Socialism

[ribozyme]

You’ve just described exactly what our government does by taxing. Each year I HAVE TO give thousands of bucks to the US govt. That’s money I could have directly sent to New Orleans or Biloxi, but no, my government thinks it has better ideas than I when it comes to my own money, and who know what their doing with it? Depleted uranium shells? Propping up a dictator somewhere? Lining somebody’s pockets?

One can legitimately disagree with government spending (personally, I do not endorse the war in Iraq). However, some tax dollars do not go to waste; for example, some of your money is allocated to the NIH to sponsor scientific research. Do you have an objection regarding that spending decision?

 

[system]

One can legitimately disagree with government spending (personally, I do not endorse the war in Iraq). However, some tax dollars do not go to waste; for example, some of your money is allocated to the NIH to sponsor scientific research. Do you have an objection regarding that spending decision?

The NIH, eh? Sure they can have a few bucks.

But isn’t that the whole point? We DON’T have a choice how it is spent. Looking at your last couple posts, I think we agree on that.

But on the distribution issue, it seems our democratic republic is no different than the sort of socialism described above.

 

[milde]

But on the distribution issue, it seems our democratic republic is no different than the sort of socialism described above.

Correct. France and Germany are democracies just like we are but they’ve gone further towards socialism than we have. And just as you would expect, they lowered the standard of living for all in their country, rich and poor, by going further and further in the direction of plundering the golden goose of capitalism. Things like richly promised pensions, retirement at 55, and 35 hour work weeks caused havoc. They ended up with high unemployment, less job satisfaction, less available medical care, and a middle class with a standard of living below the US poverty line.

But a lot of people don’t let all that stand in the way of trying to get a free lunch at someone else’s expense. It’s enough to just make you want to live on an island somewhere and eat coconuts the rest of your life.

 

[Al_Masetti]

One can legitimately disagree with government spending (personally, I do not endorse the war in Iraq). However, some tax dollars do not go to waste; for example, some of your money is allocated to the NIH to sponsor scientific research. Do you have an objection regarding that spending decision?

Having actual data helps the discussion.

About 20% of the Federal governemt’s budget goes for military spending. [Some say it’s 30%]

This means that 70 to 80% is not for military.

There is also an argument that research spending by NIH stifles rather than encourages research. Because NIH tends to require elaborate grant request forms and because NIH tends to favor certain research directions.

There is a whole world of non-government research that discussers and debaters need to explore and look at. To see where the most productive use of our research money is.

 

[ribozyme]

It really comes down to charity. Allow people personal choice on how to use the assets they have earned. No one has a right to assign the property of others over to someone else.

I really believe most people have too little faith in human charity. It’s amazing what people will do when you let them instead of trying to force them.

Do you really think humans are extremely charitable? Peter Singer gave an empirical counter-argument to this notion by noting that we prefer to spend excess money instead of giving to charity. I doubt some of the posters even sincerely think that human charity is actually a virtue. I am not saying that I am a pillar of moral rectitude though because I know my own biology precludes me from this. (My hero, Peter Singer, isn’t too.)

I will reiterate Singer:

So how does my philosophy break down in dollars and cents? An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities, according to the Conference Board, a nonprofit economic research organization. Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world’s poor should be as close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000. Again, the formula is simple: whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.

Now, evolutionary psychologists tell us that human nature just isn’t sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so much for strangers.

Yes, Peter Singer is correct; that type of charity occurs rarely within our species. Want to challenge that?

BTW, I wasn’t advocating socialism in this thread during my last few posts; instead, I am advocating techno-utopianism. I did not explicitly advocate government redistribution of our *current *resources, so stop railing about that issue. And yes, I also admitted that socialism will not work under the species Homo sapiens.

Returning to the topic, I want people here to answer my question about human charity as I doubt the people here who extoll the virtue actually believe in it. My question is: do you want the human species to be more charitable? I doubt some of the posters sincerely wish for that as you will not even consider some radical proposals to foster charity within humanity.

However, I think Peter Singer is actually sincere about the utility of charity and he does sincerely value it given what his other material he has written about human charity.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Do you really think humans are extremely charitable?
…

Returning to the topic, I want people here to answer my question about human charity as I doubt the people here who extoll the virtue actually believe in it. My question is: do you want the human species to be more charitable? I doubt some of the posters sincerely wish for that as you will not even consider some radical proposals to foster charity within humanity.

