Society is a group of people, where everybody is born with his or her own set of skills. These skills are used to gain an income. The more skillful you are the higher your income can become.
Everybody is absolutely free to do with his income as he pleases. Any attempt to order the individual to spend his money on well defined targets is an infringement on personal freedom.
This means that every institution in society should be contract based. Those who pay for it, will benefit from it. Nobody is obliged to pay. Such an obligation is regarded as TAKING money from a free person and spending it against his will on issues he doesn't agree to.
A free market helps to select those who are good at different enterprises and those who are not. Any attempt to interfere with this process will disrupt the market.
From my Ayn Rand lecture" "3.Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
You find the Ayn Rand Lectures under May 2009, nr. 17a and 17b. Watch out, 17b also contains the more important ones 17c and 17d.
I think that this comes close to the views of TDDiscovery (participated in the discussion of the former lecture [254]), or at least he will agree with it. This is absolute liberalism. Maybe it is even a stronger version of liberalism: Libertarianism.
The origin of libertarianism is interesting, as it is inspired by the ideas of Bernard Mandeville, born in the Netherlands, Rotterdam in 1670, but most of his life he lived in England where he died in 1733.
Mandeville arrives at a very contemporaneously vile conclusion: vice as a necessary condition for economic prosperity. His viewpoint is more severe when juxtaposed to Adam Smith's.
Both Smith and Mandeville believed that individuals’ collective actions bring about a public benefit . However, what sets his philosophy apart from Smith’s is his catalyst to that public benefit.
Smith believed in a virtuous self-interest which results in invisible cooperation. For the most part, Smith saw no need for a guide to garner that public benefit.
On the other hand, Mandeville believed it was vicious greed which led to invisible cooperation if properly channeled.
Mandeville’s qualification of proper channeling further parts his philosophy from Smith’s laissez-faire attitude. Essentially, Mandeville called for politicians to ensure that the passions of man would result in a public benefit.
It was his stated belief in his book " Fable of the Bees" that "Private Vices by the dextrous Management of a skilful Politician may be turned into Publick Benefits” Mandeville has nice examples to underpin his point of view that "private vices are public benefits." A libertine, for example, is a vicious character, and yet his spending will employ tailors, servants, perfumers, cooks, and prostitutes
Well, like the communist system has collapsed as a not working model of a society, also Mandeville's idea that greed leads to public benefits doesn't seem to make it. Our present crisis seems to demonstrates that.
So we have to continue our quest to gain moor insight in Liberalism. Is it a working model for society or not and in what way. At least we have to prevent that the world turns into a Tea Party…..
The Discussion
[13:21] herman Bergson: The reference to the Tea Party may not be understood by everyone ㋡ [13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!! [13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: omg yes [13:22] herman Bergson: But the Tea Party is a very strong ultra libertarian movement in the US today [13:22] herman Bergson: Gemma understands...I expected that [13:22] Bejiita Imako: ok [13:22] Kiki Walpanheim is googling tea party [13:22] Repose Lionheart: hehe [13:23] herman Bergson: The Movement is more Republican than all Republicans together [13:23] Bejiita Imako: hmm checking too [13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: yes it is and with no real leadership [13:23] herman Bergson: and I have a feeling it is in its ideology appealing to Mandeville's truth: greed [13:23] herman Bergson: and self-interest [13:24] Bejiita Imako: aaa ok now i get it [13:24] Bejiita Imako: :) [13:24] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks..plz feel free ㋡ [13:24] Repose Lionheart: well, stupidity too...hope politicians can channel stupidity toward good ㋡ [13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: oh gosh i doubt it [13:24] Bejiita Imako: indeed [13:24] Repose Lionheart: so do i ㋡ [13:25] herman Bergson: Well stupidity is an improper word,Repose... [13:25] Repose Lionheart: ignorance, maybe [13:25] herman Bergson: It obscures the true reasons of this kind of political behavior [13:25] Repose Lionheart: ahhh... [13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: one winning candidate backed by the tea "party" has already put his foot so far down his throat yesterday he may not be able to get it out! [13:25] herman Bergson: No...you have to ask for the motives of this behavior [13:25] Repose Lionheart: i see [13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: tried to take apart the civil rights law of the land [13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: in some words [13:26] Bejiita Imako: sometime i feel that politicans and organisations like those just read the rules and act like a computer on them with no feelings or own logic thinking [13:26] herman Bergson: What does that mean Gemma? [13:26] Kiki Walpanheim: but when everyone is acting on the self interest only...it is not always beneficial to the society as a whole... [13:27] herman Bergson: In my lecture on Rand I already analyzed the concept of self-interest... [13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: he stated that if he were around at the time of passage, there would have been a discussion on where it should apply to private businesses [13:28] Bejiita Imako: one of the saddest examples here is the immigration society, they sometime send back people to a certain death or torture because " there are no circumstances in the rules that say they can stay" [13:28] Bejiita Imako: make me really sad [13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes [13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: should the government prohibit private business from keeping certian people put of the place [13:28] herman Bergson: Well clear libertarianism in that Tea PArty movement then I guess [13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: we will see how far it goes [13:29] herman Bergson: But about self - interest.... [13:29] Repose Lionheart: yes, there is, i think [13:29] herman Bergson: It is a word and seems to describe a property of the human being [13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: it's about whether motives define morals, ,or consequence defines it [13:29] herman Bergson: However...what does it denotes...? [13:30] herman Bergson: Well...you point at behavior...ok....but behavior includes motives [13:30] Repose Lionheart: libertarians have a very narrow understanding of "self-interest" [13:30] herman Bergson: yes Repose....so you have to look for the motives of behavior [13:31] herman Bergson: and then the word self - interest becomes void... [13:31] Repose Lionheart: they usually buy into the romanticism of hyper-individualisism [13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: never really thought of that as the basic motive [13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: self-interest might not be moral based on the intent, but based on the consequence, could be [13:31] Repose Lionheart: yes ㋡ [13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: interesting [13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: now i can see it lolol [13:31] herman Bergson: for there is no such quality like self interest in humans [13:31] herman Bergson: there are motives for actions... [13:31] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes, i see [13:32] herman Bergson: so to understand what it is all about we have to bring these motives to the surface and discuss these motives [13:33] herman Bergson: Then we are talking politics [13:33] Repose Lionheart: hmmm.... [13:33] Kiki Walpanheim whispers: on how self interest is restrained and guided? [13:33] herman Bergson: One of the motives was greed....Mandeville believed it would lead to public benefit when channeled properly [13:34] herman Bergson: It makes no sense to discuss something like self-interest... [13:34] Bejiita Imako: hmm that can never lead to something good [13:35] Bejiita Imako: as u said before thats what we see today [13:35] herman Bergson: So it did...Bejiita.. [13:35] herman Bergson: The financial crisis is motivated only by greed.... [13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: just a synonym for greed... [13:35] herman Bergson: maximizing the profits....for what good? [13:35] Bejiita Imako: yes [13:35] herman Bergson: not a social good..that is clear [13:35] Repose Lionheart: well, when the powerful are greedy, they are able to corrupt the system for their own benefit [13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: very [13:36] Bejiita Imako: and in greece today, and Dubai, think they just can use money like water with no thought at all and look what have happened [13:36] Bejiita Imako: totally crashed the economy now [13:36] herman Bergson: Yes REpose...but how much sense does it make? [13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: in game theory, as in the case of prisoner's dilemma, it could lead to problems collectively... [13:36] Repose Lionheart: libertarianism does not take such human frailty into sufficient account, i think [13:36] Repose Lionheart: oh...sense [13:36] herman Bergson: No..it doesnt.... [13:36] herman Bergson: But what I dont understand.... [13:37] herman Bergson: You get a bonus of 10 million dollar... [13:37] herman Bergson: the next year another one... [13:37] herman Bergson: what to do with all that money? [13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: regardless of performance [13:37] herman Bergson: Even that Gemma yes [13:38] Repose Lionheart: ahhhh...maybe greed, and vice more generally, introduce irrationalities into the system [13:38] Bejiita Imako: hmm yes they want more and more even they cant make use of it [13:38] herman Bergson: Why are people so attacted by huge sums of money... [13:38] herman Bergson: You havent the lifetime to spend it all for instance [13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:38] Repose