Is man an end in himself?

[Havet]

Or is he merely a means to the end of others? To have no authority over his mind, and the products of his mind, and labor, if so was decided by majoritarian vote?

Many communists seem to believe that there is no such thing as an intellect, because a man's brain is a social product, a sum of influences he's picked out from those around him. Many believe that nobody invents anything, they merely reflect what's floating around in the social atmosphere. They believe a genius is an intellectual scavenger and greedy hoarder of ideas which rightfully belong to society, from which he stole them.

Do you honestly believe that all thought is theft?

You believe that if you do away with private fortunes, you'll have a "fairer" distribution of wealth. If you do away with genius, will you have a better "distribution" of ideas?

I disagree this idea as the most contemptible attempt at an argument ever devised.

When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some members take precedence over the goods of others. The doctrine that "human rights" are superior to "property rights" simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of "human".

How can it be possible that man's mind is a social product? How can great technological advancements have taken place when "the social atmosphere" was empty? It cannot be, it is a contradiction.

This is not a criticism of communism, but a criticism of some of the communist beliefs. Proceed from there, and not from anywhere else.

[Dimentio]

Why do libertarians always use the word "man" to describe human beings, given that the majority of human beings are women?

As for the overall discussion about the purpose of society, I would say that the issue of the purpose of society contra the purpose of human life is not one and the same thing.

Society should provide all individuals a level on which they could reach their highest possible potential without intentionally or unintentionally harming the life quality of other individuals or future generations of individuals. The purpose of the individual is for the individual herself to decide.

[Zanthorus]

1. I agree with dimentio on the use of the word man.

2. No human beings are not means to ends. They are indeed ends in themselves. When you commodify labour you make human beings means to ends. Hence, capitalism is wrong.

[ComradeMan]

Or is he merely a means to the end of others? To have no authority over his mind, and the products of his mind, and labor, if so was decided by majoritarian vote?

But is the mind, the products of the mind and the products of labour one in the same? Not really in my opinion- I don't understand the last part about majoritarian vote either...

Many communists seem to believe that there is no such thing as an intellect, because a man's brain is a social product, a sum of influences he's picked out from those around him. Many believe that nobody invents anything, they merely reflect what's floating around in the social atmosphere. They believe a genius is an intellectual scavenger and greedy hoarder of ideas which rightfully belong to society, from which he stole them.

Who exactly believes that? What did they say? I've never read so much crap in one paragraph- unless you are talking about, perhaps, Pol Pot who was a nutter- I'm not sure who you are quoting... :confused:

Do you honestly believe that all thought is theft?

No- because I never have come across anyone who did to be honest- not to say they don't exist but are we talking about communism here? I have heard said that an "idea" belongs to everyone, but that's not quite the same as saying a thought is theft.

You believe that if you do away with private fortunes, you'll have a "fairer" distribution of wealth. If you do away with genius, will you have a better "distribution" of ideas?

But what has the one got to do with the other? Did the inventor of the bow and arrow or the first person to make fire have a private fortune? How the hell could you do away with genius anyway- it's a completely silly argument.

What you are doing is comparing two incomparable things and forcing an argument that cannot logically exist. How the hell do you distribute ideas, ideas are not physical "objects" like bread? Ideas can be spread through the means of communication and education etc, but it's not the same.

I disagree this idea as the most contemptible attempt at an argument ever devised.

Well I disagree with it because it's a complete load of crap and I don't know who came out with it in the first place.

When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some members take precedence over the goods of others. The doctrine that "human rights" are superior to "property rights" simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of "human".

This is a typical reactionary rightwing line. Society has moulded the individual, the individual doesn't and has not ever, mould(ed) society.

Why does the doctrine of human rights over property rights mean what you say? I don't see the connection to be honest.

Breaking down society into two crude binary analysis groups, competent and incompetent doesn't leave much room for debate. But society doesn't break down into these two groups to start with. The rest of the hypothesis seems to fall down on these false premises.

How can it be possible that man's mind is a social product? How can great technological advancements have taken place when "the social atmosphere" was empty? It cannot be, it is a contradiction.

But no one is saying that in the first place.

This is not a criticism of communism, but a criticism of some of the communist beliefs. Proceed from there, and not from anywhere else.

Well it seems to be a fairly reactionary line in an attempt to attack communism. I don't hold that these are communist beliefs to start with- could you perhaps elucidate who made these statements, when, where and in what particular context.

PS. Just because a presumed "commie" says something doesn't mean that it's a communist idea or doctrine. Hell, there's a priest in the Netherlands who's fighting for his job at the moment because he's an atheist- so is atheism a Christian doctrine?
:cool:

[Havet]

Why do libertarians always use the word "man" to describe human beings, given that the majority of human beings are women?

Purposeless semantic flamebait


Society should provide all individuals a level on which they could reach their highest possible potential without intentionally or unintentionally harming the life quality of other individuals or future generations of individuals. The purpose of the individual is for the individual herself to decide.

Agreed

[Dimentio]

Purposeless semantic flamebait

No, its a serious question.

About that with "reason" as a undercurrent of human rights and the individual's right to find his or her own happiness. I do not think reason is a sufficient motivation, since it would deprive a lot of people - mainly those who are mentally disabled - from the right to realise their own dreams. I think that rights are a product of society, which in its turn is a product of the surrounding natural conditions.

I believe that by creating as good conditions as possible, we could create a society as inclusive and tolerant as possible, which could provide the majority of people with the right to their own time. When people are in control of their own time, they will be creative.

[Havet]

But is the mind, the products of the mind and the products of labour one in the same? Not really in my opinion- I don't understand the last part about majoritarian vote either...

Why do you consider one more important than the other?



Who exactly believes that? What did they say? I've never read so much crap in one paragraph- unless you are talking about, perhaps, Pol Pot who was a nutter- I'm not sure who you are quoting... :confused:

If revleft didn't delete my really really old posts I could point out a couple of people who thought just that.


No- because I never have come across anyone who did to be honest- not to say they don't exist but are we talking about communism here? I have heard said that an "idea" belongs to everyone, but that's not quite the same as saying a thought is theft.

If ideas belong to everyone, then it is selfish to keep an idea just for oneself. Since ideas imply thoughts, then it could be argued that some thoughts are theft, which is nonsense. Nobody is entitled to other people's thoughts, regardless if they are important or not.

You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men toward man’s property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers.


But what has the one got to do with the other? Did the inventor of the bow and arrow or the first person to make fire have a private fortune? How the hell could you do away with genius anyway- it's a completely silly argument.

No, they did not have a fortune. Still, you have provided no argument that everyone is entitled to useful ideas.


What you are doing is comparing two incomparable things and forcing an argument that cannot logically exist. How the hell do you distribute ideas, ideas are not physical "objects" like bread? Ideas can be spread through the means of communication and education etc, but it's not the same.

Ideas can be translated into physical objects, like paper. If an inventor has an idea, why should he be forced to give it away to every person demanding authority? It's one thing that there are incentives to promote the trade of ideas in a community, it's another thing altogether to enslave inventors.


This is a typical reactionary rightwing line. Society has moulded the individual, the individual doesn't and has not ever, mould(ed) society.

I beg to differ:

Historical scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist#Historical_scientists)

List of inventors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors)

Have these individuals not moulded society? Yes, they have moulded it.


Why does the doctrine of human rights over property rights mean what you say? I don't see the connection to be honest.

I thought the explanation was simple to understand?

You cannot have EITHER human rights OR property rights. You must have both. Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort.


PS. Just because a presumed "commie" says something doesn't mean that it's a communist idea or doctrine. Hell, there's a priest in the Netherlands who's fighting for his job at the moment because he's an atheist- so is atheism a Christian doctrine?
:cool:

Trust me, I was confronted with that argument several times. I was in a fair position to extrapolate. And even if I wasn't, i hope things are cleared now.

[Drace]

Man's thoughts are nothing more but a result of the determined material conditions that have led to actions and reactions in a lawful way from the beginning of time.
They are influenced greatly by their perceptions and are ultimately only a collection and logical processes of them.

Though, how this relates to the individuality of man and even more so to the "fairer distribution of goods", I don't know.
Do cappies still believe the property rights of the bourgeoisie are nothing but their individuality? As if there is a relation between individual thoughts (which I already discussed that it isn't very individual) and ownership of capital?

That was all a piece of idealist shit.

[Dimentio]

Hayenmill and CM both have points. The individual could affect society, but not mold it completely. There must exist a social infrastructure and technological level which make further discoveries possible. Beethoven couldn't for example have composed his music in a stonge age village. Ayn Rand wouldn't have written her novels in a medieval society. Karl Marx wouldn't have written down his theories if he had lived in the Roman Empire, and if he had written down any theories, they would have looked different.

