when faced with the possibility, but rather sit Stoic-like and do something about it - if anything at all can be done.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes, I didn't claim otherwise. You should pay high wages IF YOU CAN. But many entrepreneurs, especially small entrepreneurs, can't.
Quoting unenlightened
Can you explain why you consider it unfair? Granted that desperation is primarily something spiritual, and not material, why is it the entrepreneur's fault someone agrees to work under certain terms?
After all, one of the essential steps to being successful as an entrepreneur is mastery over the carrot and whip mentality. You cannot despair except if you hold to the carrot and whip mentality. Then hope and fear rule your life and determine you to take (bad) decisions.
Quoting unenlightened
I didn't address that comment to you in particular.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes wrongly - and because people are stupid. Hence why I made my post to correct that misunderstanding.
Quoting unenlightened
Well I don't know what kind of a business you used to run, or why you don't think it was hard (or at least harder than being an employee).
I don't grant it at all. If you happen to be a Jew fleeing Nazi Germany, or some other flavour of refugee, you are physically desperate and helpless and depend on the kindness of strangers in a strange land. This is the extreme, there are degrees of helplessness and desperation, but if you are a liberated slave in Southern USA, you become an entrepreneur as a self-employed share cropper - and are exploited . The conditions that allow and encourage exploitation and unfair dealing are many and varied; it is not the case that there is some economic system that is immune or that there is some market place that is inherently fair. Justice is something we can impose on the world to the extent that we value it, not something natural.
Quoting Agustino
I do think it is harder in the general circumstances in which I find myself. And I have no objection to it being remunerated accordingly. However, whenever someone makes a business, they need to conform the business to rules of health and safety, insurance, tax, employment regulation and so on, and these need to be there and enforced to prevent the unscrupulous from obtaining an advantage from their lack of scruples.
Sure, but in that extreme case, the law is not going to help you. It's people's kindness, as you say.
Quoting unenlightened
You may be right, but it's also possible that some people need to be exploited to realise what kind of work is worth doing and what kind of work isn't worth doing. Someone may work for 50 cents an hour, but soon they'll be sick of that work, and learn not to get themselves in such situations again. Or they may gain valuable experience at that 50 cents an hour job, allowing them to move to something much better. Who knows - a lot of it depends on the person, how ambitious they are, etc.
Quoting unenlightened
I don't know man, I'm paying that at the moment, but I'm just thinking it would be so fun not to pay it :P Why should the government decide what to do with my money? They'll likely put it in their own pockets. I'm better off donating it, 10% to the Church, 10% to charity. Why pay the fucking government instead? Is that really more moral?
If you see a man or women outside of the supermarket begging – with a sign “homeless & hungry” - what do you think? Do you say to yourself – what a smelly, dirty bum? How about if you see a person with a sign that says – “I lost my job at the mine, but now I make birdhouses for sale”. Would you talk to them? Ask some questions? Let’s ask some theoretical questions:
How did you get started making birdhouses?
A friend showed me how to do it.
Where do you get the wood?
I get stickers for free at lumber yards and old pallets companies don’t want.
Cool, how about the paint?
I go to garage sales and recycling centers and get the paint for very little cost. I also ask my customers if they have any materials they think I could use.
Hey, I got some stuff – can I bring it to you?
Sure – I live in town.
How much for this birdhouse?
I don’t put a price on anything – I ask for an exchange that makes us both happy.
I give you $50 and a promise of more material – what is your cell phone number?
Deal!
You can sell birdhouses, flowers in a planter, art on cardboard, Calligraphic poetry on repurposed frames from the thrift store. The ideas are limitless and cheap to produce. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day – teach a man to fish and…………..
Show people how to be self-reliant and maintain self-respect.
My mate Jesus had something to say about that. Not that either of us is a huge fan of government for it's own sake, and here in the UK there is a particular distaste for the government at the moment. But let's just say that the government is the only arbiter and guarantor that your money is your money, and not the mafia's or the marauding mob's. Apart from your private army of course, which is a business expense probably worse than taxes.
"How did you get started robbing banks?"
"Oh this philosopher gave me the idea, he said I should ignore the government and be self-reliant."
It seems to me your post could have been more or less copied verbatim from a text-book on neoliberalism. Self-interest, I can see, but by what's 'enlightened' about it? 'The greatest good for the greatest number', or 'concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% who can then game the system in such a way as to increase and maintain their privilege?
Besides, liberal economics is based on the impossible dream of never-ending growth. But the world is already using more than one Earth's worth of resources every year, just to maintain itself at its current population level. But populations grow exponentially, and resources don't - so I believe we're facing a large-scale economic catastrophe in the next couple of decades. The advanced economies have so far made a complete hash of adjusting to the reality of climate change, I don't expect them to do any better in respect of attaining a no-growth economic model.
