Log in

View Full Version : Breaking news! Kids are born as capitalists!



Rusty Shackleford
23rd June 2011, 20:04
Besides the obvious failures, its amazing how this could possibly be accepted as a legitimate study. So, ill leave this to the dogs of OI.

Source: The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/are-kids-born-capitalists-this-experiment-might-prove-yes/)

Eric Falkenstein opens his blog post (http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/) on whether kids are born capitalists very appropriately: Bastiat (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/frederic+bastiat)noted that Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
In essence, laws were created to protect the rights that were already present. The Founding Fathers recognized this in the Deceleration of Independence, saying that we have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Considering all these things, then, is it possible that we are born with an inherent understanding of property rights? Or, as Falkenstein puts it, are we born capitalists?
According to an article published (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/74983/title/Kids_own_up_to_ownership) in ScienceNews magazine, the answer could be yes.
The article details an experiment by Ori Friedman of the University of Waterloo in Canada. According to him, at ages four and five, youngsters value a persons ownership rights far more strongly than adults do. How did he prove it? For starters, he used a crayon.
Rather than being learned from parents, a concept of property rights may automatically grow out of 2- to 3-year-olds ideas about bodily rights, such as assuming that another person cant touch or control ones body for no reason, Friedman proposed.
[...]
Friedmans team presented a simple quandary to 40 preschoolers, ages 4 and 5, and to 44 adults. Participants saw an image of a cartoon boy holding a crayon who appeared above the word user and a cartoon girl who appeared above the word owner. After hearing from an experimenter that the girl wanted her crayon back, volunteers were asked to rule on which cartoon child should get the prized object.

About 75 percent of 4- and 5-year-olds decided in favor of the owner, versus about 20 percent of adults.
But wait, theres more. Apparently Kids are able to distinguish between using an owned or nonowned object:
A second experiment consisted of more than 100 kids, ages 3 to 7, and 30 adults. In this case, participants saw the same cartoon boy and girl but were told that the crayon belonged to the school that the two imaginary children attended.
Nearly everyone, regardless of age, said that the user should keep the crayon for as long as needed in this situation. In other words, kids distinguished between people using an owned or a nonowned object.
In a final experiment that presented two cartoon adults, one using a cell phone that the other owned, most 4-year-olds but only a minority of adults declared that the device should be returned to its owner even before the borrower had a chance to use it. Children showed some flexibility in allowing borrowers to keep the phone say, if it was needed for an emergency but adults adjusted their opinions more readily to such circumstances.
Fridman concluded that learning has little to do with understanding property rights. Which leaves another possibility: whereas Newsweek says (http://www.newsweek.com/2009/02/06/we-are-all-socialists-now.html) we are all socialists now, maybe the truth is that we were all capitalists once.

ColonelCossack
23rd June 2011, 20:09
wtf?????? Of course children are selfish little brats... the reason adults can be more altruistic is because they BECAME MATURE!!!!!
This reminds me a lot of social darwinism... just because nature does it, doesn't mean its justified.

Octavian
23rd June 2011, 20:14
This reminds me a lot of social darwinism... just because nature does it, doesn't mean its justified.
Actually social Darwinism is the result of idiots skewing the difference between competitiveness between species and competitiveness within species.

Old Mole
23rd June 2011, 20:17
Are all kids born exploiters of workers? That they want to own their own crayons doesnt prove anything except that they like to paint.

PhoenixAsh
23rd June 2011, 20:27
Kids of 2-7 have apparantly, according to this study, grown up in a vacuum. Because kids of 2-7 have not been exposed to education, parental controll and kindergarten or brothers and sisters/other kids. :rolleyes:

homo sapien
23rd June 2011, 20:44
...So right-wingers have all the morality, intelligence and wisdom of a three-year old? And they're proud of this?

Rafiq
23rd June 2011, 20:48
This is Idealist trash.

danyboy27
23rd June 2011, 20:49
Capitalism, like communism are the creation of humans, they are methods that are used to manage the surplus value.

We are neither born communist or capitalists, we become what people teach us.

Childrens have a verry limited degree of self awareness and social awareness, if you show them a picture with apparently evident things, they will come to the most simplistic conclusion, and has everyone know, the simpliest explanation is now necessarly the good one.

Jimmie Higgins
23rd June 2011, 20:50
wtf?????? Of course children are selfish little brats... the reason adults can be more altruistic is because they BECAME MATURE!!!!!

Although this does explain why CEOs shit themselves, cry, puke, and stick food up their nose.

But seriously, human children are defenseless and can not provide for themselves and so it is totally natural for them to not have much of a concept of the world beyond their immediate needs. Once children are able to fend for themselves more they are able to, and often do or must, take care of others... or they "become mature" in other words.

Thirsty Crow
23rd June 2011, 20:50
...So right-wingers have all the morality, intelligence and wisdom of a three-year old? And they're proud of this?
A very good example of a successful rhetorical twist, congrats ;)

ColonelCossack
23rd June 2011, 20:53
Actually social Darwinism is the result of idiots skewing the difference between competitiveness between species and competitiveness within species.

i meant how some reactionaries apply darwinism to social situations, e.g. the survival of the fittest justifying rugged individualism. sorry if my vocabulary's wrong, it often is :bored:

ColonelCossack
23rd June 2011, 20:57
Although this does explain why CEOs shit themselves, cry, puke, and stick food up their nose.