Everything that human beings are doing, are reactions to external stimuli and impulses from what they see around them, whether in the form of their five senses or abstract social codes, language, society and knowledge.

[Havet]

No, its a serious question.

No, it isn't. Just as anarcho-capitalists cannot ignore the whole anarchism tradition to their own liking, so you cannot ignore the historical significance attached to the word "man" and "men", which I was using as a substitute to humanity as a whole.


About that with "reason" as a undercurrent of human rights and the individual's right to find his or her own happiness. I do not think reason is a sufficient motivation, since it would deprive a lot of people - mainly those who are mentally disabled - from the right to realise their own dreams. I think that rights are a product of society, which in its turn is a product of the surrounding natural conditions.

Rights are just an idea. Certain rights are objectively good for a society to realize that they should be preserved. Reason is not always a sufficient motivation, but that does not mean that the advocates of reason should be enslaved in any manner whatsoever for the sake of whoever demands it.


I believe that by creating as good conditions as possible, we could create a society as inclusive and tolerant as possible, which could provide the majority of people with the right to their own time. When people are in control of their own time, they will be creative.

Agreed

[Dimentio]

I haven't said that anyone should be enslaved. It is not logical to enslave people because they have differing ideas from where human rights are derived. I ultimately think that human rights are and should be based around empathy. For example, people who are sick, blind and impoverished... we should always be able to identify ourselves with them. We could have been born in those conditions. If we were born in those conditions, how would we like to be treated?

[Havet]

I haven't said that anyone should be enslaved. It is not logical to enslave people because they have differing ideas from where human rights are derived. I ultimately think that human rights are and should be based around empathy. For example, people who are sick, blind and impoverished... we should always be able to identify ourselves with them. We could have been born in those conditions. If we were born in those conditions, how would we like to be treated?

I agree, rights should derive from inter-subjective consent, whether that is empathy or reason, or both.

[ComradeMan]

Why do you consider one more important than the other?

I don't- I said they were different. You can't apply this one size fits all rationale to these things, they are different.

If revleft didn't delete my really really old posts I could point out a couple of people who thought just that.

Well, I trust you on that- but then that does not necessarily reflect "communism" does it? What a few people right on an internet forum...:D

If ideas belong to everyone, then it is selfish to keep an idea just for oneself.

Yep, that's right.

Since ideas imply thoughts, then it could be argued that some thoughts are theft, which is nonsense.

No logic here, we have A=B so B=C... :confused: You've just jumped here to something entirely different. Can a thought be stolen? If someone communicates a thought then they have voluntarily placed it in the "public thought domain" or they have at least shared it with one other person therefore they have voluntarily given up their right to the thought- if such a thing can be argued anyway. :lol:

Nobody is entitled to other people's thoughts, regardless if they are important or not.

No, but then if you want to keep your thoughts to yourself you can, can't you? If you open your mouth, put pen to paper or whatever else you have given up that right.

I think you may be guilty of over-reification of an abstract concept here.


You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men toward man’s property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers.

What exactly are the products of a mind? Because if you argue the thought you are on dangerous ground, if you argue the end material product you are on dangerous ground too. No one has probably ever invented or discovered anything that did not base itself on the thoughts and ideas of others, nor have they ever produced anything that did not involve the work and co-operation of others.

On a more philosophical note, if I have a thought about anarchism, then it is a thought based on my internal collection of other people's thoughts and filtered by my own opinion and experience through a complex network of links "in my mind", but fundamentally that thought is not purely "my own thought" is it? I don't think this is an argument you can take seriously.

No, they did not have a fortune. Still, you have provided no argument that everyone is entitled to useful ideas.

Because human beings are only human beings because there are other human beings, (African proverb), the society that produces the individual is entitled to share in the ideas of the individual that are also a product of the said society. What a nasty and selfish worldview it would be if everyone were to be so jealous of their secrets.

Ideas can be translated into physical objects, like paper. If an inventor has an idea, why should he be forced to give it away to every person demanding authority?

Well, I don't believe they are usually forced, but the inventor has benefitted from growing up, being educated and the provisions of society hasn't he or she? The guy who comes and takes away the rubbish from the inventor's lab helps the inventor in that the inventor does not waste valuable research time going to the tip, the old lady next door who makes the inventor a cup of tea and the boy who delivers his scientific journals to his lab and the nurse who helped the inventor's mother through a difficult labour when he or she was born and so on and so on. "No man is an island"...

It's one thing that there are incentives to promote the trade of ideas in a community, it's another thing altogether to enslave inventors.

Where are all these enslaved inventors? :D

The inventors and historical scientists....


Have these individuals not moulded society? Yes, they have moulded it.

No, because they too were first moulded by the society that created them- for better or worse. They also did not exist as pure entities unto themselves did they? They also owed their theories and discoveries to the work and ideas of others too.

I thought the explanation was simple to understand?

You cannot have EITHER human rights OR property rights. You must have both. Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort.

There are several societies that exist to this day in which the idea of private property is not really known other than a few personal belongings, the Khoi-San society of Southern Africa for example, or many hunter-gather and nomadic peoples. These peoples do have the idea of human rights however and usually suffer the worst violations of human rights when they come into contact with "property" owning societies.

As for the last part of the argument, it falls down on the premise that the "inventor" loses out when his or her invention is used by the collective, what benefits society will also benefit the individual within the soceity of which the inventor is an inextricable part.

Trust me, I was confronted with that argument several times. I was in a fair position to extrapolate. And even if I wasn't, i hope things are cleared now.

I do, but I still think that your line of thought on this matter is reactionary and selfish. :thumbup1:

Stop buying all that anarcho-cap crap and come on over to the "PEOPLE"....;)

[IcarusAngel]

What the hell is this idiot talking about? He claims property is necessary for production (with no evidence) and then cites science, which has never used property, as an example? Why is this idiot still here?

[Dimentio]

What idiot?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Words have context. When someone uses the word "man" to refer to humanity, everyone knows what they're talking about. While it may be legitimate to criticize the usage, you need a more sophisticated argument than the fact that the word "man" is used. That reminds me of a movie featuring Malcolm X. He is shown that the connotations of the word "black" are largely negative while those of "white" are largely positive. However, I don't think it would be of any significance to change the meaning of the word "black" for other contexts. The point is that it's "context" determines things. If my name, by some random chance, means "miserable wretch" in another language, I would be perfectly capable of entering that society without feeling marginalized by the fact that a term has multiple contexts.

As for the original topic. I am a little confused about the terminology. When the phrase "end in himself" comes up, I typically suspect we're talking about Kant and the fact that you should treat people as if their own interests matter, regardless of the fact that they are distinct from your own. I'm on board with that.

As for intellect, it's functionally defined as the ability to solve problems. That's clearly an ability that exists. And the mind is the brain, in my view, and the brain clearly exists.

I do believe ideas are put together from information "out there in the world." I'm not sure creativity legitimately exists, but I'm open-minded. Thoughts are still available to everyone if realized. I fail to understand how someone could possible argue they are theft.

The only issue I run into concerning genius is the notion of patents and intellectual property, which should not exist. People should support geniuses in society for their obvious benefits, and geniuses should willingly share their discoveries with others.

If I was getting close to a cure for cancer, I would most likely keep it to myself. This is a problem as that's irrational. If I think I'm close, I should throw my information into the public realm. If someone else makes the discovery first, all the better for society. It's a little ridiculous to say he "created" the cure. A lot of people did. I would've helped. The people who created the chemistry helped. The people who created the medicine that saved the lives of the chemists help. A ridiculous number of people contributed in their own way.

And "new" discovers should be shared because they can be beneficial and lead to other discoveries. We live in a society where anyone who gave information about a potential cure, then was beaten to the punch, would probably get royally screwed over by the system and left with little to no credit. People naturally want credit for their labor in terms of recognition, not necessarily wealth. That's part of the reason employers who pay poor salaries yet treat employees kindly often do better than those who treat employees negatively.

[IcarusAngel]

The debate about knowledge is a social science debate. One could be a communist and believe there are vast differences in intelligence, for example, he merely thinks that the most conducive environment for this is a communist environment. The reason many people believe that you do not have a claim to your idea is from an old psychological debate, and it's somewhat ironic that it was leftists who overturned this. However, even if everybody has innate ideas and some people have better connections in the brain than others, it could be said that everybody shares the same structure which allows people to recognize genius.

