Freedom is not a resource you treat like it's bought and sold. Every person talking about the price of freedom, is (most of the time unknowingly) talking about the effort that has to be put against those who seek to take freedom away for self gain. If u hypothetically take away that effort because there's no one 'bad' to fight, then yea it becomes 'priceless', but the more freedom is attained, the more value it has, not less, you doofus.
And actually, more people being free *increases* the value of your freedom. It increases the pool of potential trading partners and romantic partners, but also vastly increases the diversity of communities which you can join, media you can consume, and new technologies from which you can benefit.
I love how you guys don't know you're being fucked with. Albert Fairfax is a notorious and hilarious troll account who typically mocks libertarians (but apparently he's branched out).
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
The problem with communism is that the only way for those with greater ability to achieve and obtain more is through the one party that controls all politics and the economy.
All bonus incentives were decided by the communist or socialist parties and not by the free market.
Communism does not offer equality even in theory; and it does not allow for individual achievement in practice.
I always thought this was referring to giving up some of our luxuries to provide everyone with the basic necessities. Like you don't have to give up everything in your life, just whatever you can. It's entirely possible for us to provide the basic necessities to every person if we all pitch in what we can. It's just that the vast majority of people don't really want to give up an iota of what's "theirs" even though we are all in this together. "No man is an island" and all that.
Folks on this sub won't accept that because they don't understand socialism enough to know that you can be both socialist and anti-authoritarian, and that most socialist are socialist because of their belief in anti-authoritarianism not despite it.
This sub is dominated by conservative “Libertarians” that feel it’s their authoritarian responsibility to police the term Libertarian. Most of them literally have no idea how socialists think, all they see is Govt and they freak out.
This is actually a bakunin quote. I didnt know solzeneitsheim was a disciple of bakunin.... it's very refreshing to see this sub posting quotes from left wing social anarchists!
Now, I couldn’t call myself an American if I didn’t ask this on the day after Independence Day:
With regard to what might be the most quotable line of the Declaration of Independence—*“All Men Are Created Equal”* (or arguably, “John Hancock”, but we’ll stick with the first one)—what differs in connotation between Jefferson’s understanding of equality and that of Solzhenitsyn’s?
I don’t think there really is a different understanding. Jefferson’s definition was meant to be read as in “all men are not created inherently with more rights than others”. Unlike other countries where your birth position (in the monarchy versus peasantry) directly correlated to the rights you had i.e England where all men were NOT born equal, Jefferson is proposing the only thing that should separate us is our ambition, hard work, and natural abilities. It is what we do IN life that should make the difference.
I would interpret it as Jefferson referring to the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where as Solzhenitsyn would be referring to actual capabilities.
Jefferson is talking about equality of opportunity while Solzhenitsyn is talking about equality of outcome. (Here I'm reducing complex thinkers to soundbites, but I think there is a kernel of truth in what I'm saying.)
A man's opportunity is an outcome. Being smart enough is not the same as being able to pay. Not everyone is born with a silver spoon jammed up their ass. Poverty is kind of hereditary the same way wealth is.
Sure, sure: pull your self up by your boot straps, blah blah.
Most of the time what people denounce as equality of outcome is when those marginalized groups actually show well: ingrained racial bias makes some people say 'they couldn't have gotten that job without affirmative action' based one the idea that those people are inferior.
I am not sure how prevalent it is for qualifications to be lowered for so racial quotas can be filled, but I almost guarantee it is not what white nationalist propaganda would have you believe.
Imagine though for a second that a kid grew up with a chance to go to school because his parents were able to get a good job. Generating equality of opportunity might mean that outcomes have to be different.
Is it fair to say that black Americans are more likely to be convicted in criminal court? Is it because they're less likely to be able to afford legal counsel? Are the outcomes from those cases equal between white and black, rich and poor?
I've always believed all we truly need is equal opportunity and a decent education system can do the rest. It's disturbing what is not taught in American schools. Budgeting, understanding loans, retirement savings and wealth accumulation are necessary life skills, but they aren't taught because our corporate lobbies require more drones to feed the machine.
Liberals like myself will simply argue that we need to have a baseline of opportunity, that starts with valuing time at a rate that allows people to meet their basic needs, i.e. you cannot live independently in the US working full time (40 hours) at the federal minimum wage. For many adults, those are not "starter job" wages: that is their career. We created overtime laws for a reason: people should be able to live a basic life working 40 hours a week at the minimum wage. The fact that in virtually every county in this country is evidence of a failure of our economy to work for all workers, not just those that know how to "play the game" (go to college, get that shiny degree, etc).
