Monday, May 31, 2010

257: The Ways of Anarchism

The more you stress the liberty of the individual the closer you get to the idea that in fact the state itself or one of the major institutions, which restrict individual freedom, should be abolished. So a call for "an archos" (classic Greek: NO government.)

And thus anarchism is born. “Anarchism” is a social philosophy that rejects authoritarian government and maintains that voluntary institutions are best suited to express man’s natural social tendencies.

It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.[3] Anarchists may widely disagree on what additional criteria are required in anarchism.

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." Some say, like Noam Chomsky, that anarchism and libertarianism are synonymous.

The idea that the state or governments is not the best solution for human beings to create a society is already old.

Lao Tzu, founder of Taoism in the sixth century BCE, once stated, "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

You can hear his last statement in contemporary calls for legalizing all drugs. It would make disappear maybe 70% of all crimes ( and a lot of jobs on the police force).

An elaborate sketch of anarchism, although still without the name, was provided by William Godwin in his Enquiry concerning Political Justice (1793).

Godwin differed from most later anarchists in preferring to revolutionary action the gradual and, as it seemed to him, more natural process of discussion among men of good will, by which he hoped truth would eventually triumph through its own power.

Godwin rejected all established institutions and all social relations that suggested inequality or the power of one man over another, including marriage and the accumulation of property.

For the present he put his faith in small groups of men seeking truth and justice; for the future, in a society of free individuals organized locally in parishes and linked loosely in a society without frontiers and with the minimum of organization.

But really popular became anarchism in the period from 1850 till 1939. Main cause was that labor was discovered as a value and that the worker could free himself from all kinds of oppression by taking collective action.

Nineteenth century anarchism assumed a number of forms, and the points of variation between them lie in three main areas: the use of violence, the degree of cooperation compatible with individual liberty, and the form of economic organization appropriate to a libertarian society.

Around 1900 we had our own terrorists and a number of statesmen, politicians and royals were assassinated by anarchists in their zeal to overthrow a government.

It was called "propaganda of the deed" But as Peter Kropotkin wrote in 1887 in Le Révolté , "a structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite"

We can discern two main historical traditions, individualist anarchism and social anarchism or collectivism , which have some different origins, values and evolution.The individualist wing of anarchism emphasises negative liberty, i.e. opposition to state or social control over the individual,

while those in the social wing emphasise positive liberty to achieve one's potential and argue that humans have needs that society ought to fulfill, "recognizing equality of entitlement".

Social anarchism calls for a system with public ownership of means of production and democratic control of all organizations, without any government authority or coercion.

It is the largest school of anarchism.Social anarchism rejects private property, seeing it as a source of social inequality, and emphasises cooperation and mutual aid. Thence it is about time that we are going to have a chat with a man like Karl Marx.