Quoting Question
How is an entire country is a 'gated community'? Do you mean, there ought to be no such thing as an immigration policy?
Straw man.
I did not "compare" anything. I stated that low wages is just one small pixel in the picture of the plight of people who we supposedly help by being selfish and taking advantage of the low prices that their plight makes possible rather than by approaching them altruistically.
If you are going to completely address a picture, you have to see the complete picture.
Quoting Question
Irrelevant.
The point is that if all of the costs of "goods produced in China or India" that you specifically refer to were included in their price either demand for them would be so low that they would not be produced in the first place or the price would be so high that people in "rich countries" would instead buy local products. Either way you wouldn't be coming here saying that it helps workers with breathtakingly low pay more to buy the products that their breathtakingly cheap labor produces rather than altruistically directly address their plight--either way we would not be having this conversation.
I'm not sure about that. The government can just as easily one day seize all my money and put me in jail. If they hold absolute power, then they can also use absolute power. So no - it's not at all certain that the government is working for me, and even if it is, that it will keep working for me. Look at what happened to this guy.
So no, the state isn't certainly out there to protect you.
Of course, and governments do that sort of thing. There is no law of nature - again - that prevents governments from being mafias. What you going to do about it? You might need some help. I already said that there is no institution or system that is inherently fair moral and desirable.
In the end, we live in an anarchy, property rights do not exist any more than any other rights except to the extent that people come together to agree and institute them. The state is just a bunch of people being busybodies, and business and charity, organised crime are the same. So you just have to decide which busybodies you want to align yourself with, or if you'd rather be one against the world.
Interesting.
Quoting unenlightened
Exactly, but that decision cannot be one that you stick to forever. That decision changes with circumstances.
You might well disagree with this or at least find it exaggerated to the point of vacuity. Nevertheless, that it makes sense to say it illustrates that a government can become a mafia. And if and when it does, obviously a man of principle and virtue will oppose the government. It is a sign of my left wing bias of course, that this appears in my newsfeed rather than fulminations against Communism. Exactly how one opposes depends on how much of a self-serving racket it is and one's resources, and one's character. Hopefully, many people will oppose such tendencies on an ongoing basis such that the government is obliged to serve the citizens as a whole rather than any clique. That is what approximates to 'good government' in my book, and it depends entirely on the vigilance of citizens in defending their own and each other's rights to fair treatment and a pleasant environment. To take the position that one doesn't mind ill-treatment of people as long as it is not oneself being ill-treated is woefully short-sighted.
How is it that putting up a whack of cash is called "risk"? If the money's lost there's no skin off the back of the billionaire, it's just a number in the ledger. You don't seem to have respect for the fact that "money" has a different value to people who earn a wage or salary and use this money to live off of, to pay for the necessities of life, then it does for those who use money to make more money, the capitalist.
Quoting Agustino
The guy who has to physically move the material, dealing with the hazards of the physical world has it easy, while the guy who sits in the office moving numbers around in the books has the difficult job? That's a good one bro, tell me another.
Quoting Agustino
An important issue with respect to entrepreneurship, is the question of whether one is willing to cross that line, to become a capitalist. Crossing that line means giving "money" that unnatural sense of value, which some would argue is immoral. One can be a successful entrepreneur without becoming a capitalist, but it is very difficult, and the failure of many entrepreneurs is due to one's unwillingness to venture into the realm of capitalism. The capitalist, by giving "money" that unnatural value, has an unfair advantage over the non-capitalist entrepreneur, having the capacity to force that entrepreneur into failure, for no reason other than that the entrepreneur is seen as "competition" or a threat to what the capitalist values, money. This is immoral.
I agree. Also, unless you're running a Fortune Global 500 corporation, entrepreneurship (the experience of some forum members) and macroeconomics (the topic of this thread) are incommensurable.
The 'fee' from managers is minuscule compared to the fee you pay to the government for running the business. We're talking about 0.1-1% as a management 'fee' compared to 15-55% as a government 'fee'.
Furthermore, businesses need to generate revenue. Who pays for the initial upfront costs? Not the workers or the government; but, the business owners.
Being a worker is "100% risk-free". being a business owner or investor means it's possible for you to lose more $$$ than you invested.
Applying undue duress on the system for not fixing every socio-economic problem is not fair. Besides, it's not specifically the fault of the system; but, rather of the political domestic policymaking that has failed (social expenditure).
Give UBI (universal basic income) a chance?
How does that make it anything resembling fascism? The is no market, to begin with in centrally planned economies.
What's enlightened about it is that investment goes to the neediest group typically due to the economics of their cost of labor being so low. Again, China and India being examples.
Also, there are estimates that worldwide, obesity, is an issue for 40% of the population. Any Malthusian scenario is out of the water with such high numbers of 'poverty'.