Lionheart: the irrationalities undercut those like Mandeville who are ethically attempting to square the circle [13:38] Bejiita Imako: i use top say money is worhless untill u buy something good for it [13:38] herman Bergson: Bill Gates is giving away lots of his billions to charity purposes… [13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: oh he is great at giving money [13:39] Bejiita Imako: and the worth is in that thing cause that is useable for something while money is just money [13:39] herman Bergson: yes...but the amount he posses is so absurd Gemma [13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: I know and so does he [13:39] herman Bergson: Property and the free accumulation of property...that is what our society approves [13:39] Repose Lionheart: yes [13:40] Bejiita Imako: too much money in few hands and the others can barley afford food for the day [13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: his foundation gets MOST of it [13:40] Bejiita Imako: thats not right [13:40] herman Bergson: But I think ..at a given moment you pass the limit of rationality... [13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: I agree [13:40] Repose Lionheart: yes [13:40] Zinzi Serevi: yes [13:40] Zinzi's translator: yes [13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: that is why there is a huge oligarchy emerging here in the USA [13:40] herman Bergson: That is what all these financial guys lack...rationality...which leads to ethics [13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: most do not give [13:41] Repose Lionheart: but that shows the system is not simply rational [13:41] herman Bergson: It is not , indeed Repose... [13:41] herman Bergson: That is the weak point of liberalism.... [13:41] Repose Lionheart: the libertarian flaw is just there [13:41] Repose Lionheart: yes [13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: in cases of public goods, natural monopoly, environment......free market might not work that well [13:41] herman Bergson: it presuposes a rational being, but the financial world shows proven irrational behavior [13:42] Repose Lionheart: yesss [13:42] Bejiita Imako: ah [13:42] herman Bergson: No Kiki.....you are right.... [13:42] herman Bergson: What we have to find out is what is the public good [13:42] herman Bergson: and how does it relate to private property [13:43] herman Bergson: and what is the right balance between the two [13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: like...public roads.. which benefit ppl in a society as a whole [13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes, and not at all sure... [13:43] Repose Lionheart: agree Kiki [13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: electricity, water supply.... [13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes [13:44] herman Bergson: Yes..and these public roads..they offer individuals private property... [13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: which is...built once in a large scale, then used for a long time [13:44] herman Bergson: the trucking company which makes profits by using these roads [13:44] Bejiita Imako: hmm one example of that is a power company we have here in sweden called Vattenfall ( Waterfall) [13:44] Repose Lionheart: oh [13:45] Bejiita Imako: the bosses take bonus after bonus and give the consumers horrible bills to pay for those bonuses [13:45] herman Bergson: Yes...so our reseauch goes on....to define the public good.... [13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: yes [13:45] herman Bergson: and bonus for what Nejiita? [13:46] Bejiita Imako: also we have a strange system where the price is set after tle most expensive power which means that of one single coal plant wich is most expensive and have high environmental tax [13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: and problems environment generally dont effect the firms' benefits unless they are more or less regulated [13:47] Bejiita Imako: then it dont matter if we have 1000 hydrolants with cheap power running, the price is set after that last coal plant and also go to the bosses pockets [13:47] Bejiita Imako: at least as i understand it [13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: sounds familiar [13:47] herman Bergson: I know that system Bejiita...here the price of electricity is connected to the price of oil I think [13:47] Bejiita Imako: yes [13:47] Bejiita Imako: no good thing [13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: also in the case of health insurance....i am still not sure if it is wise if it is entirely private..regarding adverse selection.. [13:48] Bejiita Imako: factories that produce base stuff like paper steel and so have to close because of that [13:48] Repose Lionheart: all very interesting...high prices though assure conservation [13:48] herman Bergson: no...absurd because the power plants use cola of gas [13:48] Repose Lionheart: and energy efficiency [13:48] Bejiita Imako: that need lot of power but make stuff that are absolute neccesaru for society to function [13:48] herman Bergson: coal...I mean...the employees use cola [13:49] Repose Lionheart: lol [13:49] Bejiita Imako: :) [13:49] herman Bergson: powerd by cola [13:49] Bejiita Imako: hehye [13:49] Bejiita Imako: damn now u got me thirsty [13:49] Bejiita Imako: :) [13:49] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa [13:49] herman Bergson: Well I think it is clear that extreme liberalism doesnt work and that private vices dont lead to public benefits [13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:50] Repose Lionheart: ㋡ [13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: more Tuesday? [13:50] Bejiita Imako: indeed [13:51] herman Bergson: Oh yes Gemma....we still have a long and winding road ahead... [13:51] Repose Lionheart: ㋡ [13:51] Repose Lionheart: yay [13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: i guess lol [13:51] herman Bergson: that may lead to your door...but that is another story ㋡ [13:51] Bejiita Imako: this was some good stuff for sure [13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: i used to think intentions determines if something is moral..... [13:51] Abraxas Nagy: yep it always is m8 [13:51] Bejiita Imako: this is precisley those things im mad about every time i open a newspaper [13:52] Bejiita Imako: now i got to vent that a bit [13:52] Bejiita Imako: hehe [13:52] Abraxas Nagy: same here [13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol [13:52] herman Bergson: I understand Bejiita... [13:52] herman Bergson: Me too [13:52] Abraxas Nagy: I better not start [13:52] herman Bergson: Exactly Abraxas... [13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: and look for something better [13:52] Bejiita Imako: :) [13:53] herman Bergson: But we will continue our quest into the realms of Liberalism.... [13:53] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm human nature plays a role [13:53] Bejiita Imako: aah [13:53] herman Bergson: So thank you for you great disussion again [13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you professor and all [13:53] Zinzi Serevi: thank you for the lecture [13:53] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!) [13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥ [13:53] Daruma Boa: thank u herman [13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: see you next week [13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday [13:53] Abraxas Nagy: ah thank YOU professor [13:53] herman Bergson: Yes..Abraxas...what is human nature...we might find out [13:53] herman Bergson: class dismissed ㋡ [13:53] Saint Back: thanks a lot [13:53] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡ [13:53] Bejiita Imako: aa hope so [13:54] Abraxas Nagy: mmm yes looking to politics shows a lot [13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: bye all [13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok cu all [13:54] Daruma Boa: hope 2 be here next week. [13:54] Abraxas Nagy: c ya Bejjita [13:54] Abraxas Nagy: I hope so to Daruma [13:54] herman Bergson: You are welcome Daruma [13:54] Bejiita Imako: going to OKm now [13:54] Daruma Boa: have a great weekend;-) [13:54] Bejiita Imako: OM [13:54] herman Bergson: What message did you send? [13:54] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye [13:54] Zinzi's translator: bye bye [13:54] Abraxas Nagy: you to Daruma :D [13:54] herman Bergson: Your notice? [13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks herman and class :-)) see u tuesday [13:55] herman Bergson: Ok Bergie... xxx [13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-)+y
[13:06] herman Bergson: Gemma isnt there... [13:06] herman Bergson: Qwark??? [13:06] Abraxas Nagy: she isnt well herman [13:07] herman Bergson: oh dear... [13:07] Qwark Allen: yes [13:07] Qwark Allen: she is sick [13:07] herman Bergson: bad news... :-( [13:07] Abraxas Nagy: the flew ? [13:07] Qwark Allen: with some food poisoning, since yesterday [13:07] herman Bergson: nothing serious I hope [13:07] Qwark Allen: no [13:07] Qwark Allen: just feeling bad, cause of vomiting [13:07] Zinzi Serevi: poor girl [13:08] Abraxas Nagy: awww :( [13:08] Qwark Allen: yes, terrible [13:08] herman Bergson: heard that story before last week....friend of mine same thing... [13:08] Abraxas Nagy: wow [13:08] Qwark Allen: could be a virus also [13:08] Qwark Allen: they do sometimes things like this [13:08] herman Bergson: Both US.... [13:08] Abraxas Nagy: it probably is m8 [13:08] Qwark Allen: yes [13:09] Qwark Allen: it`s a "bug" for sure [13:09] Qwark Allen: ╔╗╔═╦╗ [13:09] Qwark Allen: ║╚╣║║╚╗ [13:09] Qwark Allen: ╚═╩═╩═╝ [13:09] bergfrau Apfelbaum: lol [13:09] herman Bergson: she should reset the system [13:09] Qwark Allen: eehheeh [13:09] Abraxas Nagy: vomitting and feeling rotten.. are the sympthoms [13:09] Qwark Allen: i told her to run the antivirus next time [13:09] Qwark Allen: lol [13:09] Abraxas Nagy: often [13:09] herman Bergson: lol...most effective [13:10] herman Bergson: Well let's hope for the best...my friend recovered after a few days...next time Gemma will be up and running [13:10] Qwark Allen: yes, i hope so to [13:10] herman Bergson: Let's turn to the subject of today... [13:11] herman Bergson: Ok...let me begin
To show you how close our philosophical discourse here in class is to reality I'd like to tell you about an article I read in my newspaper this very morning.