The Discussion

[13:16] herman Bergson: This ends anarchism here...I take control again ^_^
[13:17] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks, feel free...
[13:17] Abraxas Nagy: ha-bloody-ha
[13:17] Abraxas Nagy: oops
[13:17] Kiki Walpanheim: Karl Marx was Anarchist?....Social Anachist...
[13:17] Bruce Mowbray: Godwin was reacting to the revolutions in France.
[13:17] herman Bergson: Yes Bruce...
[13:17] Bruce Mowbray: Similar to Edmund Burke.
[13:17] herman Bergson: Well was Marx an anarchist???
[13:17] Bruce Mowbray: no.
[13:18] Abraxas Nagy: i dont think so
[13:18] herman Bergson: He was a collectivist...
[13:18] herman Bergson: well he uses lots of ideas of anarchist theory
[13:18] herman Bergson: the idea of small self supporting communes
[13:19] herman Bergson: means of production not as private property
[13:19] Lena Sigall: would an anarchist society be able to have a military to protect itself?
[13:19] Kiki Walpanheim: like....overthrowing the exploiting class...which sounds like the idea of anarchism?
[13:19] Bruce Mowbray: Most governments around the world have adopted most of the principles of The Communist Manifesto.
[13:19] herman Bergson: Well Lena...there is even a word.... Minarchism...
[13:20] herman Bergson: It referst to the most minimal goverment... militairy and police and justice system
(Deleted comment)
[13:20] herman Bergson: All other things and interaction between people should be contract based...or in the free market
[13:21] Lena Sigall: couldn't then another society that has a big military invade the anarchist society and conquer them?
[13:21] herman Bergson: I the anarchist society has a strong army
[13:21] herman Bergson: Like Locke started with...
[13:22] herman Bergson: it is about Life, freedom and property...
[13:22] herman Bergson: Also the anarchist will de fend that
[13:22] herman Bergson: But...there are dozens of different anarchist theories
[13:22] herman Bergson: all with a different flavor
[13:23] Lena Sigall: how would anarchists be able to form a military, which is based on following orders and such?
[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes I see the paradox Lena....but this all should be based on mutual consent....
[13:24] Kiki Walpanheim: how do the anarchists think about national defense, social security,
[13:24] herman Bergson: basic to the anarchist theories as it to liberalism in general is the Social Contract idea
[13:25] herman Bergson: as I said....national defense would be based on consent...
[13:25] Lena Sigall: so for an anarchist, following orders would be acceptable as long as the soldiers weren't conscripted?
[13:25] herman Bergson: social security is something for the free market
[13:26] herman Bergson: But when you look at our complex societies....also here you hear the call for a smaller government
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: i have never figured out how anarchism would possible work in any form of government
[13:26] herman Bergson: I think it never worked Gemma....
[13:26] Lena Sigall: why not?
[13:26] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:27] Abraxas Nagy: name me one anarchistic state
[13:27] herman Bergson: because it presupposes a few conditions regarding human behavior..
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: but then what do the anarchists really expect?
[13:27] herman Bergson: for instance the acceptance of equality....
[13:27] Kiki Walpanheim: i dont understand the social anarchism
[13:27] herman Bergson: then the assumption of rationality
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: how could ppl willingly give up property and ensure everyone else's "positive liberty" with no coercions at all
[13:28] Lena Sigall: in other words, people aren't smart or nice enough to make it work? XD
[13:29] herman Bergson: I think so Lena...
[13:29] Lena Sigall: sad but true
[13:29] herman Bergson: Proudhon came with the believe in mutualism....
[13:29] herman Bergson: the idea that when everybody is free and noboby has private property, but just what he needs....
[13:30] herman Bergson: and mutualy exchange the products of his labor....
[13:30] herman Bergson: A lot of communes were estabished in those days...
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: "his" -- which is not property based...
[13:30] herman Bergson: As happened in the 60s when there was a revival of anarchist theories
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: in the 80's too
[13:31] herman Bergson: the only value a human being "posseses" is his ability to produce...
[13:31] Daruma Boa: yes the punks
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: yep
[13:32] herman Bergson: and from there a lot of anarchist theories start
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: the theory seems like , when there is abundance of supply, when ppl only work for pleasure,
[13:32] Bruce Mowbray muses: 'Anarchists of the world, commune!'
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: :))
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: on the moon
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: ;)
[13:33] herman Bergson: Around 1900 all like of labor unions and syndycates appeared...
[13:33] Lena Sigall: how does anarchism intersect with religion?
[13:33] herman Bergson: Labor is the value...
[13:33] Lena Sigall: the need for a "big guy in the sky" to tell you how to live? (for some people that is)
[13:33] Bruce Mowbray: Anarchy seems to appeal to some basic need in human nature -- freedom from . . . [parental controls???]
[13:33] herman Bergson: yes Bruce....
[13:34] herman Bergson: hardly a link with religion I would say
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: but then adulthood should bring some sense
[13:34] Abraxas Nagy: sometimes it doenst tho
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: i know
[13:34] Lena Sigall: but the majority of people seem to need to believe in a religious "authority"
[13:34] herman Bergson: In Locke's days...they accepted a creator, but he left after his job was done...
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: problem is...what is freedom, what is equality
[13:34] Bruce Mowbray: Deism. . .
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: Locke and Marx both say everybody is equal...but....