I don't have a problem with billionaires, I have a problem with multinational corporations which use their financial power to squeeze out entrepreneurs. Billionaires, at least most of them, have earned it (through ingenuity and hard work largely). There are some billionaires - like hedge fund managers - who have stolen it, and they often control the corporations (that's how they've made their money).
Quoting unenlightened
Indeed. And how will you oppose the government become mafia? By voting? Don't kid yourself. A government become mafia doesn't care about what goes in the pot, but what comes out.
The only way to oppose a government become mafia is by counterplay. That means effectively getting involved in politics yourself, undermining the present regime, and replacing it. How? By using the instruments of power - the whole arsenal, deceit, treachery, leverage, pressure etc. Whatever it takes. Until you get yourself into a position of power - then you can assure a good government, until your death (think here Ghandi).
The history of man is written by the struggle between the good and the bad to hold the reigns of power. More often than not, the bad have held them. There is no alternative. If you care about politics, then YOU and YOU alone have to do it (and the very few who are determined and share your vision, obviously).
It seems to me that democracy has infected our mentality and we often like to pretend that voting actually makes a huge difference. It has become a way of being emotionally satisfied that we're doing something, doing something with 0 risk, of course.
So, I don't understand the issue. Either the price is subsidized or not, or tariffs are imposed on the goods or not. What costs are you talking about here?
Are you presenting the government as an entity greater than the market? Because nowadays, and I don't think this is an exaggerated claim, governments are responsible for the well-being of a market.
What's not to love about having the government in check by the participants of the market? I see it as an enhancement to democracy to have a market that helps tame the desires and pursuits of a government, nowadays.
What is the most interesting question on the top of my mind nowadays is how can certain economies (like China) have such a close relationship (not centrally planned economy; but, partially) with its own market and facilitate so much growth. It kind of flies in the face of the truism that markets are best left self-regulating and free.
If the investment goes bad, the entrepreneur loses. The worker gets his wage. Simple.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
All smart people should be using money to make more money, since money is one of the levers of power, and we all know, that if good men don't rise to the top, then the bad will rise to the top, and everyone will have it bad.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes he does have it easy. He takes no risk - if the project goes bad, he still gets paid at the end of the day.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The only unnatural sense of value that can be attributed to money is when money is seen as a means for facilitating hedonism. If someone uses their wealth in order to sit on a yacht, then yes, that is immoral and unnatural.
But, otherwise, the more money, the better. Money is one of the key resources you need to influence society. But money isn't the whole of it. The right authority is also needed (which also requires money to acquire). Otherwise you have shit like this happening:
You know why a prick like this is allowed to mock the entire justice system, laugh at the people he has hurt, and put himself above the law? Because the law is weak - the justice system is weak. It's not run by strong and reasonable men. At least in Russia or China - no rich man - regardless of how rich - dares mock the government. None. Not a single one. Authority must be respected. Authority shouldn't "beg" some despicable thief to cooperate... authority should force them to cooperate, whether they like it or not.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, money is just a tool, the way it is used is either moral or immoral. Money in itself isn't immoral.
That's a very easy question, Question. An ungoverned market will deal mainly in pigs in pokes. To prevent people being poisoned by the food they buy, burned by the shoddy housing they rent, electrocuted by unsafe products, run down by faulty cars and so on we like to have trading standards. When the market controls the government, these standards are called 'red tape' and gotten rid of or relaxed or ignored to free up enterprise. People die.
Maybe if we're talking about monopolies; but, the market isn't controlled by one corporation or one business, as we all know, and we still buy toys and goods produced in China, so moot point.
You mean like the Grenfell Tower fire?
Monopolies have nothing to do with it, though they produce other problems. Take food:
From here.
And this is true whether we're talking about business, or politics. The Jews needed a Moses to get them out of Egypt.
What counts as due versus undue duress on a system?
Quoting Agustino
You two have a very twisted concept of "risk". The worker may be injured or die on the job. The owner of the business stands to lose some money, of which he or she has far more than what is needed to provide the necessities of life anyway. Where's the risk? Unless you value money more than life, the worker has the greater risk.
Quoting Agustino
Have you never done physical work in your life? The risk is to life and limb, and even a slight risk of losing one of these far outweighs the risk of losing a pile of cash, especially when you have many piles of it.
Quoting Agustino
When money is valued to make more money, then it has no value. What value could it possibly have if the only use for it were to make more money? To use money for the sake of making more money is completely illogical.
Quoting Agustino
Sorry, but you're delusional. Money cannot buy you power, especially is your using that money only to make more money. But if power is what you value more than money, then money will buy you the illusion of power, so that the people whom you are paying off will make you believe that you have power, when you really do not have power. These are your fair-weather friends. To make more and more money with the idea that this money might be used to buy power is completely illogical because it is well known that you cannot buy loyalty.