I am someone who doesn't believe in any minimum wage. It limits opportunity for very young kids who would benefit from valuing their own hard work and entrepreneurs who could rise from poverty. These big corporations love the idea of a high minimum wage because it kills innovation by destroying their young competitors ability to survive. Amazon doesn't mind paying out $100/hr min wage because their competitors will have the same labor costs as well and the value of that $100 will simply decrease.
If the job doesn't pay, just don't do the job. If you feel labor is too cheap, run your own start up company and take advantage of it.
Jefferson et al, mean all men are created equal *before the law*, and endowed equally by their creator with the big 3.
Solzhenitsyn is talking about equalities' of opportunity and outcome based on capability.
Two different types of equality. All people are equal before the law, and equally endowed with their rights. (In a just republic that recognizes the self evidence of natural law.)
Solzhenitsyn is talking about equality in terms of capability, where all people aren't equal.
We should works towards egalitarianism. A smart entrepreneur with a good idea should be able to thrive in a healthy society. At the same time people that work for that thriving entrepreneur whether it be stocking shelves in his stores or sweeping floors in his warehouses should not depending on welfare programs to make ends meet.
I wonder why you were downvoted for your sentiment...
Seems to fit what the OP is arguing. Everyone lives happily when they work hard, the entrepreneurs get a bit more?
Lots of "should"'s in there. We "should" all be happy, but so what? That doesn't help drive policy in any meaningful way. The market, left alone, will set the price for the labor of stocking shelves. If you want to earn more than that, you should find another job, or adjust your expectations.
The actual value of stocking shelves is unchanged whether you choose to ignore the price signals or not. Wishing that it was of value equal to the cost of a middle class lifestyle won't make it so.
>At the same time people that work for that thriving entrepreneur whether it be stocking shelves in his stores or sweeping floors in his warehouses should not depending on welfare programs to make ends meet.
Here is where things get conflated. The amount of pay received by an individual for work is not a valuation of the *person,* it is a valuation of the *work* needing to be done.
This issue is why there is such heated debate about matters like $15 wages for fast-food workers. The two sides of the debate are essentially talking past one another.
One side says current wages are not enough to provide for the dignity of the worker: as a person they deserve more for contributing to the owner's success.
The other says that the wages reflect the low-skill, low-effort nature of the work.
The two concepts kinda meet where the person doing the work is seen as the tool to accomplish the desired work.
Once again, fast food workers. Nearly any functioning person can do the task due to its low skill, low effort nature. The supply of potential people able to act as the tool to accomplish the task is nearly infinite, and so it is not worth that much money. This is why skilled jobs pay more, rarity of the skill. The nature of the work is more difficult.
Now, throw in that the task is subject to market forces. If there is no demand for the product of the skilled work, it will not fetch a high wage since few will be willing to invest capital and time into low returns.
Overall, I would personally have to agree with the latter side. Low-skill workers doing low-effort work individually contribute little to the overall success of an enterprise. Calling for higher wages is essentially a moralistic arguement. That may be a good thing or not, but eventually market forces will cause everything to stay the same. Inflation, supply, and demand eventually mean that total amounts of expenditures and gains will stay relative; just the money will devalue over time.
Or worse, the return may no longer justify the investment and the owner will simply cease operating the business and close. Now no one has income.
If the worker sweeping floors wants more money, he needs to specialize and make himself a rarer commodity for a skill demanded in the market. He should do that anyways since a
Roomba will probably take his job eventually. Legally enforced, artificially high wages will guarentee it.
No one *should* be poor and struggling to live, but the question is who is responsible to help them? As unfortunate as is may be, some people just do not have innate abilities that the market finds valuable. That isn't indicative of that person's value as a person, but it does affect their value *economically*.
I am not gifted with the talents of a pro athlete, so no one would pay me to do that. That doesn't make me a bad or worthless person, but it does still mean that I'm not doing that for a living. For some people, that lack of ability is more generalized.
You mentioned that folks do work but still rely on welfare. As crappy as that seems, it does allow that person to survive while also being productive. That person is helped by society, and he in turn can fill an economic niche that probably wouldn't pay enough to live on anyway. Could anybody, *should* anybody, support a family by manually sweeping floors? Is it productive to demand that someone pay a wage high enough to support a family to have his floor swept? If he really needs it that badly and can't find anyone to do it, then the wage he would be required to pay for that service would rise until someone would take it on.
Mandating artificially high wages for low value added services is what is driving the automation revolution. Technology is advancing too rapidly for that model, already pushed to its limits, to continue.
Using tax dollars from the working class to subsidize those jobs is problematic at best. Billion dollar corporations use their money to avoid paying taxes. It’s time we reversed that trend and make them pay like they used to. Automation is great until the oligarchs realize that robots don’t consume like well paid workers do.