The article was an in-depth analysis of the masses and in particular of the behavior of the masses of speculators on the free money market, one of the goodies of liberalism.
The main theme was that speculators claim to act rationally on movements in the market, but reality shows that they don't act on rational analyses of facts at all, they just run after each other.
China is hot so they all run to China for investments and as soon as someone drops the message "The inflation in China is increasing rapidly" the masses of speculators turn their back on China and run, which causes inflation to increase rapidly indeed.
Then the author compares this with the behavior of voters in a democracy, where you see similar behavior of the masses and his conclusion is almost literally "quoted" from my lectures.
Democracy", he writes, " can only function properly if the voters demand certain standards of honesty and truthfulness. You could demand that from speculators too.Voter and speculator have to be re-educated and restricted by rules, so that these irrationally motivated movements of the masses not become too dominant"
Here I read exactly what we are studying here. One : the idea that the individual is , and should be free Two : we need virtues like honesty and truthfulness to show better behavior Three: We can achieve that by education
These are literally the ideas we heard last week in the lecture on Adam Smith. A positive view on humankind: one can be a better man by being virtuous. This will improve the proper functioning of a free market and in this development education is quintessential.
By definition, a liberal is one who believes in liberty, but because different people at different times have meant different things by liberty, “liberalism” is correspondingly ambiguous.
Liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in ‘a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man’ (Locke).
John Stuart Mill too argued that ‘the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’.
This means, that freedom to act is a normative basic of being. You could call this natural law. One of the laws of nature philosophers kept looking for since Newton.
Thus, not freedom, but any attempt to restrict our freedom should be justified. The burden of proof lies by those who want to restrict us. To begin with our government and its endless flood of laws and regulations.
Consequently, a central question of liberal political theory is whether political authority can be justified, and if so, how. And as we have seen, to begin with Hobbes, the political philosophers came up with the Social Contract theory.
An other element that will need our attention is, that the origin of liberalism is closely related to the French Revolution of 1789. In particular with its slogan "Freedom, equality and fraternity".
We already discussed the concept of freedom / liberty, but equally important is the concept of equality. This equality is a presupposition of liberalism …. or are not all men equal? Are some men maybe "more equal", to wink at "Animal Farm" by George Orwell?
Lots of work to do here………
The Discussion
[13:21] herman Bergson: so much for a kick off [13:22] herman Bergson: There are many questions to answer, as there are many different theories on liberalism [13:22] TBDiscovery Harbour: The part about equality that catches my eye is that a free market helps to select those who are good at different enterprises and those who are not. Any attempt to maintain equality in that sense would be akin to egalitarianism or utopia. [13:22] herman Bergson: besides that..is it a good theory for all mankind for instance [13:23] herman Bergson: or Why is is so moninant as a polittical theory? [13:23] herman Bergson: things like that I will address in coming lectures [13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any further suggestions, questions or ideas..plz speak ㋡ [13:24] oola Neruda: equal or... equal under the law [13:24] herman Bergson: that is what I am thinking about oola [13:24] herman Bergson: today I asked myself...do we OWN the earth? [13:24] Repose Lionheart: Any attempt at all, TBD? [13:24] herman Bergson: and when born here...what else are we but totally free? [13:25] Abraxas Nagy: totally dependant [13:25] herman Bergson: Yes TD....you hit the nerve [13:25] TBDiscovery Harbour: An attempt to force an equality would mean taking from another to begin a new equilibrium, Repose. [13:25] TBDiscovery Harbour: It disrupts the market. [13:26] herman Bergson: But the other story is the distribution of wealth... [13:26] TBDiscovery Harbour: In a sense, it handicaps, which is what the government does by interjecting stimulus, regulations, etc. [13:26] Repose Lionheart: But the initial acquisition is sometimes a forceful and unjust act ㋡ [13:26] herman Bergson: Just the market means for instance the power of the strongest [13:26] Repose Lionheart: there are larger issues of justice here [13:27] Repose Lionheart: the market is amoral [13:27] TBDiscovery Harbour: If we are talking about individual freedoms, then any who seeks to take, whether it be a corporation or government, would be out of line. [13:27] herman Bergson: yes repose.... [13:27] Repose Lionheart: individual freedom is not absolute, TBD [13:27] herman Bergson: It is not about taking TD..it is about sharing... [13:27] herman Bergson: About social fairness [13:27] Repose Lionheart: exactly [13:28] TBDiscovery Harbour: But it makes perfect sense to have the strong working in labor positions, as they would earn the most in reward for their productivity. [13:28] TBDiscovery Harbour: So we're talking about sharing...which would effectively be taking, if the government sets regulations. [13:28] herman Bergson: For instance,,,you inherit a few millions....and you start a company that destroys all small retailers [13:28] TBDiscovery Harbour: It's sharing to those who receive the entitlement. [13:28] Repose Lionheart: except it is mostly the poor, weak or strong, who do so [13:28] herman Bergson: just because you have to money and make more money...is that the idea of a society? [13:29] TBDiscovery Harbour: But you said in the beginning that education is key. If the citizens are not educated, then they would beware of monopolistic intentions. [13:29] herman Bergson: Yes TD.... [13:30] herman Bergson: but what of all those human being that have difficulty with learning? [13:30] herman Bergson: Who are not the most gifted in our society? [13:30] TBDiscovery Harbour: It does not mean that we take from high earners, in my opinion. [13:30] herman Bergson: Should we trash them because they cant be educated? [13:30] TBDiscovery Harbour: If the high earner is a philanthropist, sure. [13:30] oola Neruda: the word gifted... is dependent upon what one values [13:30] Bruce Mowbray: "the greatest good for the greatest number"? [13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Bruce.... [13:31] Bruce Mowbray: You mentioned JS Mill -- Utilitarianism = liberalism? [13:31] herman Bergson: As you see in these short discussion..there are hundreds of questions to deal with [13:31] TBDiscovery Harbour: So this means that we would have to be willing to sacrifice personal freedoms in order for wealth to be redistributed. [13:31] herman Bergson: I wouldnt sat that TD [13:32] Repose Lionheart: Education is over-rated, I think....groups of people tend to function at the lowest moral common denominator...there are many highly educated Wall Streeters who greedilydrove the economy into the ground knowing what they were doing [13:32] Zinzi Serevi: i agree [13:32] TBDiscovery Harbour: Well taxation in order to spend extra funding on the mentally disabled would be by force. [13:32] herman Bergson: What is the relation with personal freedom....freedom of property? [13:32] Zinzi's translator: i agree [13:32] Bruce Mowbray: I'm willing to redistribute mugs of coffee to anyone who wants them. IM me. [13:32] Repose Lionheart: is there no room for love in your philosophy, TBD ㋡ [13:33] TBDiscovery Harbour: I just dislike the view that others think they can take because of a universal standard of social good. [13:33] herman Bergson: Many philosophers belief in the virtue of benevolence as one of the things that make us human [13:33] Repose Lionheart: sharing is the key concept here [13:33] herman Bergson: That is a good point TD... [13:33] Repose Lionheart: and the interdependence that we all have in human societies [13:33] TBDiscovery Harbour: But it's not sharing. Do we allow those who don't want to share not to share? [13:33] oola Neruda: one would not necessarily have to force taxation for spending extra on mentally disabled... again...it depends upon your values [13:34] Repose Lionheart: sure...just don't take a