Tell me please Agustino, and don't be bashful, what do you think is the nature of power? In this context, the way you have used it in this post in relation to these phrases, "rise to the top", "influence society", "authority", what does "power" mean to you?
I don't want to nitpick; but, it seems to me that in general there is nothing wrong with some regulation. Is there some golden mean that we can agree on regulation being a net positive instead of stifling growth?
For the matter, it seems quite obvious to me, that Europe despite having stricter regulations than the US, is still quite competitive.
I meant to say that neo-liberalism isn't the answer to the things you demand from it, e.g eliminating poverty or homelessness.
The owner may die in the office from obesity and a sedentary lifestyle too. So what? The owner may die in a car crash from all the travelling he has to do, etc. etc. There's risks with everything in life so don't bullshit. The worker also doesn't necessarily risk serious injury or death - it all depends on the job.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That's false.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
First, no, most entrepreneurs don't have easy access to cash, especially when they show inability to handle it. So losing cash, especially other people's cash, is quite a terrible spot to be in as an entrepreneur. And most entrepreneurs aren't rich, even most successful ones, unless you call 1-10 million dollars as rich. That's being a tiny bug in the large scheme of things. True wealth that can be used to have a significant impact on society starts from $50-100+ million, numbers which are absolutely not easy to achieve.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes I have. I've worked as a construction worker for an NGO for example, before I was an engineer. Every night my hands would be more broken than the night before and you'd fall asleep instantly once you hit the bed. So what? Was it difficult? Not really. I certainly don't think I was taking more risk than those who conceived of the project, or those who gave them money. Most people are just very lazy - I don't know but it seems to me you're all born with a silver spoon in your mouths. We are meant to work, and work hard. But most people complain "ugh so hard so this and that" - what the hell?
It's especially ridiculous how academics and university students complain about how "hard" their tasks are >:O
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That's your (uninformed) opinion.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I never said ONLY use it to make more money.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Right, do you want to speak with this guy?
Why don't you tell him that money can't buy him power?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So long as you can order them to do something and they execute it, then you do have power.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Right, but nobody has any doubts about that. Governing society requires the use of fair-weather friends since most people aren't that moral to begin with. So leaders always have to make good use of these people in order to successfully govern a society. Their energy, greed and lust has to be channeled in productive directions.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I don't understand why you say I'm bashful, but to answer your question, power is influence and capacity to direct the march of society - capacity to set the rules. Granted that as unenlightened said, and I agree with him, I actually think it's a great idea, we actually live in an anarchy. There are no property rights, in reality. There are no other rights either. All our political systems are mere attempts of hiding the anarchic system we actually live in - attempts to move, however imperfectly, away from the state of anarchy. But fundamentally, we do live in an anarchy, where most people are not moral, and if given sufficient power, will use that power to oppress and subjugate others to their whims. There's only some people who can handle power morally, and they should as per Plato, want it the most.
For example, (and I'm giving you a hypothetical based on a real example now, that I personally know of) someone powerful enough can force you out of your house/property. Or someone powerful enough can force your daughter to marry them. And nothing can protect you, because remember, ultimately we live in an anarchy. The law only exists when it is enforced, and it can only be enforced by the powerful (naturally). And when the powerful are immoral and corrupt, then you're fucked, if they happen to put their eyes on you.
Property rights can only be guaranteed by the powerful. Therefore society depends on strong, reasonable and moral man to govern and rule over the rest in order to guarantee such rights. Otherwise, there is no hope.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Power doesn't mean loyalty. Loyalty is, or can be, an important aspect of power, but it's not the only one.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Power means the capacity to decide on the direction of society, to influence others, and/or the capacity to guarantee (or not) property and other rights. Ghandi was powerful. Hitler was powerful. Bill Gates is powerful. Jesus was powerful. As was someone like Osho in the modern age. Trump is powerful, Putin is powerful, etc.
Consider the testimony of John Perkins (among others), look up the definition of fascism in any dictionary, then explain to me how the use of that term doesn't apply to the type of activity described by Perkins.
https://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man
Perkins specifically mentioned that it is our foreign policy that is the cause for the arguable actions of these economic hit men. That's distinct from liberalism or neoliberalism mentioned here in this topic, and I have yet to understand how fascism factors in here.
We're talking about the risk which is directly related to the person's occupation. Those risks which you claim the owner is involved in, are unrelated, and are therefore not relevant to the discussion. The risk you referred to was the risk of loosing a pile of cash, and this is just an illusion of risk, a number in the ledger. How does a changing number in the ledger translate to real risk, so as to be comparable to the risk which the miner takes in going to work every day?
Quoting Agustino
If he came here to see me, I'd tell him just that. But I'm not going out of the way to do so. Judging by the content of the clip, he seems to already recognize that he has no real power.