[13:35] herman Bergson: yes Kiki...
[13:35] Abraxas Nagy: exactly its relative
[13:35] herman Bergson: We'll certainly discuss those subjects soon
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: Locke and Marx both say , everybody shall be free from ....(whatever)
[13:35] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: rethorics
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes, but they thought different about property Kiki
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: yes
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: they went opposite ways with the same terms
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes.. ㋡
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: relative thus
[13:37] herman Bergson: Like collectivism originated from anarchist theories
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: i know lil about that
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: they both strive to achieve equality, freedom, justice, and prosperity... but
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well... I think the basic ideas here are freedom of the individual, the extend to what he may be constrained by a government
[13:38] herman Bergson: and the position of property in this political theory
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: ah ok
[13:39] herman Bergson: It is clear that our present society is liberal to some extend
[13:39] herman Bergson: and that political debate is just a shifting with small margins..
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: does liberal mean higher tax, higher gov. spending as opposed to conservative, in this context?
[13:39] herman Bergson: Only in the US we have the TEa Party people....the minimalists...
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:39] Lena Sigall: :((
[13:40] Abraxas Nagy: :( ??
[13:40] Lena Sigall: was just lamenting to presence of the Tea Party in my country
[13:40] herman Bergson: Liberal should mean ...less tax...less enterprise....
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) join the crowd
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: oh....
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: The Tea Party folks behave like Taliban folks --- sometimes. They THREATEN people through fear-tactics.
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: i would say some of them are close to anarchists
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray agrees with Gemma.
[13:41] herman Bergson: The socialists are always accused of creating more government, higher taxes (for the rich), no free market but redistribution of resources
[13:41] herman Bergson: and wealth
[13:41] Lena Sigall: is that true, would you say?
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: and that is what they say of liberals here
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: so .....
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...these Tea PArty people are minarchists so to speak
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: I dont quite believe how tea party option would work well either
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: it wont in the end
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: it is not a real party at all has no real leaders does not want any
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes in the US they call people with socialist ideas liberals...
[13:43] herman Bergson: but that is probably because there dont exist socialists in the US
[13:43] herman Bergson: The ideas exist...
[13:43] Bruce Mowbray thinks: Excellent point.
[13:43] herman Bergson: but they dont dare to call them social or socialist ideas I guess ㋡
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: right
[13:44] Lena Sigall: why does the tea party get so much attention, anyway? they're a minority,.. right?
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: How many Americans - who call themselves 'conservatives' - were criticizing Obama for NOT moving in to take over BP in the Gulf oil spill!
[13:44] herman Bergson: I hope so Lena
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: wonders what the tea party think of to fight recessions....just leave it be?
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: ohh so a minority doenst have to be heard?
[13:45] Lena Sigall: sure it does
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: because they are defying every one who is now in office adn want to replace them with ultraconservatives so are very visible in the media
[13:45] herman Bergson: Let's not start on that Abraxas.....
[13:45] Lena Sigall: but the attention to them is majory disproportionate
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: mmm we better not
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: well ask the media
[13:45] Lena Sigall: i agree, Gemma
[13:46] Bruce Mowbray: agreed.
[13:46] herman Bergson: The majority/minority issue is actually also a Social Contract Issue
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: they cover the small groups who get together as if they were hugde!
[13:46] Bruce Mowbray: say more, please.
[13:46] Lena Sigall: Bush expanded government when he was in office (patriot act, for example),... where were their angry rallies then?
[13:46] Abraxas Nagy: it sure is
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: so right lol
[13:46] Abraxas Nagy: there's enough people outraged about it tho
[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: The social contract issue -- minority/majority?
[13:47] Abraxas Nagy: the patriot act that is
[13:47] Lena Sigall: i think they are mainly just fairly wealthy white people afraid a black president is going to "take" their money and give it to "lazy" black people
[13:47] Bruce Mowbray agrees with Lena.
[13:47] herman Bergson: If the start of a society is a contract....we all have to stick to it....obey it...
[13:47] Abraxas Nagy: listen... Obama is simply a Wallstreet puppet
[13:48] herman Bergson: Some forms of Anarchism demanded full consensus.
[13:48] Daruma Boa: ^^
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: yes . . . even if we're a minority, right?
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: oh ab so so wrong
[13:48] herman Bergson: HOLD ON....
[13:48] Lena Sigall: that's the funny part ... Obama's not that liberal and sure isn't a socialist lol