Also, keep in mind that communists teach "from each according to their ability..." which you could interpret as meaning that the smart get more resources, or that some people are tailored to perform different functions for society. Newton, for example, was a failure as a farmer. He succeeded because his family allowed him to read and study books and he had a neighbor (or a relative) that gave him many books, which he constantly studied. Had his family forced him to be a farmer humanity would have been held back (just as humanity is probably held back by the fact that many smart people are forced into artificially constructed markets). Einstein liked to play music, but supposedly he wasn't very good at it. He was good at physics, and it could perhaps be recognized by a committee he should have his leisure time, which is needed for his mental health, but he doesn't need to do music full time due to being a poor musician. He can do physics if he wants more from the community.

If it's shown that farmers are more important than scientists for a time being maybe farmers would even be given more resources, and certainly they would have the resources that they need.

There is no evidence whatsoever that communists teach that man's ideas automatically belong to society, that all ideas are just floating around, or that they believe genius is unnatural.

As for science as property this just makes no sense whatsoever.

[Comrade Anarchist]

A person is to work for their own good only. Everything we do should be for ourselves and to further our happiness. If i am supposed to sacrifice my knowledge or happiness for society then society must be abolished. There are some people in this world better at some jobs and others at other jobs. The way a person thinks can not be helped and to sacrifice it for the good of the people is pure tyranny.

[Che a chara]

A person is to work for their own good only. Everything we do should be for ourselves and to further our happiness. If i am supposed to sacrifice my knowledge or happiness for society then society must be abolished. There are some people in this world better at some jobs and others at other jobs. The way a person thinks can not be helped and to sacrifice it for the good of the people is pure tyranny.

can you give an example of where a person furthering himself can occur without exploitation and where you think this may be opposed in a communist or socialist society ?

[Drace]

A person is to work for their own good only. Everything we do should be for ourselves and to further our happiness. If i am supposed to sacrifice my knowledge or happiness for society then society must be abolished. There are some people in this world better at some jobs and others at other jobs. The way a person thinks can not be helped and to sacrifice it for the good of the people is pure tyranny.Yeah were not advocating slavery, btw.
And working for a capitalist somehow isn't working for the good of another person? So your preaching of individuality only applies to the bourgeoisie, who live as long as they can exploit.

You are against abolishing wage slavery in order for people to earn the full benefits of their labor? As if somehow its only just when individuals are completely isolated from the political and economic decisions which affect all workers as a whole.

Your rant of individuality is nothing more than a a mere justification for the existence of private property in the hands of the few which allows them "to subdue, to crush, to exploit,...to enslave, to outrage, to degrade"

Stop the idealist shit.

[RGacky3]

Or is he merely a means to the end of others? To have no authority over his mind, and the products of his mind, and labor, if so was decided by majoritarian vote?

No one belives this, also why would anyone want to vote on peoples minds? Are you insane? Or vote on someones creativity?


Many communists seem to believe that there is no such thing as an intellect, because a man's brain is a social product, a sum of influences he's picked out from those around him. Many believe that nobody invents anything, they merely reflect what's floating around in the social atmosphere. They believe a genius is an intellectual scavenger and greedy hoarder of ideas which rightfully belong to society, from which he stole them.

No one believes that at all, I don't know waht your talking about here, I don't know any one that has a problem with people having ideas. If your tyring to justify intelectual property, its not working, the only reason FOR intelectual property is exploitation, you don't need intelectual property to recognise genius. But no one here has a problem with intelligent people.


Do you honestly believe that all thought is theft?

You believe that if you do away with private fortunes, you'll have a "fairer" distribution of wealth. If you do away with genius, will you have a better "distribution" of ideas?

I disagree this idea as the most contemptible attempt at an argument ever devised.

NO, NO ONE BELIEVES THOUGHT IS THEFT, NO ONE, what the hell are you talking about.

What on earth do private fortunes have to do with genius? No one wants to do away with genius? No one is trying to distribute ideas you goddamn lunatic.


When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some members take precedence over the goods of others. The doctrine that "human rights" are superior to "property rights" simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of "human".

No, no it does'nt, equality of rights, don't mean some take precidence over others, have you ever worked in a group to accomplish something you all wanted to accomplish? Seriously, do you have any idea about what human cooperation is?

Heres my advice to individualists and libertarians, get some friends, and do stuff with them.

First of all what are you talking about the "incompitent" YOu mean the disabled? the elderly? What? Most peopl are compitent to do something, and most people WANT to be compitent, its human nature, have you ever been unemployed for a long period of time? Its not fun, even if you have money, its not a good feeling. You have no concept of human nature. Also, do you want to know the best way to distribute based on compitense? its called democracy, it works much better than the free market, which distributes based on market power.

The fact is Private property is what turns people into cattle, people who, because of a class system, are turned into cattle, not by those with compitense, but by those with the market power. Based on this thread I think its contemptible that you call yourself a leftist or a socialsit or whatever, your a Capitalist at your Core, call it what you will, your a Capitalist.

The fact taht you equate a human with what he owns is contemptible as well, and shows you have no notion of what it is to be a human.


How can it be possible that man's mind is a social product? How can great technological advancements have taken place when "the social atmosphere" was empty? It cannot be, it is a contradiction.

This is an argument of nature vrs nuture, and scientists hav'nt made good conclusions, but indications show its a mixture of both, genetics, upbringing, access to education and so on. But no one believes that someones Mind belongs to the public, the fact that you try to turn everything into a comodity, property, and argue from there shows that down to the core you have a capitalist philosophy, which is really an inhuman philosophy.

All I have to say, is that this thread is rediculous.

[Havet]

Well, I trust you on that- but then that does not necessarily reflect "communism" does it? What a few people right on an internet forum...:D

Well, i'm glad to know that it doesn't.


Yep, that's right.

Why do you think ideas belong to everyone?


No logic here, we have A=B so B=C... :confused: You've just jumped here to something entirely different. Can a thought be stolen? If someone communicates a thought then they have voluntarily placed it in the "public thought domain" or they have at least shared it with one other person therefore they have voluntarily given up their right to the thought- if such a thing can be argued anyway. :lol:

No, you are confusing equality with implication. I didn't say that A = B so B = C.

Lets call Ideas A and thoughts B. What I actually said was that A => B, not that A <=> B.

If ideas belong to everyone, keeping one to oneself is theft "from the community". Since ideas IMPLY thoughts, SOME thoughts are theft.


No, but then if you want to keep your thoughts to yourself you can, can't you? If you open your mouth, put pen to paper or whatever else you have given up that right.

Yes, I can. But what "right" does everyone else have to the piece of paper where I have translated my thoughts on?

Just to be clear, i am NOT trying to defend intellectual property.


What exactly are the products of a mind? Because if you argue the thought you are on dangerous ground, if you argue the end material product you are on dangerous ground too. No one has probably ever invented or discovered anything that did not base itself on the thoughts and ideas of others, nor have they ever produced anything that did not involve the work and co-operation of others.

On a more philosophical note, if I have a thought about anarchism, then it is a thought based on my internal collection of other people's thoughts and filtered by my own opinion and experience through a complex network of links "in my mind", but fundamentally that thought is not purely "my own thought" is it? I don't think this is an argument you can take seriously.

But those other thoughts i was basing myself upon were, by their owners decisions, free to everyone (both in freedom as in price). Just because they allowed me to use their thoughts doesn't mean I should be forced to share my thoughts with them.


Because human beings are only human beings because there are other human beings, (African proverb), the society that produces the individual is entitled to share in the ideas of the individual that are also a product of the said society. What a nasty and selfish worldview it would be if everyone were to be so jealous of their secrets.

Well, I don't believe they are usually forced, but the inventor has benefitted from growing up, being educated and the provisions of society hasn't he or she? The guy who comes and takes away the rubbish from the inventor's lab helps the inventor in that the inventor does not waste valuable research time going to the tip, the old lady next door who makes the inventor a cup of tea and the boy who delivers his scientific journals to his lab and the nurse who helped the inventor's mother through a difficult labour when he or she was born and so on and so on. "No man is an island"...

If you believe that then you believe that man is not an end in himself.

Individuals voluntarily (or at least should be) provided the tools which allowed for the development of human beings. In return, those human beings should voluntarily contribute to society, not be coerced into it. Your argument rests on the assumption that as soon as one exists he owes an enormous debt to "society". This is wrong. He didn't choose to be born, just as one doesn't chose what race he is born to. It would be harmful to hold judgments on facts individuals had no choice upon.


Where are all these enslaved inventors?

Every man who created without knowing when the knife of the guillotine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition) would fall upon him or when his works would be confiscated is by definition enslaved.


No, because they too were first moulded by the society that created them- for better or worse. They also did not exist as pure entities unto themselves did they? They also owed their theories and discoveries to the work and ideas of others too.