thing. [13:34] Repose Lionheart: nothing at all ㋡ [13:34] oola Neruda: people who have experience with people with handicaps often find that they love these individuals even more than they could have imagined [13:34] Repose Lionheart: think about how much you DO take ㋡ [13:34] TBDiscovery Harbour: We are certainly interdependent, but each comes with his or her own skill sets. [13:34] Repose Lionheart: and inevitably so [13:34] oola Neruda: for it is from them that they learn some of the greatest lessons [13:35] Repose Lionheart: no one denies that [13:35] TBDiscovery Harbour: But you are justifying a forced taking from others. That is different from barter. [13:35] oola Neruda: your values again [13:35] Repose Lionheart: no, just suggesting you share or go away [13:35] herman Bergson: One interesting pointr TD....you constantly talk about TAKING [13:35] Repose Lionheart: from human society [13:35] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, oola. I'm not denying the gift others have to offer. I just do not like the notion that others should be required to feel the same way. [13:36] herman Bergson: I think we'll have to have a close look at the relation between citizen and govenrment... [13:36] oola Neruda: smiles... true... we do not all feel the same [13:36] Bruce Mowbray: Doesn't the concept of society or community imply sharing -- of values, territory, even goods? [13:36] herman Bergson: Is the government a TAKING institution? [13:36] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, most certainly, Professor. [13:36] herman Bergson: Good point too Bruce...we need to pay attention to that [13:37] herman Bergson: Ok TD...yo made a clear statement... [13:37] TBDiscovery Harbour: If I do not pay my property taxes, then the government will take it. [13:37] herman Bergson: So here we have an issue of analysis: Is a government a TAKING institution [13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes, useful and interesting counterpoint, TBD [13:38] herman Bergson: From a Social contract idea, that would be hard to defend [13:38] oola Neruda: the government is not THEM... the government is US... WE... US [13:38] herman Bergson: From a tyrran's point of view it is right [13:38] oola Neruda: we need to be active as government [13:38] TBDiscovery Harbour: However, I understand your point that redistribution allocates capital to areas of low production, so the government could be cycling the economy. [13:39] oola Neruda: not just watch [13:39] herman Bergson: Yes oola..if it is us..how can we take fromourselves? [13:39] herman Bergson: One thing for sure.... [13:39] herman Bergson: I gonna reread our discussion carefully.... [13:40] herman Bergson: It is loaded with good questions and remarks already [13:40] Repose Lionheart: well, if the underpinnings of every republic (and most democracies) are oligarchical, there is something of a "them" in them ㋡ [13:40] TBDiscovery Harbour: But such redistribution further creates social stratification because even the most ardent supporter of charity does not like to be told how to allocate income. [13:40] Repose Lionheart: historical underpinnings, i meant [13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Repose [13:40] Repose Lionheart: Rome, Venice, etc [13:41] Repose Lionheart: and most current ones, though moderated [13:41] herman Bergson: But money is allocated to education and militairy defences for instance TD [13:41] oola Neruda: returning to what you said earlier... about the need for honesty... when you get corrupt officials (in particular, those who enforce)... then it is not really US..WE... US... it becomes THEM... [13:41] herman Bergson: That is accepted by every taxpayer I guess [13:41] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, they are considered public goods. [13:41] oola Neruda: and one of their best weapons is to deny education [13:42] TBDiscovery Harbour: Not true, Professor. [13:42] TBDiscovery Harbour: In the US we have a failing public school system and the funds are wasted. [13:42] Krissy Harbour: it becomes them when people are dependent on them [13:42] herman Bergson: that is a technical issue not a political one I would say... [13:42] oola Neruda: teachers are on the front lines in this issue... they are expected to solve the problems that are really not in their control [13:43] TBDiscovery Harbour: I would disagree because if we do not hold the government accountable, then they become larger without checks and balances. [13:43] oola Neruda: i mentioned, last class, a child in fourth grade who has frequent hangovers [13:43] herman Bergson: Wait...before we begin to discuss these details... [13:43] oola Neruda: that is a mere symptom... [13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes, teachers fail because they are not free to do their best [13:43] oola Neruda: the social problems in a community are beyond the pervue of the teachers [13:43] herman Bergson: the basic principal is that a government redistributes money by funding public education.. [13:43] Repose Lionheart: true, too [13:43] oola Neruda: but, they do their best with what they get [13:44] herman Bergson: no body opposes to that [13:44] Coffee Mug whispers: Ahh! Fresh Hot Coffee [13:44] Repose Lionheart: not any more, Prof [13:44] Repose Lionheart: mostly [13:44] herman Bergson: whether it is done the right or wrong way doesnt affect the princial [13:44] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, true Professor, but even those students who attend private schools must pay. So yes, they do oppose. [13:44] TBDiscovery Harbour: I don't see how we can assume that no one opposes the taking of funds. [13:45] oola Neruda: they are paying in order to escape the hubris of the the problems in society/neighborhoods [13:45] herman Bergson: Well here we have such a difference... [13:45] TBDiscovery Harbour: But I argue that public funding creates such detrimental aspects. [13:45] herman Bergson: the US has expensive private schools... [13:45] herman Bergson: a phenomenon hardly known in Europe..or at least in The Netherlands.. [13:46] Bruce Mowbray: ??? England has some VERY expensive "private" schools. [13:46] herman Bergson: but we all have liberals among our political parties [13:46] TBDiscovery Harbour: Understood. But I still feel that assuming that everyone does not oppose taxation, regardless of usage, is incorrect. [13:46] herman Bergson: so one libarel isnt the same as the other liberal... [13:46] herman Bergson: we have to look into that too [13:47] Krissy Harbour: I agree [13:47] Bruce Mowbray: The French Revolution demonstrated that, too. [13:47] herman Bergson: Oppose to taxation in general TD? [13:47] Repose Lionheart: interesting question [13:47] Repose Lionheart: ? [13:48] TBDiscovery Harbour: If we are classical liberals, then yes. I argue that the private sector can perform better in 90% of the government's purview. [13:48] herman Bergson: Ok..Imagine a society without taxation.....we can think about that, yes [13:48] Repose Lionheart: ok, we agree [13:48] TBDiscovery Harbour: Private businesses can fail, the government cannot without a revolution. [13:48] Repose Lionheart: though we might agrue the percentage [13:48] Krissy Harbour: true [13:49] oola Neruda: last class i also mentioned how one private sector infringes upon other ones... for example ... pollution of water or air that crosses state boundaries [13:49] herman Bergson: I am fascinated by your point of view TD...I love it....lots of questions... [13:49] Repose Lionheart: but for the percentage that the government does perform best, we need taxation, right? [13:49] TBDiscovery Harbour: The government comes in when a public good will not be provided by the private sector simply because it is a profit losing venture. So, at its essence, government is a profit losing venture. [13:49] oola Neruda: someone has to set agreements between the separate private sectors [13:50] Repose Lionheart: public education has the greater purpose of providing an educational floor as a benefit to the nation's democracy [13:50] herman Bergson: Well I reacall a quote.... was it Fauber.... "Governement is evil: anarchy is more eviel, yet government is evil [13:50] oola Neruda: it sounds like money is the object of value... not the common good [13:50] herman Bergson: we;ll look into that too [13:50] Repose Lionheart: it is not all economics, TBD [13:51] herman Bergson: Good point oola!!! [13:51] TBDiscovery Harbour: But it is a public education mandated and performed by the government, which we agree is not the most optimal source of efficiency and effectiveness. We prolong it because we don't know any other way. [13:51] herman Bergson: We are talking about a society..and indeed not only its economics [13:52] oola