Quoting Agustino
So which person in the film clip would you say has "power", Mr. Cummings, Mr Gowdy? Surely Mr.Shkreli demonstrates no capacity to tell anyone what to do. He claims the fifth.
Quoting Agustino
There is contradiction inherent within this position though. If the rich person values money, and the fair-weather friend is relieving him of his money, to give him the illusion of power, then how can you say that the rich person is using the fair-weather friend? Clearly the opposite is the case. The fact that the term "fair-weather friend" is used, is evidence that the opposite is really the case.
Quoting Agustino
"Direct the march of society"? What does that mean? The capacity to set rules is not the same thing as inspiring people to follow rules. I can set all the rules I want, but not even my own dog is going to follow those rules. If I point guns at peoples' heads, and force them to follow rules, I can only point so many guns, and as soon as the people are out of my sights, they will not follow my rules. It's only a matter of a short period of time before one comes up behind me.
Quoting Agustino
You've got this backwards. According to Plato, it's the people who want it the least, who are best suited to rule. They know it's the worst possible job to have, and will only take that job if the present ruler is so bad that living under this rule is worse than ruling.
Quoting Agustino
When power has to be "enforced", this is not true power, it is the illusion of power. It is so because the person will only follow the rule while being threatened with the use of force. Once that person gets oneself outside the line of force, that person will conspire to relieve the other of the capacity to use force
Quoting Agustino
Clearly loyalty is necessary to sustain any real power. And so-called "power" through the use of force does not promote loyalty. Therefore this so-called power is not real power.
Quoting Agustino
I still don't know what you mean by "direction of society". Could you explicate? Society consists of a whole bunch of people. They are only going to go in the direction which they want to go. How could one person have the capacity to decide the direction of society?
Yes they are related. If you're forced to sit on the chair all day long in an office, and be on the phone the whole time, that certainly is going to impact your health in a not so good way.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Losing a pile of cash is very relevant. He may not have money to feed his family if he loses a pile of cash. His aspirations to be an entrepreneur may be shattered. His credit-worthiness may be shattered. And so forth. Maybe if he took the money, or part of it, from the wrong person, he may even get shot. Or a competitor may arrange to have him killed. Or the government could get him in jail for not adequately following certain laws. Who knows - there's a lot of things that could potentially happen to the entrepreneur, that cannot happen to the worker.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Then tell me, why is he laughing at the judicial system?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Mr. Shkreli, because the others are not capable to get what they want out of him, and he openly mocks them. By openly mocking them, and showing them they have no authority over him, he is demonstrating power. He tells them, not verbally, but non-verbally, you can't do anything to me.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Who said it is only an illusion of power? I've defined power in this case as having his orders followed. He can get his orders followed, therefore he is powerful.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Well it is true that the fair-weather friend also likes the arrangement, otherwise he wouldn't be doing favours for the rich man. Of course he's also profiting from it, but he doesn't get to decide on what gets done. Rather the rich man tells him do this, and he just does it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It means deciding what will happen in the world. Why does that confuse you? It means deciding whether, for example, the Central Bank will print more dough or not.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Remember that rules only exist in-so-far as they are followed/enforced, so the capacity to set rules absolutely entails that others will follow them. Otherwise you're simply not setting rules, you're just kidding yourself.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Right, you've discovered that brute force isn't a very good way to get mass obedience over the long term. That's true, Sun Tzu, and all other military strategists didn't think otherwise either.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, obviously they should want it the least in the sense that it can be dangerous to themselves and their families. But they should want it the most in the sense that if they don't want it, someone worse than them will. So if you have the necessary capacities, you should try to rise to the top to prevent someone worse than you from doing it, even if doing so will put you and your family at risk.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Nope, I didn't say power has to be enforced. Please read again.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I agree, but loyalty is not necessary from everyone.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
By, for example, using their money to fund a certain ideology over another for example. Then one ideology will have more resources, and hence more capacity to disseminate through society (like George Soros does). By setting the laws which delimit what others can and can't do. By deciding what gets aired on TV (in the case they own media for example). And so forth. Really, you're asking quite naive questions it seems to me...
Why neo-liberalism?
He's not a good business man if he invests so much that losing it will leave him unable to feed his family.
Quoting Agustino
These are all signs of bad business, and are not the type of risk that a good business man would take.
Quoting Agustino
Being smug in no way indicates that one has power. I've seen that same smug expression on murderers getting sentenced to life in prison. What makes you that laughing at the judicial system, even while it passes judgement on you, constitutes having power? And make no mistake, they are passing judgement on Mr.Shkreli, because it is clear that one may only invoke the fifth amendment when answering the question may incriminate the witness. Since Mr. Shrkeli claims the fifth for every question, he is clearly a criminal, as he believes that answering any question may incriminate him.