Do I really think humans are extremely charitable?

Yes.

With their time and with their money.

 

[milde]

Do you really think humans are extremely charitable?

Yes, I really do. Recent history has shown that you can literally kill a million people in an African country and Americans just wonder what you are talking about when you try to tell them. It’s not because they don’t care about people but because they don’t understand.

Charity happens in a person’s very close social circle. Families take care of family members. People participate in activities with their church, etc.

 

[ribozyme]

Then if you sincerely value the virtue of charity, do you think using genetic engineering to augment this trait is a good idea? This is Peter Singer’s proposal in* A Darwinian Left*.

Singer advocates this because he realizes humans are not exceptionally altruistic as he notes that people tend to spend more on personal luxuries in comparison to charity.

Another theorist who argues that egalitarians should embrace subsidized germinal choice technology, including enhancement, is the Princeton University Bioethicist Peter Singer. In Singer’s 2001 A Darwin Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation, he argues that the Left has ignored and denied the sociobiological constraints on politics to its down detriment. Singer contends that there is a biologically rooted tendency towards selfishness and hierarchy in human nature that undermines egalitarian social reforms. If ambitious egalitarian programs of social reform and democratic cooperation are to succeed, Singer argues, we must employ the new genetic and neurological sciences to identify and modify the aspects of of human nature that cause conflict and competition. "In a more distant future we can still barely glimpse, it may turn out to be a prerequisite for a new kind of freedom: the freedom to shape our genes, we can build the kind of society we judge best.

From page 198 in Citizen Cyborg. I did not read A Darwinian Left, but I should. If you sincerely value the virtue of charity, you would agree with Singer’s proposal. Charity would not be difficult for humans, but it would be extremely facile instead.

Socialism will never work because humans are limited in the ability to perform charitable acts.

But if humans are charitable, why not make them more charitable. I suppose this would be a failsafe to prevent nations obtaining a high gini coefficent.

 

[milde]

Then if you sincerely value the virtue of charity, do you think using genetic engineering to augment this trait? This is Peter Singer’s proposal in* A Darwinian Left*?

Singer advocates this because he realizes humans are not exceptionally altruistic as he notes that people tend to spend more on personal luxuries in comparison to charity.

From page 198 in Citizen Cyborg. I did not read A Darwinian Left, but I should. If you sincerely value the virtue of charity, you would agree with Singer’s proposal. Charity would not be difficult for humans, but it would be extremely facile instead.

Socialism will never work because humans are limited in the ability to perform charitable acts.

But if humans are charitable, why not make them more charitable. I suppose this would be a failsafe to prevent nations obtaining a high gini coefficent.

I obviously disagree with giving a group of people the power to make another group of people more anything. That’s where you draw the line. Seems obvious to me, but those on the left always want to dictate how others should live their lives through the use of law and government force.

People are charitable. If you want to try and persuade them to be more charitable I’m in full agreement. You do it with leaders who have character and values. You live the life you think others should adopt. You do not threaten them with jail time if they do not comply to your wishes to give up your hard earned money.

 

[milde]

By the way, republicans give more each year to charity than democrats. It’s somewhat ironic considering democrats are the ones on the bandwagon about redistributing wealth. They talk to the talk but only as long as it is someone else’s hard earned money and not their own. When it comes to their own personal money they keep it in their pocket.

 

[ribozyme]

That’s where you draw the line. Seems obvious to me, but those on the left always want to dictate how others should live their lives through the use of law and government force.

People are charitable. If you want to try and persuade them to be more charitable I’m in full agreement. You do it with leaders who have character and values. You live the life you think others should adopt. You do not threaten them with jail time if they do not comply to your wishes to give up your hard earned money.

It seems that you actually value selfishness, not charity. Singer was not proposing government interventions; instead, he was proposing using genetic engineering to make humans charitable. He does realize our evolutionary heritage severely limits human charity. Show me how humans can be an exceptionally charitable species when most of them (generally) spend their excess money on luxuries and vices (such as pornography) instead of donating it to charity.

Singer did not propose jail time; he simply realizes the current limitations of human nature. It isn’t politics that is our enemy; it is human nature and biology that precludes extremely altruistic behavior. With altrustic humans, such laws would be rendered unnecessary.