Neruda: because power (especially in the private sector, i would say) corrupts... and money corrupts even more [13:52] TBDiscovery Harbour: Well, oola, it depends on the percentage of individuals who are willing to work for charity or the common good. If that percentage is large, then great, but if not, then we must not force others to become charitable through regulation. [13:52] herman Bergson: Interesting point TD.... [13:52] Repose Lionheart: noo...we prolong it because it is necessary for the functioning of a democracy. [13:52] oola Neruda: were you born with a silver spoon and enjoyed perfect health all your life TB [13:52] TBDiscovery Harbour: So this would ultimately create societies of like-minded individuals. [13:53] Repose Lionheart: doubt that ㋡ [13:53] herman Bergson: Is the human being basically selfish in a Hobbesian sense or is is by nature a social being like Adam Smith claimed [13:53] TBDiscovery Harbour: No, I want to be free and not have others impose their will on me. [13:53] Krissy Harbour: he worked for it [13:53] Qwark Allen: individuals work for charity when they have their own needs full fill [13:53] oola Neruda: thinking of ayn rand.... [13:53] Qwark Allen: in "poor" comunitys that is not a reality suitable [13:53] herman Bergson: Yes me too oola...have to reread her definitely ^_^ [13:54] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...we can never really be free in your sense. We are inevitably interdependent [13:54] oola Neruda: one thing that creates compassion in a person is to see what is really out there... and better yet to experience it [13:54] Repose Lionheart: the language you use it an interdepent social construction [13:54] herman Bergson: My friend.s..... there is an overload of the system here!!!!! [13:54] oola Neruda: you sound very protected from reality TB [13:54] TBDiscovery Harbour: I feel the same about you, oola. [13:54] oola Neruda: smiles [13:54] herman Bergson: Just HOLD ON plz.... [13:55] Repose Lionheart: doubt very much the silver spoon theory, oola ㋡ [13:55] Repose Lionheart: hehe [13:55] herman Bergson: In a 30 minutes we have dropped so many questions and observations....we have to sort this out and bring some order in it [13:56] herman Bergson: So ..when this discussion is posted in the blog...plz reread it...so many essential remarks already [13:56] Bruce Mowbray: sort of a metaphor for society at large...? [13:56] Repose Lionheart: microcosm here [13:56] herman Bergson: Well, my point is that we have to focus on one issue... [13:56] Repose Lionheart: yes [13:57] herman Bergson: and this was a brilliant kick off thanks to all your ideas and discussion [13:57] Qwark Allen: ah [13:57] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯` [13:57] Qwark Allen: thank you [13:57] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor! [13:57] Abraxas Nagy: ty herman [13:58] Josiane Llewellyn: Thank you Professor [13:58] herman Bergson: So , may I thank you for this great discussion and we'll get back to is next lecture... [13:57] Zinzi Serevi is typing...n... [13:58] Qwark Allen: great [13:58] Bruce Mowbray: Thank you, prof -- and everyone. [13:58] herman Bergson: Class dismissed [13:58] Abraxas Nagy: see you next time guys [13:58] herman Bergson: And thank you TSD for your critical input... [13:58] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Prof [13:58] Abraxas Nagy: an galls [13:59] TBDiscovery Harbour: Thank you for listening, Professor. [13:59] Zinzi Serevi: bye Abrax [13:59] Zinzi's translator: bye Abrax [13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herman! [13:59] oola Neruda: yes TB [13:59] oola Neruda: good points [13:59] dzjengis Parx: bye all thx herman [13:59] Abraxas Nagy: bye zinzi [13:59] Krissy Harbour: Thanks [13:59] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye all of you [13:59] Zinzi's translator: bye bye all of you [13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Zinzi [13:59] herman Bergson: To me it sounds very American... [13:59] TBDiscovery Harbour: I only wish, Professor. It's a rare view, and I hope that changes. [14:00] herman Bergson: I liked all you said.... [14:00] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye all:-) see u thursday [14:00] herman Bergson: doesnt mean I agreed..but you keep things sharp with your point of view [14:00] TBDiscovery Harbour: You as well. I'll be back when I can. I usually work at this time. [14:00] TBDiscovery Harbour: Krissy and I are off today. [14:00] oola Neruda: nice to have your ideas TB [14:01] herman Bergson: There is always the blog [14:01] herman Bergson: there you can read how the story goes on... [14:01] TBDiscovery Harbour: You as well, oola. This is a great class. I hold lectures at Thothica and Philosophy Island, but this is one of my favorite spots. [14:01] herman Bergson: And I will take your remarks into account definitely [14:01] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, I will tune in to the blog. [14:01] oola Neruda: :-) [14:01] TBDiscovery Harbour: Goodbye for now. [14:02] oola Neruda: baiee baiee
The story begins with mercantilism, the dominating economic theory and practice in the early ages in Europe. The basic idea is that the state gains dominance and power by becoming as rich as possible.
That means that the state has to control all trade and tries to achieve to export more than to import. Therefore the own industry is promoted and financially supported while import is strongly discouraged through the use of import taxes.
Especially the second book had a great impact and marked the end of mercantilism. The Theory of Moral Sentiment is written in the finest tradition of the Scottish philosophers, where David Hume may be regarded as the initiator.
If fact in those days, certainly stimulated by the development of scientific method, as demonstrated by Newton, every scientist tried to understand Nature and its laws.
Also the moral philosophers tried to get hold of human nature and its "laws". This gave rise to a specific kind of philosophical anthropology. What makes human nature moral. Where does morality come from?
Hobbes had already opened the debate by pointing at the extreme selfishness of the human being. His views were not adopted by Hume, who saw the basis of morality in the "sympathy" for your fellowmen.
Adam Smith embraces the Newtonian process of scientific experimentation and explanation. Moral rules are akin to the laws of physics; they can be discovered. According to him, our sentiments give rise to approval or condemnation of a moral act.
What is most interesting is, that virtue ethics is strongly supported in those days along with an optimistic view on the nature of the human being.
The human being is intrinsically good. And according to Smith, humans have a natural love for society and can develop neither moral nor aesthetic standards in isolation.Based on this positive idea of mankind, Smith develops his ideas on economics, on how the state should be organized.
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations is partly a description of the actual conditions of manufacture and trade in Smith’s own time, partly a history of European economics,
and partly recommendations to governments. Smith opposes the mercantilist beliefs that money is wealth and that the best economic policy for a country is the retention within its borders of as much gold and silver as possible.
"The annual labour of every nation", says Smith, " is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations."
Human society is as natural as the people in it, and, as such, Smith rejects the notion of a social contract in both of his books. There was never a time that humanity lived outside of society,
and political development is the product of evolution (not his term) rather than a radical shift in organization. The state of nature is society for Smith, and, therefore, the rules that govern the system necessitate certain outcomes.
Smith saw the state as a natural proces in which we could discover natural laws. Not all the gold which a state owns brings wealth but labor brings wealth, Smith argues. The more one labors the more one earns.
This supplies individuals and the community with their necessities, and, with enough money, it offers the means to make life more convenient and sometimes to pursue additional revenue.
Smith believes that a commercial system betters the lives for the worst off in society; all individuals should have the necessities needed to live reasonably well.
As he explains, there are only three proper roles for the sovereign: to protect a society from invasion by outside forces, to enforce justice and protect citizens from one another,
and “thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain.