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: its proven
[13:48] herman Bergson: Let's keep the media out!
[13:48] herman Bergson: And individual people..
[13:48] herman Bergson: and stick to the general ideas ㋡
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: Quakers, for example, make decisions only through consensus.
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: getting off track lol
[13:49] herman Bergson: yes Bruce....
[13:49] Lena Sigall: ok herman
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: yep.. sorry
[13:49] herman Bergson: But if majority vote is a clause in the contract...the minority should respect that
[13:50] herman Bergson: day you belong to this minority and the other day on an other issue to a majority
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: or a certain % of the majority -- like 2/3 in the Congress.....
[13:50] Lena Sigall: well..... in America the majority says, for example, that gays can't be married,... isn't it wrong for a minority to have their rights violated by a bigoted majority?
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: also, what can be decided by vote, what cannot,
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: That's - at present - is up to the states -- not federal (nation=wide).
[13:50] herman Bergson: Hold on for a moment.....
[13:51] herman Bergson: What Lena is saying refers to a moral majority....
[13:51] herman Bergson: The same problem as in Victorian age....
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: GW Bush tried to get a Constitution Amendment outlawing gay marriage, but that failed. MANY states have outlawed it, though -- like the one I live in.
[13:51] herman Bergson: Is is as a cloack spread over society and disables the democratic processes
[13:52] Lena Sigall: can you elaborate herman?
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: remember socrates executed by majority vote....
[13:52] herman Bergson: Ministers, priests , all that kind of people are not democratically chosen....
[13:53] herman Bergson: butt they lean heavily on society with their moral judgements and demands..
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: coalitions arent either
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: chosen that is
[13:53] herman Bergson: That is why Locke and others wanted State and religion to be separated…
[13:53] Lena Sigall: but i mean, when gay marriage rights are up for a vote, they usually fail
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: marx went even one step further than that...
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: when state and religion were more separated...
[13:54] herman Bergson: yes....but that is because the liberal assumes rationality as basis of human action....while reality shows different
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: lol yes
[13:54] herman Bergson: It is not that black and white or simple
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: it never is
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: nothing in philosophy is
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: the world is grey
[13:55] herman Bergson: so sometimes rationality prevails, sometimes irrationality, sometimes even plain stupidity ^_^
[13:55] Bruce Mowbray thinks: Where are the edges between "things"?
[13:56] Lena Sigall: but others are forced to agree to the stupid votes as part of a social contract?
[13:56] herman Bergson: So, I would suggest to continue our Quest in Political Philosophy...
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: :-)
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: Tuesday
[13:56] Bruce Mowbray: Wonderful, prof!
[13:56] herman Bergson: And I want to thank you for this brilliant discussion of today
[13:56] Daruma Boa: yes great
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: have a nice holiday weekend all those who have one
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: thank you professor
[13:56] Daruma Boa: .-'`'-. APPLAUSE APPLAUSE .-'`'-.
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you Professor and all
[13:56] Bruce Mowbray: [`·.] APPLAUSE!! [.·´]
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********
[13:56] herman Bergson: another gem for our blog
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********
[13:56] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:56] Lena Sigall: thanks, herman
[13:56] Bruce Mowbray: [`·.] APPLAUSE!! [.·´]
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: GODLIKE !!!!!
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: see you soon
[13:57] Josiane Llewellyn: Thanks Professor :)
[13:57] herman Bergson: Thank you all....Class Dismissed ㋡
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[13:57] ZANICIA Chau: Many thanks professor. Goodbye, Look forward to the next meet
[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herman:-))
[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: remain please, our philosophical leader! Mr. professor
[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-)))
[13:57] Daruma Boa: yes hope 2 see u soon herman;-)
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim whispers: that is german right?
[13:57] Lena Sigall: see you next time, all
[13:57] herman Bergson: gerne geschehen...Bergie
[13:57] dzjengis Parx: thx and bey all
[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-)
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: c ya Lemna :D
[13:57] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye Lena
[13:57] Zinzi's translator: bye bye Lena
[13:58] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: Lena*
[13:58] Daruma Boa: bye all!!
[13:58] bergfrau Apfelbaum: see u tuesday
[13:58] Kiki Walpanheim: that is the only word i know in german ;-)
[13:58] Kiki Walpanheim: see you tuesday
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: bye Daruma
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: bye all
[13:58] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye abrax
[13:58] Zinzi's translator: bye bye abrax
[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Zinzi!
[13:59] Zinzi Serevi: thanks prof en tot vlug
[13:59] Zinzi's translator: thanks to fast and professional
[13:59] herman Bergson: OK ㋡