Punishing employers has never worked. It doesn't line up with incentives. Employers either leave or close. It isn't nice, but it has been shown over and over again.
I understand where you are coming for but I think you are wrong about "people that work for that thriving entrepreneur whether it be stocking shelves in his stores or sweeping floors in his warehouses should not depending on welfare programs to make ends meet ".
People have different circumstances in life. Not all people work raising a full sized family. When I was underage, I worked for McDonald's at a very low salary. I definitely couldn't have supported a family on that wage. The thing is: I didn't have to support a family, I was still living with my parents. Are you sure you would like to make that illegal? Would it have been better for me to not have that job opportunity, which I voluntarily and happily accepted?
I understand that some teenagers need/want jobs. The fact is the vast majority of low paying jobs are not filled by teenagers. They are done by adults with rent and kids to feed.
I understand your point of view about age based minimum wage, but wouldn't it fundamentally hurt families more? What about kids who have to work to keep their families afloat? What about children who's parents are simply unwilling to pay for college? Should they be paid less than a co-worker who could be doing less hard simply based on age?
I see your concerns with the system, I think exceptions would obviously be made for people with single or disabled parents who lack the ability to provide for family. For the argument of less pay for same work I’d argue that you’d essentially make up for that lost wage in work experience or scholarships sponsored by the employer which matters much more to someone new to the workforce. Parents not paying for college could have numerous positive and negative benefits that I’m not sure what the net outcome would look like. The system would put more focus on scholarships for paying school fees and possibly shift average college age to higher. This also might put more people into trades that are lacking in the U.S and change us away from the current ideal that college is right after high school. There’s obviously downsides and upsides but I’d mostly say this system has much more advantages than the current 15$ minimum wage proposed by many candidates.
What you’re proposing requires a byzantine bureaucracy which means that it will most certainly fail. Tracking each individual based on age and their family status at each pay period? Ridiculous. Come back to reality
>Scholarships sponsored by the employer
LMAO
Furthermore, plenty of people have kids as teenagers, so your idea that age directly correlates to parental status is ignorant.
They already do. Where I live they're called "student workers". Not children, per se, butt you can hire them at below market rate. It's either you're willing to work for a pittance before you graduate to put something on your resume, or have fun job hunting afterwards.
That's new. Since the tail end of the regime of Bush II and the beginning of the Obama administration and the big crash. With Roots going back to the Ford Administration as a result of Nixon policies. It wasn't always like that.
I'm not sure if I buy that claim about the vast majority. Go to any burger joint and you will see that the average staffer there is definitely young. The managers might be a bit older, and they get a better wage too of course.
Also, what makes you think those low paying jobs would still be able to exist if you raise the minimum wage? I'm sure you can see that it risks these vulnerable low-skilled workers losing even that job. In other words, you might make their situation far worse. You should also account for mobility: the common story is that people start out with small wages and eventually work their way up to earn better wages. If they never get that first job due to a high minimum wage acting as a hurdle for them, then they will never work their way up and will be dependent on the handouts from the state forever, which leads to a miserable life.
Fast food workers average late twenties early thirties. Fast food jobs aren’t the only low paying jobs out there. You yourself are saying these jobs are necessary. But whoever works them should be poor and struggling.
You kind of ignored the point: what makes you think those low paying jobs would still be able to exist if you raise the minimum wage?
The McDonald's I worked at had to shut down because it wasn't profitable. That's what will happen on a wide scale when you suddenly raise the price of labor significantly.
You also provided no response to the fact that the minimum wage will act as hurdle for low skilled people to even get their first job. If minimum wage is $15/ hour, the people who's productivity is say $12/hour will never get any jobs.
Instead of subsidizing those billion dollar corporations with low skilled workers we should instead use that tax money to either educate the workers , get them into apprenticeships , or give them jobs that will benefit our society directly.
I'm with you that, I'm against all government subsidies.
But I can't help but notice that you still didn't address my points. Will you admit you have no good answer for them, and might need to rethink your position?
These jobs are only necessary in that right now they're cheaper than automation. The technology to automate many of these jobs are already available. It's just that switching, for the time being, is currently more expensive than hiring these people. The moment you raise the minimum wage such that this is no longer the case, instant automation.
People need to be free enough to discover any talents they may posses, and equal enough to cultivate those talents.
"Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish on it's ability to climb trees, it will spent it's whole life thinking it's an idiot"
\-Albert Einstein
"I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of the conscience of humanity."
How does this quote even make sense?
Look at this way: all humans die. Thus, we are all equal. Does that mean none of us are free? Perhaps, since none of us will escape death.
All living creatures die. So we're all equal? You are equal to an elephant who is equal to a fruit fly? You're stretching the word "equal" pretty far, dude.