But again, Singer wants to foster human charity not selfishness and I believe he is sincere in his goal. Yes, I wouldn’t mind being engineered to be extremely charitable.

 

[milde]

It seems that you actually value selfishness, not charity.

Selfishness is extremely important. It’s the force behind capitalism and the thing that makes people work hard all day long at their jobs. It’s why when you go to wal-mart there was someone there that morning that stocked the shelves for you.

How would you genetically alter people to make them more charitable without government? If one chose to impose this upon others how do you convince the people getting the charity gene to comply?

 

[ribozyme]

By the way, republicans give more each year to charity than democrats. It’s somewhat ironic considering democrats are the ones on the bandwagon about redistributing wealth. They talk to the talk but only as long as it is someone else’s hard earned money and not their own. When it comes to their own personal money they keep it in their pocket.

I did not rail on the republicans or big business; instead, I railed on human nature. The only exception, perhaps, was AstraZeneca’s profits on a proton pump inhibitor (esomeprazole). But I even defended OSI Pharmaceuticals (and Genentech and Roche) profits on their drug erlotinib, even if it is priced so high that some people who could benefit from it would not have access:

I guess we can deny some terminal cancer patients their bevacizumab and erlotinib if they cannot pay. Those pharmaceuticals only offer a few months in life extension anyway.

I supposed it is justified in a utilitarian system (assuming the money is used to pay for more R&D instead of marketing or the opulent lifestyle of the board of directors). I suppose it is justified in a Catholic moral theology too because I think erlotinib and bevacizumab may count as extraordinary interventions to extend life in the Catholic system.

…

Ok there are consequences for the free market… like I said denying people drugs. For example, erlotinib made about 600 million in sales in 2006. However I do believe OSI Pharmaceuticals need the money to sponsor other trials for their other oncology products that is in their pipeline

So I am not against profits per se. It does not upset me that a pharmaceutical company made so much money for selling their drug in a capitalistic marketplace as long as it funds new innovation. I suppose money, not the putative “benevolent” Christian God will provide medical breakthroughs.

 

[milde]

So I am not against profits per se. It does not upset me that a pharmaceutical company made so much money for selling their drug in a capitalistic marketplace as long as it funds new innovation. I suppose money, not the putative “benevolent” Christian God will provide medical breakthroughs.

Exactly. You cannot begrudge the few that get wildly rich by working hard and taking chances with their own capital in business. That is a side affect of capitalism. On a percentage basis it is quite small. The rewards to all of us “commoners” is far greater than the wealth brought to the fortunate few.

 

[ribozyme]

Selfishness is extremely important. It’s the force behind capitalism and the thing that makes people work hard all day long at their jobs. It’s why when you go to wal-mart there was someone there that morning that stocked the shelves for you.

How would you genetically alter people to make them more charitable without government? If one chose to impose this upon others how do you convince the people getting the charity gene to comply?

If we have a naturally predilection towards charity, that regulatory bogeyman that you constantly objurgate against (government redistribution) would be redundant. I thought you would find such a proposal exciting as it would eliminate the intrusive government wealth distribution as the people would simply do it themselves. But, of course, this isn’t the case; people spend their excess money on positional goods and opulent luxuries.

Socialism does not work because of human selfishness. People, unfortunately, do not have a propensity to work for the greater good. It is not because selfishness is a virtue or extremely important; it is simply our biological programming is not conducive for utilitarian thinking.

 

[milde]

Socialism does not work because of human selfishness. People, unfortunately, do not have a propensity to work for the greater good. It is not because selfishness is a virtue or extremely important; it is simply our biological programming is not conducive for utilitarian thinking.

History has shown that it is not necessary for people to “work for the greater good”? Do you have some evidence this is important, or does it just have a good ring to it when people say the words?

We’ve already conceded that capitalism produces more, even for the poor and those that choose not to participate but value their cable TV more.

People spend their own money very selfishly. But that’s the beauty of capitalism. When they spend the money they are employing others. People don’t actually get nearly as much for their hard work and money as you might imagine. Capitalism allows for a framework where that waste is recaptured and quickly recycled into value.

Selfishness also does not stop people from being charitable. The two are hardly mutually exclusive.