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

256: The Ways of Liberalism 3

As we saw last time with Mandeville Liberalism was almost defined as the religion of greed. A popular belief in our time, but historically not the truth about liberalism, which finds its origin in the individualism, which already emerged in the Renaissance.

Traditional English liberalism has rested on a fairly simple concept of liberty—namely, that of freedom from the constraints of the state. In Thomas Hobbes’s memorable phrase, “The liberties of subjects depend on the silence of the law.”

English liberals have regarded the state as a necessary institution, ensuring order and law at home, defense against foreign powers, and security of possessions—the three principles John Locke summarized as “life, liberty and property.”

They have also maintained that the law can be used to extend the liberties of subjects insofar as the law is made to curb and limit the activities of the executive government.

The main element in liberal theories is the position of the state. With the rise of parlamentary democracy and all the legislative zeal of the representatives, the role of the state is still an important issue.

Even in such a sense that instead of a state influence as small as possible, the 20th century liberals in England saw the state as an instrument. The central aim of this new school was utilitarian— namely, freeing men from misery and ignorance.

The French development of liberalism oscillated between the Lockean ideas and those of Rousseau, who lays particular emphasis on freedom and equality. The French scene was devised in royalism and conservatism on the one side.

And socialism, anarchism on the other side. Liberalism was the theory of the middle, but it never was really adopted as a name of a political movement, and the theory was predominantly Lockean

Is is interesting to note that the emphasis on the freedom of the person and a minimal interference by the state is just a few steps away from anarchism. We should dig into that subject too.

Most telling is the view of Jean de Grandvilliers (1925), a french politician. According to Grandvilliers, the true meaning of liberalism is to be found in a policy of extending the liberty of the people; he maintained that the intervention of the state is not only a useful, but also a necessary, means to achieve that end.

The basic idea here is that the state belongs to the people, the enlargement of the power of the state is equally an enlargement of the power, and therefore the freedom, of its citizens. This is called statism.

In Germany, as elsewhere, we may discern not a single doctrine of liberalism but at least two main, conflicting schools, which again may be classified as the Lockean and the étatiste.

Here you see the basic conflict of liberal theory. On the one hand it wants to minimize the influence of the state in the life of the individual citizen, and on the other side the liberal sees the state as an instrument to elevate the masses.

In the US it isn't an honor to be called a "liberal", I guess. In The Liberal Imagination, Lionel Trilling (1975+) , an American literary critic, author, and teacher,defined liberalism as meaning, among other things, “a belief in planning and international co-operation, especially where Russia is in question.”

This definition may not have been wholly authorized by common usage, but there can be no doubt that the word liberal has come to be associated in the American public’s mind with étatiste and left-wing ideologies rather than with the Lockean notions of laissez faire and mistrust of organized power.

One might divide liberals into those who see freedom as something that belongs to the individual, to be defended against the encroachments of the state,

and those who see freedom as something which belongs to society and which the state, as the central instrument of social betterment, can be made to enlarge and improve.