I said can be more altruistic... of course there are exceptions, except capitalists choose to be selfish etc

☭The Revolution☭
23rd June 2011, 21:05
http://www.picsofmypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anicepile.jpg

this is what that blog is.

Kamos
23rd June 2011, 22:28
A turtle made out of shit?

Blake's Baby
24th June 2011, 00:37
Thing is... capitalism has only existed (as observable behaviour) since about 500BC. Humans have been around since... oooh, well I heard 250,000BC but other people claim 200,000BC but to be honest that other 50,000 doesn't make all that much difference to the picture. Capitalism as behaviour (not capitalism as a system) has only existed from around 1% (or maybe 1.2%) of homo sapiens' time on Earth. As a system it's only 500 years old, or 0.25% of the time since h sapiens emerged, and it's only been a world system for 100 years, or 0.04% our time on the planet. So we must have spent ages being totally unnatural.

That was clever of us, wasn't it?

Rusty Shackleford
24th June 2011, 00:59
Thing is... capitalism has only existed (as observable behaviour) since about 500BC. Humans have been around since... oooh, well I heard 250,000BC but other people claim 200,000BC but to be honest that other 50,000 doesn't make all that much difference to the picture. Capitalism as behaviour (not capitalism as a system) has only existed from around 1% (or maybe 1.2%) of homo sapiens' time on Earth. As a system it's only 500 years old, or 0.25% of the time since h sapiens emerged, and it's only been a world system for 100 years, or 0.04% our time on the planet. So we must have spent ages being totally unnatural.

That was clever of us, wasn't it?
i think you are confusing capitalism with the rise of the second great social division of labor which really was the predecessor of feudalism and also the beginning of the modern state and nation.

Dumb
24th June 2011, 06:24
Socialism = we all get to have and use our own crayons.

Capitalism = the boss owns all the crayons, and gives us just enough of those crayons to keep us from spitting in their faces as they hog the rest of said crayon pile.

What gets lost in the political eisegesis of such studies is the argument that children are really only fighting for autonomy, which is lost under capitalism and only regained under socialism.

Blake's Baby
24th June 2011, 21:17
i think you are confusing capitalism with the rise of the second great social division of labor which really was the predecessor of feudalism and also the beginning of the modern state and nation.

Why do you think that? I'm afraid I'm not really sure what it is you think I have wrong.

Do you think capitalistic behaviour (not capitalism as a total system) is visible before, or not visible until (long) after 500BC?

Do you think capitalism wasn't systemic in England and the Low Countries by AD1500, or conversely that it was systemic (perhaps somewhere else?) before then?

Do you think capitalism had not become a world system by 100 years ago, or on the other hand that it had become a world system long before the begining of the C20th?

Honestly, I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. There is evidence (from shipwrecks; from legal documents and eye-witness accounts) that there was commodity trading by independent traders in the Mediterranean by 500BC. Only a few centuries later there are accounts from Rome of the 'novelty' of land speculation - instead of improving land to enjoy it, there was a case where a new owner improved land to sell it a profit. This was seen as in intriguing but somewhat baffling innovation that was commented on but little copied. These people are indulging in capitalist behaviour, in a substantially non-capitalist framework. That's why 'behaviour' not 'system'.

The first capitalist war was the Hundred Years War between England and France, involving (among other things) control of the Flanders wool-trade (the French had tried to impose their own quotas on the Flemish weavers who rebelled and appealed to England for help). I say 'England and France', but in fact it started as a dispute between the English and French royal houses. In a very real sense, 'England' and 'France' as nations were created by the war, not the initiators of it. By AD1500, capitalism was developing nicely in England and the Low Countries, but not really elsewhere so much (hence, 'system' - a local system not a world system).

I'm taking the lead from the first two congresses of the Communist International, the works of Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin and Bukharin on Imperialism, and the foundation of the SPGB in Britain - the 'epoch of wars and revolutions', the era of 'the highest stage of capitalism', the period when capitalism has completed the unification of the globe - for the establishment of capitalism as a world system, about a century ago (if pushed I'd say between 1860 and 1910).

Rusty Shackleford
24th June 2011, 21:32
Why do you think that? I'm afraid I'm not really sure what it is you think I have wrong.

Do you think capitalistic behaviour (not capitalism as a total system) is visible before, or not visible until (long) after 500BC?

Do you think capitalism wasn't systemic in England and the Low Countries by AD1500, or conversely that it was systemic (perhaps somewhere else?) before then?

Do you think capitalism had not become a world system by 100 years ago, or on the other hand that it had become a world system long before the begining of the C20th?
you know what, at around the time i was discussing (which is around or a bit earlier than the time you are discussing) the merchant class did come into existence. The only thing is, the merchant didnt own the means of production, he simply traded in commodities. he had no role in their production besides giving money to the handicraftsman.

Also, Though land also became a commodity, and it was mortgageable and so on, it wasnt really owned by someone besides the person who lived on it. they just became a debtor to their creditor or a serf centuries later.

I think the closest thing to capitalism IS the merchant class though. Because they basically dictated what got sold since they were the ones mediating between producers and consumers.

Sasha
24th June 2011, 22:02
lets see what an actual renowned (socio-)biologist has to say on the subject:

UONxT4Tb3C0