Quoting Agustino
It is an illusion because his orders are only being followed to the extent that the follower is getting paid. The one getting paid is actually in the position of having power, because that person can simply refuse to do what the other wants, requesting more and more money. Since the one whom you think has power, is obliged to pay the requests of the others, since he desires to have the feeling of power (that the others are following his orders), it is the others, the ones demanding money, and getting paid, who are having their orders followed, not the one paying.
Quoting Agustino
Do you know what "fair-weather friend" means? He's only a friend while it is profitable to him. So as long as he is getting paid, and profiting from it, he will do favours for the rich man. But as soon as he doesn't think that it's worth his while to do such favours he'll quit doing them. So the rich man really has no capacity of "power" over the fair-weather friend, who is the one that decides when he will and will not do what the rich man desires of him. And if that rich man is belligerent, the fair-weather friend will rapidly become an enemy.
Quoting Agustino
I think you misunderstand Plato. It's not that ruling is a dangerous job, it is that ruling is the most difficult job, and that's why the person who would make the best ruler, would not want the job. The person recognizes that to do a good job of ruling is extremely difficult. The person would not want to do the job of ruling and do a poor job of it, but it would be too difficult to do a good job of it. So the ones who take the job are those who don't care whether or not they do a good job, they want the job for other reasons.
Quoting Agustino
What you did say, is that the law must be enforced, and only power can enforce the law.
Quoting Agustino
So you assume a relation between law and power, such that law only exists through the means of enforcement. Remember, your claim is that laws do not have existence unless they are being followed, so the existence of laws is dependent on enforcement.
Now, you separate power from laws, saying that power does not necessarily enforce. If power is not used to enforce rules, what is it used for? For example, you define power as the capacity to make people do what you want. Suppose one has that capacity, power, wouldn't that person be making rules so that the others would be doing what is wanted? Without rules, the others won't be doing what the one with power wants. And enforcement, according to you, is a necessary aspect of laws. So enforcement and power are related, according to your claims. The person has no power to make others do what is wanted, without enforcement.
The real issue, is that I believe you have the concept of power very confused. I think power is having people want to do what you want them to. So there is no issue of enforcement here, there is just an issue of letting the people know how they can best serve you. From this perspective, the powerful make rules and laws which the people obey because they want to obey them, not because of enforcement. Having power is not, as you claim, having the capacity to make people do what you want them to do, it is having the capacity to let people know what they want to do. In this way, they do what you want them to, willingly. They want to please you because what you say is logical, consistent, and meaningful, so they trust that in pleasing you, they are doing good tasks. With respect to power, "enforcement" is a misplaced concept. Enforcement is just a part of that illusion of power which is not real power. If one must enforce one's laws, instead of having the people follow the laws willingly, that person cannot be said to have any real power.
Quoting Agustino
My questions must be naĂŻve, because it is quite evident that your understanding of the nature of the relationship between laws, power, and the human will, is very naĂŻve. You think that the human will must be forced to follow laws. Of course this is contrary to the nature of will, which resists being forced to do anything. So I must lower myself to this manner of speaking until we can get beyond this basic misunderstanding.
Liberalism and neo-liberalism have been the guiding philosophy of the right and left in the US and Europe for a good number of years. You can see the impact of fathers of Liberalism (Adam Smith, John Locke) in the foundation of the United States. So, it's quite important that we address neo-liberalism because of its profound impact on political thought since a good number of years, here, in the US, and in Europe.
I'd even say that China has embraced neo-liberalism to a great extent in economic thought.
What does that have to do with my comments though?
What was the question?
My first comment was about not buying that "Nothing organizes labor and resources as well as the market." I pointed out a number of problems a la homelessness, lack of health care, etc. You made a comment about "Applying undue duress on the system for not fixing every socio-economic problem is not fair." I asked you to clarify what counts as "undue duress on the system." Then you responded by saying "I meant to say that neo-liberalism isn't the answer to the things you demand from it," But I wasn't saying anything about neo-liberalism. So I asked you why you brought up neo-liberalism.
So, what's the issue here? Is it that you are just unhappy that the market doesn't employ these people or what exactly?
I brought up neo-liberalism because that is/has been the guiding economic policy of the West for a great deal of time now in which 'enlightened self-interest' plays out as I have described in my OP.
The issue was simply that I disagree with this claim: "Nothing organizes labor and resources as well as the market."
I wasn't saying anything about "neo-liberalism."
I wish I knew what "enlightened" self-interest was. Is that what guides "enlightened despots"?
Yeah, I have my own, very idiosyncratic system I'd put in place instead, but it's not something I can detail very well in short message board posts. My system is a very idiosyncratic blend of socialism and libertarianism.
Well then, I guess most businessmen aren't "good businessmen" then.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I don't know based on what you're saying they are signs of bad business. Sounds more like an excuse to me. It's like me saying "oh getting injured in a mine happened because he's just a bad worker".