But their inventions ALWAYS brought something completely new never before seen. If they were indeed moulded by society first, then nothing new would ever appear because their inventions would always resemble parts from the society that moulded them in the first place.


As for the last part of the argument, it falls down on the premise that the "inventor" loses out when his or her invention is used by the collective, what benefits society will also benefit the individual within the soceity of which the inventor is an inextricable part.

No, it isn't based on that premisse. Of course the inventor wins when he shares his invention. But it must be on his terms, not when he is demanded to do so.

You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion: those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved.

[Havet]

All I have to say, is that this thread is rediculous.

Why did you waste time replying?

[Havet]

Words have context. When someone uses the word "man" to refer to humanity, everyone knows what they're talking about. While it may be legitimate to criticize the usage, you need a more sophisticated argument than the fact that the word "man" is used. That reminds me of a movie featuring Malcolm X. He is shown that the connotations of the word "black" are largely negative while those of "white" are largely positive. However, I don't think it would be of any significance to change the meaning of the word "black" for other contexts. The point is that it's "context" determines things. If my name, by some random chance, means "miserable wretch" in another language, I would be perfectly capable of entering that society without feeling marginalized by the fact that a term has multiple contexts.

Yes


I do believe ideas are put together from information "out there in the world." I'm not sure creativity legitimately exists, but I'm open-minded. Thoughts are still available to everyone if realized. I fail to understand how someone could possible argue they are theft.

I fail to see that as well.


The only issue I run into concerning genius is the notion of patents and intellectual property, which should not exist. People should support geniuses in society for their obvious benefits, and geniuses should willingly share their discoveries with others.

Agreed


If I was getting close to a cure for cancer, I would most likely keep it to myself. This is a problem as that's irrational. If I think I'm close, I should throw my information into the public realm. If someone else makes the discovery first, all the better for society. It's a little ridiculous to say he "created" the cure. A lot of people did. I would've helped. The people who created the chemistry helped. The people who created the medicine that saved the lives of the chemists help. A ridiculous number of people contributed in their own way.

Sure, nobody denies there were other contributions.


And "new" discovers should be shared because they can be beneficial and lead to other discoveries. We live in a society where anyone who gave information about a potential cure, then was beaten to the punch, would probably get royally screwed over by the system and left with little to no credit. People naturally want credit for their labor in terms of recognition, not necessarily wealth. That's part of the reason employers who pay poor salaries yet treat employees kindly often do better than those who treat employees negatively.

Yes, they should be shared, willingly, not coercively.

[RGacky3]

Why did you waste time replying?

To explain why its rediculous.

[ComradeMan]

Why do you think ideas belong to everyone?

Because ideas come from thoughts and excluding some divine revelation like Moses on the Mount, these thoughts are formed in the mind of an individual. This individual in turn is the result of the society in which he or she has grown and all of the communication and interaction that have taken place leading up to the "eureka" moment. Einstein could not have been Einstein if he hadn't learn to read and write at elementary school from his "non-genius" teacher etc.

No, you are confusing equality with implication. I didn't say that A = B so B = C.

Lets call Ideas A and thoughts B. What I actually said was that A => B, not that A <=> B.

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but it wasn't clear from how you stated it. Perhaps some more concrete examples are needed here... :thumbup1:

If ideas belong to everyone, keeping one to oneself is theft "from the community". Since ideas IMPLY thoughts, SOME thoughts are theft.

Well it's tricky because theft implies some material gain or loss and whilst an idea remains in the ether of the human psyche it's difficult to say it has been stolen- even though it is often said I admit, it is a bit silly. It's a bit like me saying someone stole my dream or something. I think this is getting far too metaphysical here...

Yes, I can. But what "right" does everyone else have to the piece of paper where I have translated my thoughts on?

Because they produced the piece of paper you wrote it on? Because that society also produced you?

Just to be clear, i am NOT trying to defend intellectual property.

But you blatanly are with this line of thought.

But those other thoughts i was basing myself upon were, by their owners decisions, free to everyone (both in freedom as in price). Just because they allowed me to use their thoughts doesn't mean I should be forced to share my thoughts with them.

Well, you could be a selfish tosser too, there isn't a law against it!! But at the same time is this the kind of ideology we really want to extoll? On the philosophical line we get back to the original points about the thought formation- excluding divine revelation of course.

If you believe that then you believe that man is not an end in himself.

What does man being an end to himself actually mean? This seems like taking a philosophical line to an extreme- in extremis everything goes bad.

Individuals voluntarily (or at least should be) provided the tools which allowed for the development of human beings.

Why should they be provided with the tools for development if they are not prepared to then share the fruits of their labour?

In return, those human beings should voluntarily contribute to society, not be coerced into it.

But who is talking about coercing anyone? Give me an example please....:confused:

Your argument rests on the assumption that as soon as one exists he owes an enormous debt to "society". This is wrong. He didn't choose to be born, just as one doesn't chose what race he is born to. It would be harmful to hold judgments on facts individuals had no choice upon.

Not quite, as soon as someone exists he or she is an entity probably quite incapable of inventing anything. Most inventors don't invent things as soon as they are born but after years of study, education and research or accidentally by working on something else which is in turn the result of the same.

No one chooses to be born, we can't change it- deal with it. :)

Every man who created without knowing when the knife of the guillotine would fall upon him or when his works would be confiscated is by definition enslaved.

Examples please.....

But their inventions ALWAYS brought something completely new never before seen. If they were indeed moulded by society first, then nothing new would ever appear because their inventions would always resemble parts from the society that moulded them in the first place.

Not necessarily true, in fact many discoveries and inventions in a material sense just built upon prior knowledge, or likewise could not have been achieved without prior knowledge. If those inventors or discoverers had not been moulded by society they would not have been in the position to make their invention or appreciate their discovery.

No, it isn't based on that premisse. Of course the inventor wins when he shares his invention. But it must be on his terms, not when he is demanded to do so.

What gives the inventor a right to his terms? This sounds very cappie to me....

You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion: those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved.

You're doing that darn reification thing again. Intelligence does not work, intelligence is a variable quality. You can't force anything under compulsion no more than you could force Mozart at gunpoint to compose a masterpiece such as the Magic Flute. The rhetoric is great but the substance is lacking with this comment.

I think this is a classical example of taking some philosophical point to a silly extreme.

If these poor iventors who feel so oppressed etc want to be entirely individualistic then they can fuck off to a deserted island somewhere with no materials, no funding, no anything and start from scratch or else they need to get with the programme and start thinking for the collective benefit of everyone including themselves!

Hasta la Victoria Siempre!!!!
:D

[Havet]

Because ideas come from thoughts and excluding some divine revelation like Moses on the Mount, these thoughts are formed in the mind of an individual. This individual in turn is the result of the society in which he or she has grown and all of the communication and interaction that have taken place leading up to the "eureka" moment. Einstein could not have been Einstein if he hadn't learn to read and write at elementary school from his "non-genius" teacher etc.

But the individual did not choose to be born, and society did choose to help him out. Why does he owe anything to anyone?


Because they produced the piece of paper you wrote it on? Because that society also produced you?

And? They did so by choice, but they weren't born by choice.


Well, you could be a selfish tosser too, there isn't a law against it!! But at the same time is this the kind of ideology we really want to extoll? On the philosophical line we get back to the original points about the thought formation- excluding divine revelation of course.

Why is it considered selfish? I did not choose to be born, why am i in debt as soon as I come out in existence?


Why should they be provided with the tools for development if they are not prepared to then share the fruits of their labour?

You are not forced to share the fruits of your labor with them. Before you were born, you mother had to produce in order to exchange the fruits of her labor for food to you. The producers of the food couldn't care less that they were helping you. They are contributing to society just as you will have to one day.


But who is talking about coercing anyone? Give me an example please....:confused:

Examples please.....

Galileo Galilei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy) comes to mind


Not quite, as soon as someone exists he or she is an entity probably quite incapable of inventing anything. Most inventors don't invent things as soon as they are born but after years of study, education and research or accidentally by working on something else which is in turn the result of the same.

Sure, but the people who contributed to the growth of future scientists didn't do so in order to receive a future compensation - they received a compensation in the moment by the parents of the future scientists, which had to produce something in exchange for food, education, etc.


Not necessarily true, in fact many discoveries and inventions in a material sense just built upon prior knowledge, or likewise could not have been achieved without prior knowledge. If those inventors or discoverers had not been moulded by society they would not have been in the position to make their invention or appreciate their discovery.

Yes many, but not all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire#Human_control).


What gives the inventor a right to his terms? This sounds very cappie to me....

