[The truth about your 'freedom']

@ It wasn't a dodge, I just gave up with this when you used your response to (1) as an answer to (2) re. bounded rationality (didn't Lenin try centralised system but gave up with it after a while because it was chaos?). My question was in response to yours ("how is the individual in the best position to understand their needs/wants?"). Forgot the parallel I drew with the determinism/free will debate - the purpose of which was to highlight that the illusion of freedom can be a functional idea, ergo not likely to be disappear any time soon.

 

 

 

also, re. the xyz reasons: omitted full explanation because you alluded to many of the reasons behind asymmetry of power in other posts. 

 

also, you'd still need to build a contemporary moral case for overriding current property rights regardless of their origin. There's some argument, or essay written on this which I can't recall at the moment. It's to do with how responsibility for ownership is inherited, or some brown sticky stuff. It's categorised under generational justice, I'm sure it's summarised somewhere on SEP.

 

also, fabulous job on calling me out on my ignorance of the nuances between political philosophies. This is your turf, I concede that. All I'm trying to argue is that capitalism ain't that bad. 

 

you don't think the failed attempts contribute towards the idea that these theories aren't feasible?

 

I think what the rest of us are trying to get at (and as someone who works in engineering knows all too well) rule by committee is notoriously inefficient. 

 

also, I like your nietzsche sig.

[The truth about your 'freedom']

Hey bro, every day when you sit down for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, who decides what you want to eat?

[The truth about your 'freedom']

You haven't explained/elaborated why these "red-lefty" ideals aren't feasible. 

 

Feasibility: What's your plan? blank slate or forced redistribution [of resources]? The latter will require expounding the moral case for overriding an individual's property rights. Face it, people like their possessions. Moreover, how are you going to (1) obtain the necessary information to fully understand how those resources should be distributed [inefficiency beckons], and (2) Process that information [bounded reality is going to hit you like a fucking train]. I don't much like Capitalism either, the inequalities it engenders are reprehensible. However, the individual is always in the best position to know what he or she needs. The feasibility issue is simply that no centralised system [that we've devised so far] of resource distribution can handle the quantity of information in the way that markets can.

 

 

You haven't explained/elaborated why the "phantasm of freedom" is staying. 

 

This sort of follows from the above. Moreover, the illusion of freedom is something we live with for most of our lives in some form. Example: Metaphysics, determinism and free will. I always find it difficult to convincingly refute determinism, but I'm never willing to let go of the idea of free will. I may accept all manner of philosophical doctrines that lead me to the conclusion that nothing I do I really have control over; yet, when I'm stood in Starbucks deliberating over which beverage I'd like I always feel like I'm free to chose.

 

I'm quite willing to accept the illusion of choice that I feel day in day out because it's a functional idea. This, to me, can transfer over to political/economic freedom. It's part of the price we pay for a system that creates inequality, but also drives innovation. 

 

Also, note: by most (and a wide set of) measurements those with capitalist systems often rank highly in Happiness/Quality of Life indices. Admittedly, those with regulated, social democratic capitalist systems rank highest, e.g. Scandinavian countries. So, the whole, "your freedom is a lie" thing doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to most people. 

 

 

 You haven't explained/elaborated how on earth Capitalism is an efficient system for distributing resources when in the core of the theory it promotes few individuals owning capital/necessities whilst others have to work tirelessly for them. The market economy can be feasible if it is controlled, or else it is doomed to collapse the economy. You will always have those who create oligarchies in the market ruthlessly eliminating all competition and forcing a few companies to own sectors. You will always have the more powerful companies increasing the pricing but still make more money than those who sell the same product for lower prices. You will always have the workers exploited even if they work harder and longer hours than the bosses/richer. When the economy fluctuates the Capitalists will not invest in businesses and therefor wealth will not be distributed across the economy (a major requirement for Capitalism to continue).

 

Isn't capitalism's core premise private ownership and enterprise? Its core premise is that each person should be in a position to make their own economic decisions. Active agency, etc. There is a consequential asymmetry of ownership [and power] within capitalist systems for xyz reasons. Now, capitalism has serious issues as you outlined: predatory practises, manipulation of markets, exploiting, etc. Nevertheless, ref. (1): the individual agent is still in the best position to understand his/her needs and wants. Despite its flaws capitalism does provide an apparatus by which X individual can act in A, B, C ways to obtain his or her desired ends, i.e. earn munnies, buy goods. 

 

Anyway, the Communist ideal is not the solution. Pragmatic socialist policies that seek reform and regulation of markets are the best approach because they're a compromise between the two extremes. 

 

 

Ofcourse we solve our issues, such as world-wide diseases, global warming, poverty, decreasing natural resources, greater psychological disorders etc. The reality is we're far from solving these issues as the wealth and resources required to repair or decrease negative aspects of Earth etc. are in the hands of those who will never share it with the rest of the world. The ironic thing is their wealth was gained through the exploitation, the enslavement and killing of those who are poor, and now that there is nothing left to take from them, you just let them rot? 600 years of slavery didn't end because humans got smarter/kinder or of technological advancements, it ended because great movements were established, because people started giving their lives to change the system, and thats what you're unaware of.

 

tbh something like a Communist utopia is probably where we'll end up, but only once we've solved scarcity. When I say "technological innovation will liberate us" I have my eye on the potential of Nuclear Fusion to provide abundant clean energy; genetically modified crops to produce near-abundant food supplies. Look at the potential brown sticky stuffshow that automation of jobs could cause. It is not inconceivable that in 100, 200 years we may arrive at a point at which we can automate every production job - production of food, housing, etc blah blah - and quite literally give everyone whatever they want, thereby removing the need for a market economy to distribute goods [because scarcity is no longer an issue, you just have a huge centralised pile of everything and x person requires a good and gets it instantly].

 

also, innovation in capitalist markets is unrivalled. 

 

I almost get the feeling that your gripe isn't with capitalism and the markets, but more so the distribution of power in which political elites are able to change things in their favour. 

[Analysis of Ruin Promotions]

ruin are fucking trash. seriously.

[The truth about your 'freedom']

I bet you're a fucking Zizek fanboy, too? Don't get me wrong, I love the red-lefty ideal that we could somehow redistribute our resources equally across the world to solve all manner of problems. However, in reality, it isn't feasible [for many reasons]. Not now, at least. Whether you like it or not the component phantasm of freedom within capitalism isn't going away. I despise the way capitalism disregards the essential needs of humans, but underlying capitalism is a ruthlessly efficient system for distributing resources: the market economy. We're yet to match it in terms of efficiency; centralised systems were tried, and they failed.

 

We'll solve our issues eventually. Technological innovation will liberate us. 

[Ruin vs Rage? Who will win the rivalry?]

rage. ruin are weak beyond belief. their brown sticky stuff stinks like rotting beef. pulls weak like baby teeth. rage strong with a big dong. rage stamp like a big bull, cause of their phat pull.

 

rhymz innit

[should you commit suicide in the face of absurdity]

i say no, what about u

 

famous french-algerian philosopher albert camus holds that suicide is the most important philosophical question. Before asking metaphysical questions, i.e., the nature of time, reality, knowledge, what is morality and so forth, we must first ask whether life is worth living. Absurdity [absurdism] relates to the tension between our [human compulsion] to search for meaning and the apparent lack of meaning in the world. Why live if you've nothing to live for?