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Except that as far as I'm aware they haven't been able to pass judgement on him, even till today.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, they can't. They'll be replaced by someone who is willing to do it for less. The rich man has the power. The other one doesn't. If he wants to get paid, he must obey. The rich man, if he wants whatever he wants done, doesn't have to obey anyone. If someone refuses to do what he asks, he just needs to go to the next person. There's always another one waiting. The rich man will in the end still get what he wants.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No he's not obliged to pay anyone's requests in particular.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Sure.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That's if the fair-weather friend doesn't need the rich man's money.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What do you mean by "difficult"? It's a job not worth doing based on purely rewards vs risk analysis. That's why it's difficult.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
In what sense is there a law against pickpocketing if no pickpocketer ever gets punished? We can agree that if there is a written law, and it is never enforced, then it actually doesn't exist at all. Really this is not rocket science MU.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Power is more than simply the capacity to enforce laws, rules, etc. It also includes, for example, changing them.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, I haven't said it's just that. In fact, power has nothing with making people do what YOU want, only with making people do something.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, a phone call can be enough.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Is Trump powerful?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Riiiight, I guess we should remove all punishments from the law, people will just obey anyway. No punishment for breaking the law. Why the hell don't we do that?!
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
>:O >:O >:O Hahahaha! And clearly most people are very rational, and very capable to perceive that what you say is logical, consistent and meaningful.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What role do punishments for breaking the law play?
And don't take it the wrong way, I agree that people willingly doing X because they believe it is good, right, etc. is part of power. It's just not the only thing though. That's important for people in your family to do and inner circle. You obviously won't enforce rules against your wife to obey, or on your friends, or closest associates, etc. Such relationships are built on sentiment. But business relationships aren't built on sentiment. I can tell one of my clients, "look, you have a decision to make, you either pay me X, or we won't be working together anymore" - if I were to say the same thing to my wife, she'll hit me in the face. Why? Because it's a different kind of relationship. Power doesn't function in the same way in both cases, which is the mistake you are making.
Start a new thread if you'd like. Ill be the first to read through it.
Thank you for saving my virgin ears or rather eyes. O:)
But, then again wasn't Augustine a sinner before he became a saint?
Can you at least present the main arguments here or is that too much?
Yes, he used to pray "God give me chastity, but not yet!" ;)
It's like dried water; really useful, except for the slight drawback that it can't possibly exist.
It's ice, isn't it?
So, you would say that buying cheap goods, in the end, harms the poorest by supporting and perpetuating their exploitation?
It's not a simple yes/no answer, it depends on - everything. Other things being equal, a trade is supposed to benefit both parties, and other things being equal, choosing best value keeps the market competitive and efficient.
But other things are not equal. Economic leverage tilts the supposedly level playing field to the extent that when you buy coffee from a peasant farmer in Colombia, neither of you benefits and both of you are harmed, because the coffee trader takes all the benefit. This is why people have found it worthwhile to start a charitable organisation to promote Fair Trade. So it is not buying or not buying that harms or benefits anyone, but the distorted economic power relations between multinational companies, and small traders and consumers.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
What could "making people do something", which is not "making people do what you want", possibly mean? I'm trying to condense our principal difference of opinion here. You think that authority, laws, etc., to be effective, must be enforced. I think that these things, to be effective, must be followed willingly, without the use of force.
But when I question you on the specifics of "following orders", you shift off, seemingly implying that one cannot force others to do what one wants them to do. So if you accept, and respect the fact that you cannot force others to do what you want them to do, how does your system of laws and authority possibly work, when it is based in the principle of enforcement?
That's not true, I am completing what I have said as I say more. I hope you're not naive enough to think I can express all my views regarding power, the law, how society functions, etc. in just 1 or 2 posts right? You should stop drawing conclusions so fast and start listening more carefully - especially you should stop drawing conclusions that I've never made myself.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
For example, I make them do what my boss wants them to do. You have to understand that getting people to do something doesn't necessarily have to align with my will.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I haven't said this. This is exactly the bullshit that you do. I said that authority, laws, etc. don't exist unless they are enforced.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I said there are circumstances when you cannot force others to do as you want them to. There's also circumstances when you can force others to do as you want them to. I have even given you examples. I cannot force my wife to do as I want to, because that's not how power works in that relationship. I can, however, force my client to do as I want him, because power can work that way in that relationship.
I've told you that you think very naively, precisely because you think power functions univocally, and the same means will be used regardless of circumstance. But that's not true. If I'm a politician, I can force someone to drop out of the race, and let me run in their place, if for example I have access to sensitive information on them. I won't be able to do the same in a personal relationship. Obviously. Power doesn't function the same way across the border.