A right to his terms? What do you mean? The only thing an inventor has a "right" to is his invention, because it is a product of his labor. Do workers not (or should) own the products of their labor? This means that they set the terms on which to allow other people to use their personal property. If they didn't, then they wouldn't own the products of their labor, which means they would be enslaved.

The difference with ideas is that they can be infinitely reproducible, so after a scientists/inventor/engineer/musician shares an idea, he is not being deprived of the product of his labor by letting others use it.


I think this is a classical example of taking some philosophical point to a silly extreme.

Lke i said in other thread, using ad absurdum is a legitimate way of arguing, provided the connections are solid.


If these poor iventors who feel so oppressed etc want to be entirely individualistic then they can fuck off to a deserted island

The love it leave it card is a statement, not an argument. What would you say to a cappy that said:

"If these poor workers who feel so oppressed etc want to own the products of their labor entirely then they can fuck off to a deserted island"

?

[Scary Monster]

But the individual did not choose to be born, and society did choose to help him out. Why does he owe anything to anyone?



And? They did so by choice, but they weren't born by choice.



Why is it considered selfish? I did not choose to be born, why am i in debt as soon as I come out in existence?

:lol: Why are Ayn Randoids so full of shit? Ive got a simple response to all this. Of course you dont owe anyone anything from birth, but you continue to live in a society where all your material wealth, comforts and all the shit that makes your life easier, is produced through massive collective effort. You oppose collectivism, yet you live off of the fruits of collective effort. I wonder why Randoids dont just become hermits and live in seclusion in some forest. That way they wont have to live under any kind of collectivism that they loathe and dread with fear so much :lol: Randoid ignorance and Bourgie arrogance makes me want to punch a hole in a wall :D

[ComradeMan]

"If these poor workers who feel so oppressed etc want to own the products of their labor entirely then they can fuck off to a deserted island"

?

LOL!!! I'd say... when the revolution comes..... ! ;) .....!

Ad absurdum are fine but when the argument is absurd, i.e. a load of anarcho-cap individualist bullshit it doesn't help.

If it weren't for society you wouldn't have been born--- you are beginning to sound like Maggie Thatcher, society doesn't exist does it?

[IcarusAngel]

This has turned out to be one of the sickest and most pathetic things I've ever seen anybody post.

Even capitalists who believe that you can patent your ideas don't believe that other people can't have the same thoughts unless they agree to the "inventers" terms. Furthermore, they're operating under the domain that there is a market, and your incentive to invent is that you can make money off of your ideas and prevent other people from marketing the same idea. They don't claim you don't have the right to your own thought process.

This poster doesn't even want that restriction, he merely claims that your ideas are automatically property, regardless of how much other people contributed to the development of the ideas, much like land can be considered property if you mix your labor with it, regardless of how you came to be in the position of working on the land. Who knows where such an ideology could lead when applied to our brains, though?

For example, the only way to prevent someone from obtaining an idea from an "owner" on his "terms" entails installing some kind of device in the brain that ensures that a new idea invented by somebody is blocked by everybody else wearing the device; perhaps the device would notice similar brain-wave patterns, for example. Otherwise, anybody could have the idea, regardless of the wishes of the "owner." But even that wouldn't be full-proof. haynemill's ideas are so ridiculous that they've not even possible to implement, thank god.

The very idea is even sicker than privatizing air and charging people to breathe, because this is direct interference with the human mind.

This is even crazier than Misean beliefs; this is just anti-human, not just anti-logical. hayenmill may be in need of severe psychological help. And I think a psychologist who saw this post, combined with his post on the striking postal workers and the post about programmers who must work for endless hours so that a few others can make money off their work, would conclude the person has a bizarre obsession off of obtaining power from the work of others, and a total lack of empathy for the people who do much of the work.

Or he could just be evil, and while I'd like to post the comradery that exists with men of science and philosophy, to even enter into this kind of a debate is to lose your traces of humanity.

[Havet]

:lol: Why are Ayn Randoids so full of shit? Ive got a simple response to all this. Of course you dont owe anyone anything from birth, but you continue to live in a society where all your material wealth, comforts and all the shit that makes your life easier, is produced through massive collective effort. You oppose collectivism, yet you live off of the fruits of collective effort. I wonder why Randoids dont just become hermits and live in seclusion in some forest. That way they wont have to live under any kind of collectivism that they loathe and dread with fear so much :lol: Randoid ignorance and Bourgie arrogance makes me want to punch a hole in a wall :D

I am not an objectivist/randroid, nor I understand how could you make the hasty generalization even if i were one.

I don't live off the fruits of collective effort. I trade my effort with the fruits of collective effort. While I was growing up, my parents traded the fruit of their effort for something in return that would help me grow. Nobody is demanding anything from anybody. I refuse to be born with a debt, just as I refuse that society should be coerced into helping me out. If they want to, that's great. If they don't, then tough luck to me. Of course, in a free society nobody would ever get abandoned, there would be voluntary institutions to take care of them, whether communistic in nature or not.

[Havet]

LOL!!! I'd say... when the revolution comes..... ! ;) .....!

Lol, but you do understand the point i'm making, yes? The choice to leave does not make the current system legitimate, in as many ways as we can think of at the moment.


Ad absurdum are fine but when the argument is absurd, i.e. a load of anarcho-cap individualist bullshit it doesn't help.

These arguments far precede any notion of "anarcho"-capitalism, and they are not absurd. The fact that, when taken to a logical extreme, the argument I was attacking looks absurd should tell you something about its nature...


If it weren't for society you wouldn't have been born--- you are beginning to sound like Maggie Thatcher, society doesn't exist does it?

That quote is often taken out of context. She was talking about money and spending on good causes. What she really meant was "there is no such bank account as society". If you say "society should pay for... " what you actually mean is that people, via tax, should pay for... . It is unfair to take the exact phrasing of a sentence in an interview, not a pre-prepared speech, out of context.

It's legitimate to say society doesn't exist, if by "exist" you mean something like: has a distinguishable boundary and location, takes up space, and has a definable arising point and departing point in time.

It's legitimate to say that society DOES exist, if by "exist" you mean "can be the subject of thought". Even a unicorn exists by this definition: it exists as a real idea.

ANYWAY...

It's true, if it weren't for individuals who created the food i ate, the house i lived, etc I would not have survived. But the "debt" I owed them has already been paid - by my parents, who traded the fruits of their labor for the fruits of the labor of each respective producer. I don't owe anything, and I don't believe debts should be imposed on me if i took advantage of someone's product of their mind, provided they had decided to share it freely.

[ComradeMan]

OMG- Hayenmill, how can you defend Maggie Thatcher on a Revolutionary Left forum?
:D

[Havet]

OMG- Hayenmill, how can you defend Maggie Thatcher on a Revolutionary Left forum?
:D

What? I'm not defending her. She did not help "her country" at all by "deregulating". I was just saying that quote was out of context

I take it you agree on the other points made?

[ComradeMan]

No, I don't. I feel very belligerent lately and on a rereading of Fontenis am working on a manifesto for the 21st century!!! Apart from that, I don't think there are any points in this argument.

It's never legitimate to say society does not exist unless you want to engage on some bizarre form of "segatura mentale", which I don't know how to say in English- roughly- intellectual wank. :D

[Havet]

No, I don't. I feel very belligerent lately and on a rereading of Fontenis am working on a manifesto for the 21st century!!! Apart from that, I don't think there are any points in this argument.

It's never legitimate to say society does not exist unless you want to engage on some bizarre form of "segatura mentale", which I don't know how to say in English- roughly- intellectual wank. :D

So how would you define "society"? Is there an objective definition? How many people does it take to make a society? Where does it start? Where does it end?

[ComradeMan]

So how would you define "society"? Is there an objective definition? How many people does it take to make a society? Where does it start? Where does it end?


String does not exist because nobody can tell me how long it is....
;)

[Havet]

String does not exist because nobody can tell me how long it is....
;)

A string exists because an objective definition can be drawn about its properties:

"Generally, string is a thin, flexible piece of rope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope) or twine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twine) which is used to tie, bind, or hang other objects. String can be made from a variety of fibres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre)."

So, what constitutes a society? How do you know those properties are the proper ones to correctly identify?

[Drace]

So, what constitutes a society?

People?

[Havet]

People?

How many people does it take to start calling them a society? Why?

[La Comédie Noire]

Imagine how many more great men(and women!) we'd have if everyone had a fair shot? Just as there cannot be wealth without poverty, there cannot be great men without an under class of lesser men holding them up.

[Havet]

Imagine how many more great men(and women!) we'd have if everyone had a fair shot? Just as there cannot be wealth without poverty, there cannot be great men without an under class of lesser men holding them up.