The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson smiles
[13:21] herman Bergson: I knew you would react...Gemma
[13:21] herman Bergson: And Kiki..I hope this lecture clariefied a few things?
[13:21] Kiki Walpanheim: yes
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: not really
[13:21] herman Bergson: ok Gemma
[13:22] herman Bergson: shoot
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray smiles.
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: i am called a liberal because i am for more government
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: i am for caring for the poor who have no work
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: and for the ill
[13:22] Repose Lionheart: me too
[13:22] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and was very much in favor of the new health plan
[13:23] herman Bergson: Well ...
[13:23] Bruce Mowbray says Yayyy, Gemma.
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and want the government to do something about energy
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and greening
[13:23] herman Bergson: to put it all in proper perspective
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and it is most strange that during this oil disaster in the gulf
[13:24] herman Bergson: The basic idea of liberalism is the freedom of the individual...
[13:24] herman Bergson: problem is ..
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: that those who have been screaming about government interference
[13:24] herman Bergson: when the individual isnt gifted....or is ill..or unemployed…it is not much fun to be an individual
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: now what the government to take over the curing of the private company's problems
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:24] Kiki Walpanheim: but whichever strand of liberalism is, i think the central idea is not about simple redistribution of wealth
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: soooo true!
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: Gemma
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: right KIKI
[13:25] Abraxas Nagy: it never is
[13:25] herman Bergson: I think it is about redistribution of wealth
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: here in the usa the conservatives want low taxes and no government
[13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: but about elevating, encouraging the individuals to be in pursuit of happiness and thereby benefit the society as a whole
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: feeling strongly about that
[13:26] herman Bergson: But I mean it....
[13:26] herman Bergson: We live in such wealthy societies...if I speak for myself...
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: it would be nice if there could be a redistribution of the enormous differences yes
[13:26] herman Bergson: yes Gemma....
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: but maybe if those really really rich paid more taxes!!!!!
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: but NO
[13:27] herman Bergson: A world where people get paid bonusses of Millions of dollars....that is absurd
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: cannot get that through yes it is absurd
[13:27] herman Bergson: those millions belong somewhere else
[13:27] Zinzi Serevi: yes
[13:27] Zinzi's translator: yes
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: would do more good somewhere else
[13:27] herman Bergson: in the first place they are stolen from all customers
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:28] herman Bergson: did Marx say..Profit is theft?
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe what is in common is about encouraging creativity, innovation, which is the key to public benefits
[13:28] herman Bergson: In a way it is….excesive profits is theft...immoral
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: innovation in science and tech. for example
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes, agree, kiki
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: and i think liberalism is suitable for promoting creativity
[13:29] Zinzi Serevi: or education
[13:29] herman Bergson: yes....
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: yes, and productive of greed and systemic inefficiency
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: tho how to redistribute wealth is in dispute, it is not the key to solve all the problems...
[13:29] herman Bergson: But that is the ambiguity...
[13:30] herman Bergson: on the one hand a liberal wants as less involvement of the state as possible
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: oh well not so here
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: i dont believe in anarchism
[13:30] herman Bergson: On the other hand they want the state to educate the masses
[13:31] herman Bergson: only human being can think of anarchism Kiki...
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: oh....
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: liberals are accused of wanting more government
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: here
[13:31] herman Bergson: not an organism in this world thinks of it
[13:32] herman Bergson: So..quintessential is: what is the role of the state
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: here the most conservatives want NO government except military protection
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: the new tea party for ex that is their mantra
[13:33] herman Bergson: yes Gemma...that is the most extreme position for a liberal
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: what is
[13:33] herman Bergson: an army and police..that is al that is needed in a society
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: yes lol
[13:33] Abraxas Nagy: liberals meet anarchists
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: but that is the conservative view here
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: soooo....America is a liberal democracy, in which it's "left" and "right" are effectively the two historical positions of the liberalism of political philosophy...
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes I know
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: i see some very big gov. in some places have very poor police to protect its citizens
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: some call the liberals communist or at least socialist
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: so if the police do the job well, that is not a bad thing
[13:34] Bruce Mowbray: How about different modes of government: federalism - federal, states, counties, townships, villages - each with differing governmental responsibilities?
[13:35] herman Bergson: Brudce,..
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: well , at least, having a big gov. regulating everything except protecting its citizens, it worse than the tea party option...
[13:35] herman Bergson: that doesnt affect the basic political view here..
[13:36] herman Bergson: you are for an government with big influence on society or you are for a government that only provides for an army and police/justice system
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: tho i wouldn't say i am in favour of the tea party option, not that sure....
[13:36] Bruce Mowbray: Some levels of govt. will take the Lockean side - others will take the other side, of the liberal ambiguity...
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: i think police/justice system is fundamental, yet some very central big gov. which regulate almost everything else could fail to do that
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well if we take the American perspective…any social involvement of the health care etc is called communism..
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: i think some other regulation from the gov. other than just police/justice system is also necessary tho
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: lol
[13:37] Bruce Mowbray: in USA, almost all policing is handled by municipalities -- or perhaps states (highways, etc.) -- almost NO federal police, except in emergencies.
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well Adam Smith said...there are thing the individual citizen cant that should be a government task
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: take scientific research for example, tho the firms would fund some research, they are mainly market oriented only
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: you have the FBI tho
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: Every single county in America has a health department -- and NONE of them call that 'communist.'
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki...