So we are all giving each other burdens of work as life moves forward in one repetitious wheel where we are the proverbial, nameless cogs? Yay life. If you want pessimism, think of life in economic terms. Yes, I know, even entertainment can be seen in terms of supply/demand.. oh yay, even more things to suck the illusion of essential good out of something.
Quoting Agustino
Ok, so let's take this example then. In the work place, you can get people to do what your boss wants of them. Isn't it the case that the people are following the company rules, to get things done the way that the boss wants them done, without you enforcing the rules? The people are getting paid to follow the rules, and payment is incentive to them, so that they want to follow rules. It is not the case that the rules are "enforced", and in most countries it would be illegal to enforce the rules. If one does not follow the company rules it may be possible to fire that person, but this is not a case of forcing one to follow the rules, it is case of dismissing the person who does not follow the rules.
In this example, is it not the case, that money is what allows your boss to get others to do what is wanted of them? It is not force, nor is it even the threat of force which gives the boss the capacity to tell others what to do. Since money allows your boss to get others to do what they are supposed to do, do you think that money is equivalent to power, or is money a form of power?
Quoting Agustino
I think it is the case that many laws exist which are not enforced. There are laws which are willfully followed, and it is simply a matter of people knowing the law, and wanting to follow the law, that supports the law. Clearly, in the work place, the rules are followed not because they are enforced, but for this reason, because people they want to remain a member of the company, take home their salary, so they learn the laws, and follow them.
This is the reason why I follow laws, not because the laws are enforced, but because I learn the laws, know them, and then I decide which ones of them, and in which situations, I should and should not follow them. The fact that I decide not to follow some laws some times, despite the threat of punishment by force, indicates that it is not enforcement which inclines me to follow laws.
Since it is really education, and training, which inclines people to follow laws, thereby supporting the existence of laws, and not enforcement as you keep insisting, the don't you think that the capacity to educate people is also a form of power? I think that education is the principal reason why people follow laws, therefore education is a form of power even higher than money. Even if someone wants to follow laws, to get paid, that person cannot do so without properly learning the law, and how to follow it.
Quoting Agustino
Don't start speaking about naivety again. Whenever "power" is mentioned, you digress into speaking about force. But force is an abuse of power, an evil, and evil is the manifestation of ignorance. Since you do not recognize true power as knowledge and education, it is quite obvious that you yourself, are uneducated.
:s You are greatly puzzling me. What do you think enforcement of rules is if not the application of punishment for breaking them, whether that punishment is a temporary salary cut, being fired, etc. Rules are enforced precisely when punishments are applied for breaking them. The existence and application of punishment is enforcement.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Money is a form of power, not equivalent to power I would say.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
First you talk about laws, then you talk about company rules. Decide. They're not exactly the same.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No it doesn't indicate that. Again, you're jumping to conclusions. It only indicates that enforcement is not sufficient to get you to follow laws.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
In any case, you're not talking about education, but rather how to get people to believe something. Propaganda has the same aim, and I doubt you'd call that education. Brute force, as I have stated before, is the least effective way to get someone to obey, which is why it generally is used last, when all other methods have failed.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Knowledge and education can be sources of power, as can money. Again, power doesn't have only one form. What you fail to note is that power constitutes the ability to get people to do something. There are multiple ways of doing this: one is brute force, another is propaganda, another is manipulation, another is education, etc.
And by the way, power can be used for both good and evil. Power in-itself is amoral.
To me, enforcement means forcing one to follow the rules. Payment for following the rules is not enforcement. Neither is not paying the person who does not follow the rules enforcement, because the person goes away unpaid and without following the rules.
Quoting Agustino
OK, so do we agree that enforcement is not sufficient for getting one to follow rules then?
Quoting Agustino
Yes, I think that education is pretty much "getting someone to believe something". That's what happens when we go to school, we are gotten to believe things. Why we are taught what we are taught, and the truth or falsity of what we are taught, is irrelevant to what education is, and that is getting us to believe things. Why would you not class propaganda as a form of education? That doesn't make sense to me. Clearly propaganda is used to educate.
However, I do not see how brute force could get someone to believe something, this seems contrary to education. If all methods for education fail, and one is reduced to the use of brute force, then the brute force is not meant to educate, unless it is carried out as an example to others. More often though, it is meant simply to protect oneself from the uneducated barbarian, or something like that.
Quoting Agustino
I really do not see how brute force can get someone to do something. Do you think that after the person is beaten to a pulp, the person will be doing what is wanted of them? Perhaps the threat of force might get someone to do something, but that's not the same as force itself, is it? The threat of force is actually meant to get someone to believe that if they do not do what is wanted of them, force will be used against them. But this "getting someone to believe" is a form of education, it is not a form of force.
I think you should give up this notion, that force is at all useful for getting someone to do something. Clearly it is completely useless for such endeavors. And if power is having the capacity to get people to do things, then force is not related to power at all. The idea that force is related to power is an absurd misunderstanding.