Wealth can exist without poverty; great men can exist without an under class. There is no such thing as a zero sum world in economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_%28game_theory%29#Economics).

[La Comédie Noire]

Wealth can exist without poverty; great men can exist without an under class. There is no such thing as a zero sum world in economics (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_%28game_theory%29#Economics).

No argument there, but remember when society loses some people don't get to go on vacation, while others end up on the street!

Your goal in a market economy is to get the most for the least and only the top dogs can afford the risk of trying something new. Your best bet is to find a niche and do everything in your power to hold onto it. Write one great song, become really good at a professional sport, think of one theory and hold to it to your very last breath, hold a monopoly over an industry. Why take the risk of painting a picture when you can just copy right the hell out of some stupid doodle? This stifles the individual.

I think Great men are given more credit than they're worth. Have you ever read a philosopher and said to yourself "I've thought of that before!"? It doesn't take a genius to reach those conclusions, the same goes for most other things in society, there will always be different views and solutions to problems and the market is not some magic wand that will automatically pick out the "best" choice. For instance, Beta Max performed better in most respects to VHS, but VHS still won out.

Why do some great men get credit for great ideas, while other great men,with the same great ideas die in obscurity? Like I said if everyone was given a fair shot those great men wouldn't seem so great. Are they afraid of a little competition?

[Drace]

How many people does it take to start calling them a society? Why?

What's the point of playing definition games?

[Belisarius]

How many people does it take to start calling them a society? Why?
a society isn't just a collection of persons, for if i then took one person from every country and put them on an island it would already be a society, allthough they wouldn't understand each other and wouldn't get anything done.

a society is a framework of meaning and communication. we are part of the same society when we both can articulate meaningfull sentences to each other with some kind of mutual understanding. this doesn't only involve language, but also the content of this mutual speech. if you constantly talk about cricket, then i won't be part of your universe, since i know nothing about cricket. being in a society is sharing a similar world view with others.

[Havet]

What's the point of playing definition games?

What's the point of using obsolete, non-objective terms to describe something?

[ComradeMan]

a society isn't just a collection of persons, for if i then took one person from every country and put them on an island it would already be a society, allthough they wouldn't understand each other and wouldn't get anything done.

a society is a framework of meaning and communication. we are part of the same society when we both can articulate meaningfull sentences to each other with some kind of mutual understanding. this doesn't only involve language, but also the content of this mutual speech. if you constantly talk about cricket, then i won't be part of your universe, since i know nothing about cricket. being in a society is sharing a similar world view with others.

I think you underestimate our innate human capacity to sort things out when needs be...

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Or is he merely a means to the end of others? To have no authority over his mind, and the products of his mind, and labor, if so was decided by majoritarian vote?
There are no such things as "products of the mind" - at least not any physical ones. The only products of your mind are your ideas, and no one can take those away from you, even if they wanted to.

Unless you can use your mind to bring physical objects into existence out of nothing, you must accept that all physical objects are produced through a variety of human activities. Thinking alone is useless.


They believe a genius is an intellectual scavenger and greedy hoarder of ideas which rightfully belong to society
Ideas cannot be property, so they cannot be stolen or "rightfully belong" to anyone.


When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some members take precedence over the goods of others.
Yes. Some human goals take precedence over other human goals. This happens in every imaginable kind of society, and is absolutely unavoidable. Different people have conflicting goals. Society must arbitrate in some way between them. All rights - property "rights" included - are a form of such arbitration.


...since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent...
Define "competent" and "incompetent".

And explain precisely what could be accomplished by the most competent person in the world if she found herself alone on an island with no tools and no books written by others.

You can have all the brilliant ideas you want, but it takes the work of others to put them into practice. And often, your ideas are only made possible by the knowledge you have acquired from society during your education. Einstein could not have created the Theory of Relativity if there was no one to teach him physics. Society gives the composer musical instruments for which to write symphonies. Society gives the architect steel and concrete. Society gives the painter his brush and paint.

[Havet]

There are no such things as "products of the mind" - at least not any physical ones. The only products of your mind are your ideas, and no one can take those away from you, even if they wanted to.

Unless you can use your mind to bring physical objects into existence out of nothing, you must accept that all physical objects are produced through a variety of human activities. Thinking alone is useless.

You can translate ideas into physical objects. Thinking alone may be useless, but laboring alone is even more useless, because it does not allow for the identification and pursuit of more knowledge.


Ideas cannot be property, so they cannot be stolen or "rightfully belong" to anyone.

Who claimed ideas are property? No one.


Yes. Some human goals take precedence over other human goals. This happens in every imaginable kind of society, and is absolutely unavoidable. Different people have conflicting goals. Society must arbitrate in some way between them. All rights - property "rights" included - are a form of such arbitration.

Define society.


Define "competent" and "incompetent".

Competent people are humans who produce all the wealth in society: (un)skilled labor, scientists, inventors, engineers, artists, and even some industrialists.

You can derive from such definition that incompetent are those who live at the expense of the wealth generated by all the types of humans described above.


And explain precisely what could be accomplished by the most competent person in the world if she found herself alone on an island with no tools and no books written by others.

That person still has his/her mind, by which he/she can use reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by his/her senses in order to learn, to discover, and to create.


You can have all the brilliant ideas you want, but it takes the work of others to put them into practice. And often, your ideas are only made possible by the knowledge you have acquired from society during your education. Einstein could not have created the Theory of Relativity if there was no one to teach him physics. Society gives the composer musical instruments for which to write symphonies. Society gives the architect steel and concrete. Society gives the painter his brush and paint.

Nobody denies that throughout history men/women "of the mind" have taken advantage of knowledge left by their ancestors and expanded it.

But it is not "society" which gives the composer musical instruments for which to write symphonies. Workers do. Businessmen do. Engineers do. And they get paid accordingly (although keep mind it is still an unfair system), so it cannot be claimed that the musician owes anything to anyone, especially "society".

It would help if you stop clinging to that weasel word which is society. We should start by analyzing individuals, and recognizing whenever their cooperation brought something they could not have achieved on their own ( "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" argument), but the basic studying subject should be individuals.

[Belisarius]

I think you underestimate our innate human capacity to sort things out when needs be...
i don't underestimate human agency, but i say that for solving problems there needs to be some common ground, which is actually quite obvious, since the problem you talk about is already a common ground. but the thing is that history isn't written by actual individuals, or great men, but by mass movements and cultural movements of which the acting individuals are only functions. i know this sounds antihumanist, but it's actually a fact that to write history you can't be alone. i don't deny human agency, but i say it doesn't have a hisorical function.

if i want to revolutionize society on my own, then i won't get very far. the revolution i would want to do, would need to be something for which society is already disclosed. for example: i want to rebuild an old church in my town, but if no one misses the church or everyone has become atheist, then my intentions won't be fullfilled, since no one is interested.

[RGacky3]

Who claimed ideas are property? No one.

No, but your trying to make that connection, that not allowing private property, is the same as not allowing private thought.


Competent people are humans who produce all the wealth in society: (un)skilled labor, scientists, inventors, engineers, artists, and even some industrialists.

You can derive from such definition that incompetent are those who live at the expense of the wealth generated by all the types of humans described above.


I'd go as far as saying define wealth, heres why, is someone washing the dishes "producing wealth", how about someone that sweeps the sidewalk infront of his home? If we are only looking at wealth from a Capitalist perspective, then thats wrong thinking.

You, or me, have no basis to decide compitence on, there is no way to figure it out, because in this Capitalist system we live in now, wealth is not distributed according to compitence, also "creating wealth" in the way wealth is created and defined in Capitalism has nothing to do with actual ability or intelligence, or even benefit to society.


But it is not "society" which gives the composer musical instruments for which to write symphonies. Workers do. Businessmen do. Engineers do. And they get paid accordingly (although keep mind it is still an unfair system), so it cannot be claimed that the musician owes anything to anyone, especially "society".

Well .... buisinessmen don't :P.


It would help if you stop clinging to that weasel word which is society. We should start by analyzing individuals, and recognizing whenever their cooperation brought something they could not have achieved on their own ( "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" argument), but the basic studying subject should be individuals.

I agree, however, the danger comes when you start equating property with the individual.

[Havet]

No, but your trying to make that connection, that not allowing private property, is the same as not allowing private thought.

I'm sorry that you misunderstood me; I never said private property. I said: "the products of one's labor".


I'd go as far as saying define wealth, heres why, is someone washing the dishes "producing wealth", how about someone that sweeps the sidewalk infront of his home? If we are only looking at wealth from a Capitalist perspective, then thats wrong thinking.