The government's intervention in this process of labor, production and trade should be kept small. And Smith believed as stated in The Wealth of Nations that the creation of “universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people”
Welcome to Liberalism…
The Discussion
[13:20] herman Bergson: So much on Adam Smith [13:21] oola Neruda: that sounds very logical... and proper [13:21] hope63 Shepherd: its a saddening thought that we study the ancient greeks and the greeks don't study guys like smith:) [13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: it does but then does it work [13:22] herman Bergson: Yes oola, what is remarkable is the positive belief in the effects of the free market on society [13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: that premise is a bone of contention here all the time [13:22] herman Bergson: Even the lowest in society will benefit of it, he claims [13:22] oola Neruda: i like the maintaining of public institutions... [13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: should [13:22] Kiki Walpanheim: hi rodney [13:22] Rodney Handrick: hi kiki [13:22] Bruce Mowbray: Yo, Rod. [13:22] herman Bergson: Hi Rodney [13:22] Rodney Handrick: hi bruce [13:22] Rodney Handrick: hi Herman [13:23] oola Neruda: like the national gallery, the smithonian and the library of congress [13:23] herman Bergson: Yes such institutions a private person could not afford, like schools , hospitals..etc [13:23] herman Bergson: Musea..yes [13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:23] herman Bergson: But what is interesting in Europe in these days... [13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: but they first place they take money from when they need it is those very public places [13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: especially schools [13:24] herman Bergson: Postal Services and Public transportation (bus, train) for instance were all owned by the state... [13:24] Kiki Walpanheim: how much intervention is much... [13:24] herman Bergson: and now they all have become privately owned businesses... [13:24] oola Neruda: you are right gemma [13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: yes [13:24] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki...that is the point... [13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: is postal service in the US privately owned too [13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: yes [13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: oh... [13:25] hope63 Shepherd: not all.. ups.... [13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: but still connected to the government in some way [13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: oh.... [13:25] Rodney Handrick: quasi-government [13:26] herman Bergson: Here we have developed a firm belief in the effects of the market... [13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: here i think it is toooooo firm [13:26] herman Bergson: Even healthcare and hospitals have become privately owned businesses....with a disastrous effect [13:26] oola Neruda: here also [13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: yes [13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: and the disaster is so so visible [13:27] Kiki Walpanheim: like price floors, ceilings, minimum wage.... intervention preventing monopoly to ensure competition... [13:27] herman Bergson: They say the market and competition will lower the costs... [13:27] Rodney Handrick: you folks in Europe may have to bail us Americans out [13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: lololo [13:27] Kiki Walpanheim: and there are private schools too.... [13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: after we finish all out bailouts [13:27] herman Bergson: Well.... a lot is owned by Chinese capital too [13:28] oola Neruda: the market and competition was part of our american problem [13:28] oola Neruda: no regulations [13:28] oola Neruda: few [13:28] herman Bergson: Yes..and here it doesnt work either [13:28] herman Bergson: except for the greedy bankers [13:28] Bruce Mowbray: So, what would Adam Smith say about cartels and monopolies? [13:29] oola Neruda: is that supposed to be part of protecting the people from each other? [13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: i think america has regulations on cartels , monopolies [13:29] hope63 Shepherd: well.. didn't work in state owned services. like the old soviet union.. its a complicated and complex matter [13:29] herman Bergson: I dont think he would approve that Bruce... [13:29] Rodney Handrick: that's the point it's about greed! [13:29] hope63 Shepherd: but oola is right about regulations.. key word. [13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Hope.... and I relate that to the philosophical anthropology.....how do we define human nature... [13:30] oola Neruda: and greed... keyword [13:30] herman Bergson: as intrinsically bad or good... [13:30] hope63 Shepherd: smile.. i would say neither nor:) [13:30] herman Bergson: I think the former Soviets started with BAD...the individual is bad...greedy and selfish by nature [13:31] herman Bergson: Where Adam Smith says...human nature is basically good [13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: well....USSR.......even if you assume ppl are NOT greedy and run on that assumption...people still are selfish...they could find ways to get around to it.. [13:32] oola Neruda: i know some chinese from the communist point of view... [13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: I think what adam smith tells is....taking advantage of ppls' self interest [13:32] Bruce Mowbray: The Enlightenment - upon whose philosophical view the US was supposed founded - thought that human nature was basically good. . . [13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Bruce.... [13:32] Rodney Handrick: this is true Bruce [13:33] Kiki Walpanheim: or....adam smiths does NOT consider selfish interest as immoral [13:33] oola Neruda: they felt that with assigned work.. that you would be paid for regardless... and maybe did not care to do... little chance for change or advancement [13:33] Kiki Walpanheim: in this way, human nature is good [13:33] hope63 Shepherd: smith you say [13:33] oola Neruda: there was little reason to either work hard... or hope... [13:33] Rodney Handrick: the fly in the ointment was slavery...but that was economics as well [13:33] oola Neruda: and this made progress ... not happen like it could [13:33] oola Neruda: the dedication was not there [13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: communism is assume everyone works for the community....free market is amusing everyone works for their own self interest [13:34] herman Bergson: Smith sees selfishness as a social drive eventually [13:34] hope63 Shepherd: isn't it? [13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: and competition is seen as a drive for promotion too [13:34] Rodney Handrick: the governor should be ethics [13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki.....but in their ethics the Scottish philosophers saw morality based on sympathy for your fellowmen... [13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: selfishness plus competition...which seem to be bad at first sight, could be led to the good [13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: oh..... [13:36] hope63 Shepherd: very christian thought-morality is love tho neighbor.. [13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: the intervention on cartels and monopoly is to prevent firms from cooperation...but competition instead... [13:36] herman Bergson: yes...but according to Smith this selfishness functions in a society...so cant be absolute....you have to care for your fellowmen to make things work [13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: so many cannot grasp that idea [13:36] oola Neruda: and not build bridges to nowhere [13:36] Bruce Mowbray: I "selfishly" create the Ford Motor Company -- and in the process, create work for millions... [13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: or....encourage competition...and prevent too much cooperation [13:37] herman Bergson: yes Bruce that's the way [13:37] hope63 Shepherd: care for your fellowmen should read care for those who are in the production line.. [13:37] hope63 Shepherd: that didn't happen.. [13:37] oola Neruda: ahhh unions [13:37] herman Bergson: No Hope....and that is the problem Marx will point at [13:37] Bruce Mowbray: I wonder what Smith would have thought about labor unions. [13:37] Rodney Handrick: the problem with Ford is that he thought he was a savior of the masses [13:38] Rodney Handrick: *with [13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: it's about...when you work....are you thinking about self interest/benefit, or ...benevolence.... [13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: well if he saw what was happening with out unions i think he would have encouraged them [13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki [13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: i think communism is to assume ppl work for benevolence.... [13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: perhaps... [13:39] hope63 Shepherd: no kiki.. [13:39] herman Bergson: Smith pleaded for educationn in virtue....among them benevolence [13:39] oola Neruda: i agree kiki [13:39] Rodney Handrick: yes, education is paramount [13:39] hope63 Shepherd: benevolence is possible if you could first fulfill your basic needs.. [13:39] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki and in that respect the human being is a bit overestimated, I guess [13:39] oola Neruda: in all societies...education is paramount… agreed... in ALL [13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: nods [13:40] hope63 Shepherd: yes oola.. but what should one teach the kids.. [13:40] oola Neruda: ahhh you hit the hot spot hope [13:40] herman Bergson: So...now we have started with Adam Smith and his ideas...we might look into Liberalism as such the next time [13:40] Rodney Handrick: case in point…finance should be taught from the elementary grades [13:40] hope63 Shepherd: smile-- you noticed i'm back:) [13:41] oola Neruda: and no child left behind is not hitting those abstract NECESSARY hot spots [13:41] herman Bergson: well...they learn counting Rodney.. ㋡ [13:41] hope63 Shepherd: and spending lol [13:41] Rodney Handrick: I don't think it was meant too oola [13:41] herman Bergson: and arithmatics [13:42] hope63 Shepherd: to keep the economy going:)$ [13:42] oola Neruda: smiles... to rodney... bunch of businessmen meddling and making schools into factories [13:42] Bruce Mowbray: Public TV stations (PBS) in America are teaching business to children -- I love to watch their afternoon programs. [13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: wonders what adam smiths thinks about