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: and if the gov. could do that as well, then more fundamental , theriotical, non market oriented ones could be taken care of too
[13:39] herman Bergson: So the govenment should organize education and give room to pure scientific research
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: yet they are paramound
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: i think so
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: that is just one example...i think
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes absolutely
[13:40] herman Bergson: I agree Kiki
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: i think the problem with some very big gov. is not that they interfere too much, but that the inteference is not in the right places...
[13:41] herman Bergson: My idea is that our societies have become so complex that talking about liberalism or socialism..left just a debate in the margine of reality
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, professor, i think so
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: agree
[13:42] herman Bergson: The system is run by economics....the stock markets....the speculators
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: American conservatives do want health care, libraries, schools, etc -- They just want them governed closer to home - not my the federal government (Wash. D.C.)
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: then problems come…environment, scientific research, monopoly....
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes Kiki
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: i think we can leave things to the market for what it can do, and regulate what cant be solved by simple --market
[13:43] herman Bergson: And all is coverted into profit or loss
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: Laissez faire.
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: but , if the police/justice system really is good, then i would be very much satisfied....even in the tea party option
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray gasps.
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: hmmmmm
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: me too bruce
[13:44] Zinzi Serevi: pfff
[13:44] Zinzi's translator: pfff
[13:44] herman Bergson: I understand Kiki....
[13:45] Zinzi Serevi: i dont
[13:45] Zinzi's translator: i dont
[13:45] herman Bergson: But there are things the indiviual cant afford..
[13:45] herman Bergson: so just add education, healthcare, pensions and we have a deal ^_^
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, and i think private health insurance has flaws
[13:46] herman Bergson: Just keep in mind.....
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: wel...maybe some regulation in the economics, the market....i dont know...
[13:46] herman Bergson: Locke lives in the 17th century..the world was so much simpeler then
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: guess so
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yes ㋡
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: i was reading locke today.... to the 5th chapter....
[13:47] herman Bergson: Just take china now....
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: will continue after this lecture...
[13:47] herman Bergson: It is tied with hands and feet to western economics....stock markets etc
[13:48] herman Bergson: It is just playing along
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: which right now is very scary
[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma..who is ruling the world?
[13:48] Rodney Handrick: yes it is Gemma
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: the market?
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: the Bilderbergers?
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:49] Rodney Handrick: I'd say the officials at the world bank
[13:49] herman Bergson: At least not our Prime Minister..that is for sure.. ^_^
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say
[13:49] herman Bergson: lol Abraxas
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray smiles.
[13:49] Rodney Handrick: Isn't the world bank a private entity?
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: think so...
[13:49] herman Bergson: Well...this is the scary face of liberalim then, I guess
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: exactly and so is the US federal banks
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: private
[13:50] Rodney Handrick: Then it's the shareholders of these private corporations
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well...I think I should focus on egalitarianism next time..or communism...
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: looking forward to it
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: yep me to
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray says Yep!
[13:51] herman Bergson: we need a couterpoint..
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: i agree
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: many people in the US think we're heading in that direction
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: been thinking about these things all these years
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: me
[13:51] herman Bergson: Liberalism isnt the solution in my opinion
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: so have I Kiki
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: a lot actually
[13:52] herman Bergson: Well..maybe it is....the human being is the problem ^_^
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:52] Rodney Handrick: thank god I'm not
[13:52] Bruce Mowbray: hahaha
[13:52] herman Bergson: ok...this concludes the series on the religion of greed ^_^
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: hahaha
[13:53] herman Bergson: On to the next religion....
[13:53] herman Bergson: the one of sharing...
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: that sums it up nicely
[13:53] herman Bergson smiles
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:53] herman Bergson: thnx Abraxas
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: yw pro
[13:54] Bruce Mowbray says, Things are looking up.
[13:54] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your endurrance...
[13:54] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you professor and all
[13:54] herman Bergson: and contributions to the nice discussion
[13:54] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:54] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:54] Bruce Mowbray: Thank YOU, professor.
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: it was inspiring again thanx herman
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: thanks
[13:54] herman Bergson: thnx Abraxas
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday i hope
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: yep
[13:55] ZANICIA Chau: yes truly inspiring, thanks Professor
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: see you all in 2 dayes
[13:55] herman Bergson: Hi CONNIE
[13:55] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye..:)
[13:55] Zinzi's translator: bye bye ..:)
[13:55] Sartre Placebo: thx and good night everyone
[13:55] CONNIE Eichel: great class, professor :)
[13:55] herman Bergson: Nice you came in too

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, May 21, 2010

255: The Ways of Liberalism 2

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.

4.The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism."

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: 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 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: 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 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: 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 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, 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 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: our reseauch goes 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 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
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

254: The Ways of Liberalism 1

[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 friend recovered after a few 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 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 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 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 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 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... 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 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 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 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

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]