Wealth is all natural resources that have been shaped according to a human mind in a way that others find valuable.

Someone that sweeps the sidewalk infront of his home is producing wealth: a clean sidewalk. If he sells his house, it will be a contributing factor. But as of now, only he is experiencing the benefit (for example, when he invites friends over and they see how clean his house is).

You should define what a "capitalist's perspective" is.


You, or me, have no basis to decide compitence on, there is no way to figure it out, because in this Capitalist system we live in now, wealth is not distributed according to compitence, also "creating wealth" in the way wealth is created and defined in Capitalism has nothing to do with actual ability or intelligence, or even benefit to society.

If the nature of competence is objective, then we have a basis. If its subjective, we don't. I have proposed an hypothesis in which it is objective. So either you disprove mine with evidence/arguments or prove it is subjective.


I agree, however, the danger comes when you start equating property with the individual.

All humans require property for their survival. Only a ghost can survive without material possessions/property. It is, therefore, important to keep in mind the concept of property when dealing with individuals.

[RGacky3]

I'm sorry that you misunderstood me; I never said private property. I said: "the products of one's labor".

My Bad


Wealth is all natural resources that have been shaped according to a human mind in a way that others find valuable.

Someone that sweeps the sidewalk infront of his home is producing wealth: a clean sidewalk. If he sells his house, it will be a contributing factor. But as of now, only he is experiencing the benefit (for example, when he invites friends over and they see how clean his house is).

You should define what a "capitalist's perspective" is.

The Capitalist perspective, is whatever can be measured in dollar amounts, in other words the Capitalist perspective does not consider sweeping the sidewalk infront of ones home as producing wealth because there is no money attached to it, its considered volunteer work, or housework or whatever, or for example, helping your buddy move, there is no dollar amount attached to that.


If the nature of competence is objective, then we have a basis. If its subjective, we don't. I have proposed an hypothesis in which it is objective. So either you disprove mine with evidence/arguments or prove it is subjective.


But its not objective, because value is subjective, in other words value is entirely dependant on what is needed, and one persons competance is entirely depenant on what he's doing and who is looking, for example, if you can carry in groceries for an old lady your very compitent for her needs, where as, for a younger person maybe not so much, and btw, if you propose a hypothesis, you gotta have some arguments FOR it, especially if its not a commonly accepted one, and competence being objective is not a commonly accepted one, not by a long shot.


All humans require property for their survival. Only a ghost can survive without material possessions/property. It is, therefore, important to keep in mind the concept of property when dealing with individuals.

No, now your redefining property, property does not mean access to things, it is very specific, things requirering property RIGHTS, meaning things that only you have the right to and no one else, and your wrong, because many societies have existed and thrived without property rights.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You can translate ideas into physical objects.
Yes, but the action of translating ideas into physical objects is called labour.


Thinking alone may be useless, but laboring alone is even more useless, because it does not allow for the identification and pursuit of more knowledge.
It is possible to survive just with the discoveries and inventions that have already been made. It is not possible to survive (not for long, anyway) just with the labour that has been performed in the past. To live, we must keep working. But we do not necessarily have to keep inventing. Therefore, labour is more important than "the identification and pursuit of more knowledge."

But the distinction between the two is artificial anyway. Ideas do not drop out of the sky. Most inventions are made by people with work experience, who think of a better or easier way to do their job.


Who claimed ideas are property? No one.
You claimed that ideas do not belong to society. Logically, that implies that they belong to someone else - that they are someone else's property.

If that is not your view, then I am confused. What is your view about ideas? Who has a right to benefit from a new idea?


Define society.
The set of all human individuals and all their institutions and relationships.

The second part is important. Ten people living on ten separate islands are not the same thing as ten people living together on one island - even if we're talking about the exact same people. Society is greater than the sum of its parts.


Competent people are humans who produce all the wealth in society: (un)skilled labor, scientists, inventors, engineers, artists, and even some industrialists.

You can derive from such definition that incompetent are those who live at the expense of the wealth generated by all the types of humans described above.

Wealth is all natural resources that have been shaped according to a human mind in a way that others find valuable.
"...others find valuable." Interesting. So, if someone finds my activity valuable, then I am competent - and if no one finds my activity valuable, then I am incompetent. So competence depends on public opinion.

I fail to see how this qualifies as any kind of objective standard of competence. A competent person can suddenly become incompetent (and vice versa) due entirely to shifts in other people's opinions.


That person still has his/her mind, by which he/she can use reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by his/her senses in order to learn, to discover, and to create.
Right. Good luck making any great discoveries without a modern laboratory, or learning new things without any pen and paper or other means to record your thoughts, or building things without proper tools.


Nobody denies that throughout history men/women "of the mind" have taken advantage of knowledge left by their ancestors and expanded it.

But it is not "society" which gives the composer musical instruments for which to write symphonies. Workers do. Businessmen do. Engineers do. And they get paid accordingly (although keep mind it is still an unfair system), so it cannot be claimed that the musician owes anything to anyone, especially "society".
No, no. I'm not talking about the composer buying instruments from someone. Obviously, in that case, the composer paid for what he bought, so he doesn't owe anything extra (assuming the price was fair, etc). I'm talking about the fact that the mere existence of instruments - even if the composer never bought any of them or paid for their creation in any way - makes it possible to write symphonies. You can write symphonies because you know that someone, somewhere, has the appropriate instruments. If the instruments did not exist, your symphony would be meaningless - just black dots on a sheet of paper.

More generally, creative thinking is enabled by the existence of tools, objects and knowledge for which the thinker never paid anything. That is why the thinker has a debt to society.


It would help if you stop clinging to that weasel word which is society. We should start by analyzing individuals, and recognizing whenever their cooperation brought something they could not have achieved on their own ( "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" argument), but the basic studying subject should be individuals.
No. Because individuals do not form their thoughts, beliefs and knowledge in a vacuum. People do not grow up and then join society at a later date. People grow up in society. They are formed and influenced by other people.

Your suggestion is as absurd as the suggestion that we could understand human biology by studying every cell separately.

[Havet]

It is possible to survive just with the discoveries and inventions that have already been made. It is not possible to survive (not for long, anyway) just with the labour that has been performed in the past. To live, we must keep working. But we do not necessarily have to keep inventing. Therefore, labour is more important than "the identification and pursuit of more knowledge."

It is possible to survive without the discoveries and inventions that have already been made so long as one still retains the ability to use reason and logic and to integrate the information provided by one's senses with those faculties.

To live, we must keep thinking and working.


You claimed that ideas do not belong to society. Logically, that implies that they belong to someone else - that they are someone else's property.

If that is not your view, then I am confused. What is your view about ideas? Who has a right to benefit from a new idea?

Ideas do not belong to society. They belong to their owners. That does not mean that they should use force in order to keep them artificially scarce (intellectual property/copyright/patents).


"...others find valuable." Interesting. So, if someone finds my activity valuable, then I am competent - and if no one finds my activity valuable, then I am incompetent. So competence depends on public opinion.

I fail to see how this qualifies as any kind of objective standard of competence. A competent person can suddenly become incompetent (and vice versa) due entirely to shifts in other people's opinions.

That's how it has always worked with markets. And you people say businesses are not open to public input :rolleyes:

Anyways, it is objective inasmuch as general public opinion remains constanst. I remmember some communist saying that the reason (direct) democracy won't degenerate into a totalitarian hellhole is because people's opinions won't drastically change (ex: people won't suddenly decide to ban alcohol or forbid black people from voting). It is therefore a realistic assumption to expect that people's opinion on competence won't change a lot either.


Right. Good luck making any great discoveries without a modern laboratory, or learning new things without any pen and paper or other means to record your thoughts, or building things without proper tools.

So you think that THE WHOLE of human development was based entirely on luck? Ai mamacita...:rolleyes:

Sure, it'll take longer, and there'll be far more paths to go through again, but it's not impossible and its not unlikely


No, no. I'm not talking about the composer buying instruments from someone. Obviously, in that case, the composer paid for what he bought, so he doesn't owe anything extra (assuming the price was fair, etc). I'm talking about the fact that the mere existence of instruments - even if the composer never bought any of them or paid for their creation in any way - makes it possible to write symphonies. You can write symphonies because you know that someone, somewhere, has the appropriate instruments. If the instruments did not exist, your symphony would be meaningless - just black dots on a sheet of paper.

More generally, creative thinking is enabled by the existence of tools, objects and knowledge for which the thinker never paid anything. That is why the thinker has a debt to society.

The thinker always pays, either directly or indirectly. In this current system, other people are forced to pay for his education. He pays for tools and objects. There is no debt.