 

[ribozyme]

History has shown that it is not necessary for people to “work for the greater good”? Do you have some evidence this is important, or does it just have a good ring to it when people say the words?

We’ve already conceded that capitalism produces more, even for the poor and those that choose not to participate but value their cable TV more.

People spend their own money very selfishly. But that’s the beauty of capitalism. When they spend the money they are employing others. People don’t actually get nearly as much for their hard work and money as you might imagine. Capitalism allows for a framework where that waste is recaptured and quickly recycled into value.

Selfishness also does not stop people from being charitable. The two are hardly mutually exclusive.

I got the answer I was trying to elicit; you seem to value selfishness and not altruistic self-abnegation. I know Peter Singer was actually sincere about the virtue of charity while the posters on this thread isn’t. How ironic that the incarnation of the devil (according to Catholics because he specifically denies a sanctity of life ethic) emphasizes charity more than Catholics do.

Now for talking about “terms that a good ring to it” that probably have vacuous meaning, I think “culture of life” is one of the too.

In August 2001, President George W. Bush told Americans that he worried about “a culture that devalues life,” and that he believed that, as President of the United States, he has “an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.”

That belief lay behind Bush’s denial of federal government funds for stem-cell research that could encourage the destruction of human embryos. Although the Bush administration acknowledged that some scientists believe stem cell research could offer new ways of treating diseases that affect 128 million Americans, this prospect evidently did not, in Bush’s view, justify destroying human embryos.

Last month, the military forces that this same president commands aimed a missile at a house in Damadola, a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border. Eighteen people were killed, among them five children. The target of the attack, Al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was not among the dead, although lesser figures in the terrorist organization reportedly were.

Bush did not apologize for the attack, nor did he reprimand those who ordered it. Apparently, he believes that the chance of killing an important terrorist leader is sufficient justification for firing a missile that will almost certainly kill innocent human beings.

…

It might be possible to justify the loss of innocent human life in Damadola by a utilitarian calculation that killing Al Qaeda’s leaders will, in the long run, save a larger number of innocent human beings. After all, if they remain at large, they may succeed in carrying out further terrorist attacks that take hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives. Bush, however, cannot rely on that argument, for it is precisely the kind of justification that he rejects when it comes to destroying embryos in order to save, in the long run, those dying from diseases for which we currently have no cure.

…

Nevertheless, the doctrine that it is acceptable to take actions that will foreseeably kill innocent people can have the effect of leading us to treat more lightly than we should the deaths of those killed. That, it seems, is what has happened somewhere in the American chain of command. The presence of a Taliban truck does not justify bombing a village in which civilians are going about their daily lives. Killing innocent people in order to bring a kind of rough justice to “Chemical Ali” – a particularly nasty member of Saddam’s military elite, but one who at the time of the raid was no longer in command of military forces – is wrong.
**
A culture that allows – and even endorses – such tactics is not one that is genuinely committed to encouraging respect for life.** We can be quite sure that American forces would not have acted in the same way if the civilians nearby had been other Americans.

utilitarian.net/singer/by/200601–02.htm

So do the religious/economically conservative people actually value life? Sorry to bring politics into this… but I do appreciate Singer’s ability to show how hypocritical and insincere some people can be regarding their own beliefs.

 

[system]

I.
… but I do appreciate Singer’s ability to show how hypocritical and insincere some people can be regarding their own beliefs.

Do you actually believe that finding fault in others is some sort of special gift?

Any observant experienced human being could my faults after meeting me once or twice. I would hope they have the class and dignity not to mention it to the world, but rather privately to me if it is some flaw I’m unaware of.

 

[Al_Masetti]

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw

That’s an amusing three minute and twenty second YouTube illustration of why government-based solutions don’t work.

 

[ribozyme]

Do you actually believe that finding fault in others is some sort of special gift?

Any observant experienced human being could my faults after meeting me once or twice. I would hope they have the class and dignity not to mention it to the world, but rather privately to me if it is some flaw I’m unaware of.

No, Singer was actually being serious. For example, members of the religious right claim to be a pillar of moral rectitude. Furthermore, they claim that they “respect human life,” but it shows endorse conduct that is antithetical to their beliefs such as bombing innocent civilians.

They do not genuflect before “the culture of life;” most of the material I have read in this thread is consistent with the philosophy of Ayn Rand who expatiated that selfishness is a virtue.