protectionism too [13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: lol oola [13:43] Rodney Handrick: I don't think the world would be in the financial pickle it's in now if people had a basic knowledge of finance [13:43] herman Bergson: He is against protectionism... [13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: oh.... [13:43] herman Bergson: mercantilism is a kind of protectionism too [13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: oh... [13:43] herman Bergson: The labor creates the necessities...and all that is produced more is good for free trade [13:44] Bruce Mowbray: Sure -- those taxes on imports "protect" the domestic production. [13:44] Bruce Mowbray: Mercantilism. [13:44] herman Bergson: exactly... [13:44] oola Neruda: the industrial revolution was the first step toward schools as factories... at that time, the organization was helpful... but now it is destructive by it's being OVERDONE [13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: never thought of that oola [13:44] Rodney Handrick: I agree oola [13:44] oola Neruda: misapplied or misunderstood [13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: yes [13:45] hope63 Shepherd: schools as factories' explain [13:45] herman Bergson: you mean schools are now like factories oola? [13:45] oola Neruda: you would not pay dentists in an affluent neighborhood and a challenged neighborhood by the number of fillings they don't have to do... [13:45] Rodney Handrick: yes...still in the elementary grades [13:46] oola Neruda: they want to pay teachers by how many students get certain grades [13:46] oola Neruda: while charter schools skim off many of the students who would be getting those grades [13:46] Bruce Mowbray: Passing the state-required tests is "our most important product." [13:46] herman Bergson: Has been debated here in the NEtherlands too oola [13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: called merit pay [13:46] herman Bergson: education delivered a product [13:46] oola Neruda: they teach to the tests ... not to the actual needs of the child or society [13:46] Rodney Handrick: doesn't work unless the parents do their part [13:47] Bruce Mowbray: agreed, oola. [13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: forced to teach to the test [13:47] herman Bergson: yes....very questionable ideas [13:47] Bruce Mowbray: They have to in order to get funded. [13:47] oola Neruda: right... but teachers are to blame if they don't learn... not conditions in the neighborhood/home [13:47] oola Neruda: according to them [13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: and each group ... each year there is a very different composition [13:48] oola Neruda: know a fourth grade child who had hangovers and missed a lot of what was going on in class [13:48] Rodney Handrick: this is what is being overlooked oola [13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: i think the prestige of an institution should not be too much related to the final test.....the achievement of alumni in the long run is far more important e.g. [13:48] herman Bergson: I guess we are loosing our focus on the subject of today... [13:48] oola Neruda: can the teacher be called to task for that [13:48] hope63 Shepherd: education is a key problem in all the western countries..not just third world.. [13:48] oola Neruda: sorry ... prof [13:48] herman Bergson smiles [13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: i guess so lol [13:48] Bruce Mowbray: Did Scotland/Europe have mass education in Smith's day? [13:49] hope63 Shepherd: they try to find solutions butt don't seem to get the right one.. [13:49] Rodney Handrick: for example due to racial strife a high school recently spent one million ($) on security equipment [13:49] herman Bergson: Education was an upperclass issue Bruce [13:49] Bruce Mowbray: Perhaps Smith was assuming that everyone would be 'properly' educated. [13:49] herman Bergson: yes...that was definitely an assumption.... [13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: i think how the state stardard test is defined is a noticable issue too [13:50] hope63 Shepherd: could we call adam as the grandfather of global markets with his idea of the equalizing factor in the exchange with other states? [13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: if the test result is only used as a reference....not highly correlated with college entrance/careers [13:50] oola Neruda: yes... does not take learning styles into account [13:51] herman Bergson: Back to Liberalism..... [13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: and if the test only encourages kids to learn to read/write, and math...rather than shaping the kids into some model....then [13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: then the test is not too bad [13:51] oola Neruda: can you define liberalism professor [13:51] Bruce Mowbray: ;-) [13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: i spent too many years for the national college entrance exam....i hate it... [13:51] herman Bergson: and the question to what extend it is acceptable that the state interferes with social processes like education, healthcare, free market etc. [13:52] Rodney Handrick: "liberalism" a dirty word [13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: tho it finished in the end...loads of years were spent with heavy study load.... [13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: lol yes [13:52] hope63 Shepherd: kiki relax.. you made it:) [13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: ;) [13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: interferes or guides Herman [13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: or regulates [13:52] herman Bergson: Right Hope..she made it...also to the Philosophy Class ^_^ [13:52] Rodney Handrick: lol [13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: ;-) [13:53] Bruce Mowbray: haha [13:53] herman Bergson: That is what we will investigate Gemma... [13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: ok [13:53] herman Bergson: So next lecture will be an elaborated view on liberalism in general..... does it hold or doesnt it... [13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ok [13:54] herman Bergson: So may I thank you for you participation again ㋡ [13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥ [13:54] Bruce Mowbray: THANK YOU, everyone! [13:54] Qwark Allen: you welcome [13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you professor and everyone [13:54] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman ******* [13:54] Qwark Allen: and thank you [13:54] Rodney Handrick: Thanks Herman [13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday then [13:54] Bruce Mowbray: See you all on Tuesday. [13:54] herman Bergson: Till Tuesday! [13:54] Qwark Allen: AAHH!!! [13:54] Qwark Allen: ok [13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡ [13:55] oola Neruda: thank you... have a great day/night class [13:55] hope63 Shepherd: thanks herman.. nice lecture.. hope i can be back soon
One thing is clear. The only place where private property in the most strict sense of the word exists, is in Second Life. Whatever you posses there, you can do with it as you like, no matter what consequences it might have for others.
They won't sue you, they can't hurt you. They may protest, but you just need to shrug your shoulders and continue your Virtual Life as if nothing has happens. You just abandoned some land, for instance. So, whatever……
This means, that we need a different interpretation of the concept of private property and may conclude that the Roman law concept of the sovereign right of property – the right of the proprietor to do with his property as he pleases, "to use and abuse," can not be uphold.
Due to the industrial revolution the concept of property was a hot issue in the 19th century. Even to such and extend that French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his book What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government.(1840) formulated the famous statement: "La propriété, c'est le vol!" [Property is theft!]
But as Karl Marx already pointed out, the statement is self-refuting and unnecessarily confusing, writing that "since 'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property"
However, the idea wasn't new as Rousseau once wrote: ""The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.
From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows:
Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Discourse on Inequality ,1754)
To end this line of thinking with a joke: "Why do anarchists drink herbal tea? Because proper tea is theft"
The two major justifications given for original property are effort and scarcity. The effort principle goes back yo John Locke and his idea of mixing your labor with an object. For something to be economically scarce, it must necessarily have the exclusivity property - that use by one person excludes others from using it.
Any society with an interest in avoiding conflict needs a system of rules. And from this point of view David Hume (1763) concluded that there are property rights because of and to the extent that the existing law, supported by social customs, secure them.
This might lead to the conclusion that there is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality and laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings.
Thus property appears to be maybe the most sensitive political subject ever. And as history will show, it has given birth to quite opposite political systems based on how property is defined by law.
The collapse of socialist systems in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union since 1989 has been regarded as the natural justification of the existence of property and a justification of private property as well.
This may have lead to regard it as justified to privately accumulate as much property as possible as a personal goal, like the big banks have done since the 80s, which has resulted in the financial crisis we have to face these days.
The next crisis has already announced itself, when you look at countries like Greece where a small group has accumulated lots of property at the expense of a whole country and its economy, which even endangers the whole euro zone.
It may show that despite all political theories and laws we still have not found the right way to deal with property in such a sense that it is beneficial to all of society instead of beneficial for just a small group.
I guess we are still at the beginning of defining the concept of property in such a way that is will lead to a just global society, where it is the goal of political theory to achieve a just and fair distribution of property, or in other words a just access to the resources of this earth for everyone.
The Discussion