Your argument basically claims that if a burglar steals from me (taxes) and compels you to accept the stolen money (compulsory public education), then you owe me the money, even if you had no choice whatsoever. That's, of course, ridiculous.


No. Because individuals do not form their thoughts, beliefs and knowledge in a vacuum. People do not grow up and then join society at a later date. People grow up in society. They are formed and influenced by other people.

Your suggestion is as absurd as the suggestion that we could understand human biology by studying every cell separately.

And? They grow up in society, but they should not be in debt in society, because they had no choice (and most of the times someone voluntarily agreed to cover the costs of that person's growth).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It is possible to survive without the discoveries and inventions that have already been made so long as one still retains the ability to use reason and logic and to integrate the information provided by one's senses with those faculties.

To live, we must keep thinking and working.
Fair enough. But, by that definition, it's impossible to stop thinking. All ordinary healthy people use reason and logic and integrate the information provided by their senses with those faculties. It's not like you can turn off your brain, even if you wanted to. Thinking is like breathing, not like work.

Now, of course, advanced scientific thinking is NOT like breathing, but that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about the level of thinking necessary to just stay alive.


Ideas do not belong to society. They belong to their owners. That does not mean that they should use force in order to keep them artificially scarce (intellectual property/copyright/patents).
Ownership implies the right to stop other people from using your property. If the "owners" of ideas can't use force to stop other people from using their ideas, then in what sense are they "owners"?


That's how it has always worked with markets. And you people say businesses are not open to public input :rolleyes:
Well, businesses are open to some input from some members of the public. The problem is that certain people (the wealthy) have more influence than others, and then there are externalities, monopolies, etc. So, there is public influence on businesses in the market, but it is insufficient, distorted, and undemocratic.

For the purpose of the argument about objectivity vs. subjectivity, however, it is enough to know that some public influence exists, no matter how distorted.


Anyways, it is objective inasmuch as general public opinion remains constanst. I remmember some communist saying that the reason (direct) democracy won't degenerate into a totalitarian hellhole is because people's opinions won't drastically change (ex: people won't suddenly decide to ban alcohol or forbid black people from voting). It is therefore a realistic assumption to expect that people's opinion on competence won't change a lot either.
Right. So we're not in any danger of sliding into a world where the understanding of competence is radically different from the one we have today. Public opinions don't change drastically for no reason.

But that doesn't mean that an understanding of competence based on public opinion is objective. It only means that it is stable. It's subjective and stable. To be "objective" means to depend on some sort of universal law outside of human thought. That's clearly not the case here.

Gravity is objective. Notions of competence - or alcohol laws and voting rights - are not. They can be stable over long periods of time, but they're still subjective.


So you think that THE WHOLE of human development was based entirely on luck? Ai mamacita...:rolleyes:
Huh? No, I said that you need a lot of luck if you want to start over from the beginning and expect to accomplish anything in a single lifetime.

Human development took thousands of years and billions of minds. One person alone has no chance to replicate even the most microscopic part of that development in a single lifetime.


Sure, it'll take longer, and there'll be far more paths to go through again, but it's not impossible and its not unlikely.
In a single lifetime, it is impossible.


The thinker always pays, either directly or indirectly. In this current system, other people are forced to pay for his education. He pays for tools and objects. There is no debt.
When did the composer pay for the invention of musical instruments, exactly? You've ignored my argument, so here it is again:

The mere existence of instruments - even if the composer never bought any of them or paid for their creation in any way - makes it possible to write symphonies. You can write symphonies because you know that someone, somewhere, has the appropriate instruments. If the instruments did not exist, your symphony would be meaningless - just black dots on a sheet of paper.


Your argument basically claims that if a burglar steals from me (taxes) and compels you to accept the stolen money (compulsory public education), then you owe me the money, even if you had no choice whatsoever. That's, of course, ridiculous.
Children are not adults who can make informed choices, so your argument falls flat.

Moreover, I'm not just talking about public education here. There is plenty of free education that you get from society outside of formal institutions. Learning how to speak, for example.


And? They grow up in society, but they should not be in debt in society, because they had no choice (and most of the times someone voluntarily agreed to cover the costs of that person's growth).
Without society, you would be an entirely different person. Society didn't just provide you with some goods and services. Society created you as you are today.

[Havet]

Fair enough. But, by that definition, it's impossible to stop thinking. All ordinary healthy people use reason and logic and integrate the information provided by their senses with those faculties. It's not like you can turn off your brain, even if you wanted to. Thinking is like breathing, not like work.

Now, of course, advanced scientific thinking is NOT like breathing, but that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about the level of thinking necessary to just stay alive.

Thinking is not like breathing. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In short, man is a being of volitional consciousness.

An ‘instinct’ is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer-and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.

I was talking of the level of thinking necessary to live, not just to stay alive. There is a difference. To stay alive means enduring hunger, suffering constantly. To live means to be free and able to pursue that which allows for the betterment of one's life.

In a desert island, witthout any past knowledge, a person can choose to just stay alive, or to truly live. He can choose between hunting with a pointed stick or thinking and producing his own food through farm, developing better ways to enjoy his existence, etc. The last alternative is only possible by choice, and by thought.


Ownership implies the right to stop other people from using your property. If the "owners" of ideas can't use force to stop other people from using their ideas, then in what sense are they "owners"?

In the sense that everyone has a right to their ideas even if they choose not to share them, or translate them into physical objects.


Right. So we're not in any danger of sliding into a world where the understanding of competence is radically different from the one we have today. Public opinions don't change drastically for no reason.

But that doesn't mean that an understanding of competence based on public opinion is objective. It only means that it is stable. It's subjective and stable. To be "objective" means to depend on some sort of universal law outside of human thought. That's clearly not the case here.

Gravity is objective. Notions of competence - or alcohol laws and voting rights - are not. They can be stable over long periods of time, but they're still subjective.

Alright, that makes sense.


Huh? No, I said that you need a lot of luck if you want to start over from the beginning and expect to accomplish anything in a single lifetime.

Human development took thousands of years and billions of minds. One person alone has no chance to replicate even the most microscopic part of that development in a single lifetime.


In a single lifetime, it is impossible.

Let's take the example of the desert island with only one man. Do you seriously think it is impossible for him to use his reason in order to be able to build a decent house, for example, or to increase the productiveness of his crops? All he needs is to choose to use reason and engage in empirical testing.


When did the composer pay for the invention of musical instruments, exactly? You've ignored my argument, so here it is again:

The mere existence of instruments - even if the composer never bought any of them or paid for their creation in any way - makes it possible to write symphonies. You can write symphonies because you know that someone, somewhere, has the appropriate instruments. If the instruments did not exist, your symphony would be meaningless - just black dots on a sheet of paper.

I still don't see where there is any debt. Those who created the instruments are not giving them away for free. Its impossible for someone to learn to play an instrument without using it,which is why it is required for the composer to exchange something (money) for his musical instrument (or for a class in music) in order to learn. There is always exchange, and someone ALWAYS bears the cost (whether voluntarily or not). The composer might have been given his instrument through his/her parents, which had to produce something to exchange for the instrument. Where is the debt?


Children are not adults who can make informed choices, so your argument falls flat.

Moreover, I'm not just talking about public education here. There is plenty of free education that you get from society outside of formal institutions. Learning how to speak, for example.

Fine, the children's parents make the decisions for them.

Yes, there is free education, that was made public VOLUNTARILY. This means that there is no debt.

My parents,a nd my exchange of conversations with people were also voluntary transactions. They helped me learn how to speak because they wanted to, because THEY gained benefits from doing it (better communication around the house). There is no debt, because it pressuposes that I somehow forced them to provide me with everything they did provide me with. Such argument is ridiculous because they could've just aborted me, or ditched me in a river.

Now, you can say that that would be inhumane, and it would, and there are mechanisms which prevent such actions (social morality, state laws, etc). But that means that SOCIETY OWES ME, because somehow they forced my parents to give me something even if against their will. How can you call something debt if the person who IS in debt was forced to accept such condition?

It's the same as me forcing you to give money to a capitalist, and you claiming the capitalist owes you money, when in fact he did nothing. It was I who created the debt in the first place.


Without society, you would be an entirely different person. Society didn't just provide you with some goods and services. Society created you as you are today.

It is a two way street.

Individual is shaped by the society through observations of others.
Society is shaped by the combined efforts of individuals.

Society has an influence on its people, but it is entirely for the people in their individual capacities to decide to either be conformist or be the exception. If more people are unable to conform, the collective will of people becomes binding and the society can not but change accordingly.

It is people who shape the society although society so shaped by people does have an influence in turn on its people..... but as and when this influence fades off for one reason or another, a new shape for the society becomes inevitable.