[13:25] herman Bergson: So much on property.. [13:25] CONNIE Eichel: ty :) [13:25] Daruma Boa: *•.¸('*•.¸ ♥ ¸.•*´)¸ [13:25] Daruma Boa: .•*♥¨`•APPLAUSE!!!°•´¨` ♥. [13:25] Daruma Boa: ¸.•*(¸.•*´ ♥ `*•.¸)`*•.¸ [13:25] Daruma Boa: Hey! [13:25] herman Bergson: thank you Daruma [13:25] oola Neruda: what about griefers... how they are using their property [13:26] herman Bergson: Nothing special about them... [13:26] Zinzi Serevi: what property? [13:26] Zinzi's translator: what property? [13:26] herman Bergson: IN RL terms they would be called criminals and put behind bars [13:26] Bruce Mowbray: ;-) [13:27] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa [13:27] Repose Lionheart: I agree that we still just at the beginning of defining property in a way that will produce a just society [13:27] herman Bergson: Here the get a death sentence....BANNED for ever [13:27] Repose Lionheart: hehehe [13:27] Bruce Mowbray: In nature, "property" seems, in some species, equal to "territory." [13:27] herman Bergson: YeS Bruce.. [13:27] Repose Lionheart: interesting [13:28] Bruce Mowbray: Does that correlate to "use of resources"? [13:28] Repose Lionheart: so...a natural analog for human notions of property [13:28] herman Bergson: The prey captured is defended against others too..a property effect [13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes [13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Bruce,..but in nature no lion kills 10 zebras...just one to have food [13:29] Bruce Mowbray: Excellent point. [13:29] herman Bergson: Humans would even kill 100 zebras..to have dead zebras [13:29] Zinzi Serevi: a fox kills 10 chickens and eats one [13:29] Zinzi's translator: a fox kills 10 chickens and one eats [13:29] Repose Lionheart: or millions of buffalo [13:29] Bruce Mowbray: domesticated chickens... than is. [13:29] herman Bergson: true Zinzi... [13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Repose [13:30] herman Bergson: But Zoinzi I think there is a reasonable explanation for that behavior... [13:30] Bruce Mowbray: What would a "just" use of resources entail, then? [13:30] herman Bergson: Well Bruce there you hit the central nerve... [13:31] herman Bergson: if you assume that we as organisms on this earth just are here...where does the property idea come from? [13:31] herman Bergson: Nobody owns anything or everybody owns everything... [13:32] herman Bergson: so just means that we all have to share the resources to live a comfortable live [13:32] Bruce Mowbray: I think it has to do with being "close" to ourselves physically. [13:32] herman Bergson: I think it has to do with the question...why should a human being get a bonus of 10 million dollars for his work? [13:33] Bruce Mowbray: What is the "just" use of resources meant that no one could "own" more than whatever was within twenty feet of himself? [13:33] herman Bergson: Could that money not be spent in a more social way? [13:33] Zinzi Serevi: yes i agree [13:33] Zinzi's translator: yes i agree [13:33] ZANICIA Chau: Excuse me proff...an emergency to deal with [13:33] herman Bergson: Well Bruce that was in 1763 John Locke's idea too [13:34] Bruce Mowbray: Oh --- so MONEY is property now? [13:34] Repose Lionheart: problem with capitalism is that it has no moral core [13:34] Repose Lionheart: and life is lived on a moral axis [13:34] herman Bergson: yes Repose...just the idea of property.. [13:34] herman Bergson: yes Bruce...money is property [13:34] oola Neruda: the idea of communal "property" is not always working... in malawi, feb. is "starvation month"... when it comes... everyone who has food is expected to share [13:34] Repose Lionheart: capitalism and its notio0ns of property rights are not finally true to what we are [13:35] Bruce Mowbray: It seems to me that the "just" use of resources would have to involve respect for the land, etc. from which those resources came and to which they will return. [13:35] oola Neruda: there is no incentive to save food ahead because when the time comes you have to share it... so you eat it while you can [13:35] herman Bergson: Yes oola...human beings are so primitive and selfish by nature it seems [13:36] Repose Lionheart: yes [13:36] herman Bergson: We still havent learnt to share [13:36] Bruce Mowbray: We share "common property" all the time. [13:36] Repose Lionheart: true [13:36] herman Bergson: This earth produces enough food for all inhabitants...yet we see starvation...while nobody owns this earth [13:37] herman Bergson: We still are a primitive species..despite of all philosophy and science [13:37] Repose Lionheart: just what i was thinking just now ㋡ [13:38] Bruce Mowbray: we have a "noble obligation" to share....? [13:38] Zinzi Serevi: just survival of the fittest [13:38] Zinzi's translator: just survival of the fittest [13:38] herman Bergson: Dont despare...we made progress through the centuries [13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes, we do [13:38] Bruce Mowbray: I agree with Repose on that. [13:38] herman Bergson: Not anymore Zinzi... [13:38] Repose Lionheart: and I agree with Bruce ㋡ [13:38] herman Bergson: now it is survival of the richest ^_^ [13:38] oola Neruda: perhaps this is the root of things like "love thy neighbor as thyself" etc [13:39] Daruma Boa: true zinzi [13:39] Bruce Mowbray: ;-) [13:39] Bruce Mowbray: do unto others are you would have them. . . [13:39] Bruce Mowbray: as [13:39] Daruma Boa: yesherman sadly true [13:39] oola Neruda: :-) [13:40] Zinzi Serevi: greed [13:40] Zinzi's translator: Greed [13:40] herman Bergson: We are taliking about 2000 years of philosophy [13:40] herman Bergson: Homo sapiens for 30.000 years.. [13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Is one solution to expland our concept of "common" property and to reduce our concept of "private" property? [13:40] herman Bergson: the universe for billions of years.... [13:40] Bruce Mowbray: expand [13:40] herman Bergson: we are just a flash of light.. [13:41] Bruce Mowbray: a "flash of light" understanding does not feed hungry or house homeless... [13:41] herman Bergson: we should come back to earth in 2000 years and see if the homo sapiens is stal around [13:41] Bruce Mowbray: don't hold your breath [13:41] oola Neruda: nods [13:42] herman Bergson: No Bruce..what I mean to say is that we makeprogress...but it is in a very slow pace [13:42] Repose Lionheart: recent attempts to extend moral insights into modern economic organization (communism, socialism) have failed or underperformed [13:42] Bruce Mowbray: I undersand. [13:42] Repose Lionheart: but that doesn't mean it can't be done [13:42] Repose Lionheart: we learn from our mistakes [13:42] Bruce Mowbray: Each of us ALREADY KNWOS what needs to be done. [13:42] Repose Lionheart: regroup and go forward [13:42] herman Bergson: YEs Repose..the big banks are abck to business as usual... [13:42] Bruce Mowbray: knows. [13:42] herman Bergson: as if nothing has happened... [13:43] herman Bergson: utter arrogance and th eknowledge that governments will keep them upright [13:43] Bruce Mowbray: we know what needs to be done. [13:43] oola Neruda: some wheels...when put in motion... are not that easily undone... like what we do to the earth [13:43] oola Neruda: like that oil spill for example... there are others [13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes, oola, seems like the problems are bigger at each turn of the wheel [13:44] herman Bergson: ye sBruce ..we all know, but only a few do act upon it [13:44] Bruce Mowbray: yep. [13:44] oola Neruda: money = property [13:44] Bruce Mowbray: credit = property?? [13:44] oola Neruda: wry smiles [13:44] Repose Lionheart: hehehe [13:45] herman Bergson: Well..I made my point today on property... [13:45] oola Neruda: oil spills and pollution etc... are like girefers [13:45] herman Bergson: And I am thinking about my next step for the next lecture.. [13:45] oola Neruda: bankers are too [13:46] Repose Lionheart: ohhh...good analogy that [13:46] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa [13:46] Daruma Boa: i agree [13:46] Repose Lionheart: oh, what's that, Prof? [13:46] herman Bergson: Well...I am thinking..an other political philosopher or the idea that all men are equal... [13:47] Bruce Mowbray: and women.... [13:47] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Bruce [13:47] Zinzi's translator: thanks Bruce [13:47] Repose Lionheart: ㋡ [13:47] oola Neruda: yay bruce [13:47] Josiane Llewellyn: :) [13:47] herman Bergson: it is about sharing the resources of this earth...and we are all equally entitled to enjoy the use of these resoruces [13:48] Repose Lionheart: yes, definitely not part of the discussion where i live ㋡ [13:48] Zinzi Serevi: i look forward to it [13:48] Zinzi's translator: i look forward to it [13:48] herman Bergson: in dutch ?men? is translated as meaning ?paople? Bruce.. ^_^ [13:48] Bruce Mowbray: generic sexuality.... I like it! [13:48] oola Neruda: chinese uses the same word for men and women [13:48] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa [13:49] Bruce Mowbray: generic gender.... [13:49] herman Bergson: Then I love chinese oola ^_^ [13:49] Abraxas Nagy: ewww [13:49] oola Neruda: :-) [13:49] Zinzi Serevi: lol [13:49] Zinzi's translator: lol [13:49] herman Bergson: Welll...at least their cuisine.. ㋡ [13:49] Bruce Mowbray: Is gender not also a form of "property"? [13:50] herman Bergson: yes Bruce..already John Locke said that we at least own our body..so also our gender defining parts [13:50] Bruce Mowbray: So, I "own" my gender -- not just "be" it. [13:50] Daruma Boa: haha [13:51] Bruce Mowbray: ;-) [13:51] herman Bergson: It IS your property Bruce...! [13:51] Abraxas Nagy: to be is to own [13:51] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa [13:51] Bruce Mowbray: You're damn right it is! [13:51] Repose Lionheart: that's pretty metaphorical [13:51] Bruce Mowbray: hand off! [13:51] Bruce Mowbray: hands [13:51] Bruce Mowbray: Mine! [13:51] herman Bergson: Well...may I thank you all for your participation and good discussion [13:51] Bruce Mowbray: THANK you, Professor. [13:51] herman Bergson: Class dismissed! [13:51] Abraxas Nagy: thank you professor [13:51] Zinzi Serevi: thanks to you prof [13:51] Zinzi's translator: thanks to you Prof [13:51] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡ [13:52] oola Neruda: nice, prof... :-) [13:52] Abraxas Nagy: as always i got food for thought again [13:52] Daruma Boa: thank u [13:52] herman Bergson: you are digesting my private property then Abraxas...my ideas [13:52] Daruma Boa: so the next class is thursday? [13:53] herman Bergson: yes Daruma [13:53] Abraxas Nagy: I am i guess sa
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=3ea5b4a0-818b-42df-9335-92cf603d4905)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e794bad9-f130-4084-beb3-5a31cfd7e017)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ab8b8286-c409-40d1-a9f2-7e36ee689361)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6c20eca8-e625-46d8-a02d-a2aa2e6e353a)