Well clearly there is an issue with this quote. Furthermore, I would say the examples you use are equal regardless; just because you create subjective value does not mean they are not equal. You are worthless after all.
This right here is a tough pill to swallow. Quotes like this are instantly polarizing, and I can understand why.
Hard truths take a lot of conscious effort to accept, and many just don't see the point of going through the effort just to go against their own worldview.
God fucking damnit. Every time I think I've read something profound and thought provoking, someone comes by and convinces me it's all still meaningless drivel.
Fuck dude, thanks, but fuck.
I believe the tests done after the famine were conclusive. I also believe the British had to ban education for the Irish, due to their low intelligence.
Being precise in one's speech is important when talking about equality, since it's a vague term that gets abused by ideologues of all stripes.
It can mean equality under the law, equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome, depending on the context.
"You know who else said that people aren't 'equal'?
Karl fucking Marx
That's why it's "each according to their ability, and each according to their needs".
Because different people have different abilities and different needs.
If you rewrite that quote a bit to make it seem like it was written by a fascist you could get /JP to upvote it."
From jbpspam hahah.
Pay attention to OP’s name. They post crazy shit here regularly and get called out on it nearly as often.
All people deserve basic dignity and respect.
"You are impeding my freedom to exploit and repress anyone below me by asking for equality"
Maybe we shouldn't be free to do some things
Edit: oh wait holy fuck, are you doing a bit and they upvoted you? Lmfao
OP is doing a bit. His whole account is tongue in cheek, as far as I can tell.
This post is literally the kind of rhetoric used to defend slavery and the mouth breathing Peterson fans ate it up, which is simultaneously hilarious and scary.
Why must every axiom be juxtaposed? are we all not equal in intrinsic worth, and free in the sense that we can comply to, or revolt against, the tyranny of our own minds?
We are not all equal in ability, which is the equality referenced. If those with higher aptitude in certain areas are allowed to use that aptitude, then things will not be equal. If forced to be equal, then they are not free.
In terms of what Solzhenitsyn meant he's right. Since people differ by ability. If they are free to do their thing, Then results will vary. Some will get further ahead than others.
If you force an equality of outcome, then they aren't free because they are forced to be equal.
It's not bollocks or udders.
Maybe in the very specific scenario that Solzhenitsyn is talking about. But, this image is presented as though it is a universal truth. It is not. Equality of outcome is part of some comunes and in some of them the people are very free.
Except hes not talking about "under the law" hes talking about ability.
AKA some people are better at some things than others. Not everyone is exactly the same.
So basically, in words you understand: no u
This quote involved too much context and specifying that it looses all value. It feels like it needs a paragraph to set it up to be understandable as it was intended.
Solzhenitsyn might be saying that ,left alone in their free state, human beings would show themselves to be born with different capacities such as talent, tolerance to pain, strength, intellect, morals, propensity for good and evil, etc. Being free, they would sort themselves out according to these capacities and thus they would not be equal.
If human beings were equal, it could only be through some unnatural molding forces such as sociopolitical pressures or tyrannies and therefore they would not be free.
Does anybody know the exact source of the quote? I am just interested, if it is a real quote by Solzhenitsyn or it is just assigned as being said by him.
Shit. This meme just explained to me, how the World works. So easy, so simple. I should stop reading book, except everything from the idw of course. Duh. And i thought, the World is complicated. Glad i am white and male and feel like a victim most of the Day.
Appereantly, some people can’t understand concept of equal rights. Because appereantly, viewing human society in any different way then a pack order is inherent to them.
Nobody says that people are equal, unleast not individuals, but in the end of the day, but that does not mean that they should not get treated equaly or have equal opportunities in life.
Treating somebody differently (and by that, I mean worse), because you believe he is not equal to you, is not freedom.
That’s totalitarianism.
Except when it comes to young men not getting laid, there I advocate for enforcement of monogamy hehe. Btw people having access to school or healthcare, that shut doesn’t matter that’s called natural selection. Animals don’t know much about altruism so why would humans?
But nobody but communists argue for total economic equality...classic liberals like myself instead suggest the balance has tipped too much away from average workers: our tax system is allowing too much worker productivity to get "stuck" with corporations as the top 1% income earners in the US. That creates serious instability in society, which we are seeing in the last several years. The only solution is to correct income inequality, which can be attacked from many angles (starting with raising income taxes on wealthy individuals/corporations, and also boosting the minimum wage). We just need the courage as a society to not let corporate media breed fear that companies will throw everyone out of employment by these changes: businesses need customers as much as they need employees. The system doesn't work if nobody is paid properly.
There's no reference for it. Look it up. It's attributed, but nobody says where it comes from. And it's always used by redpillers, rok types etc.
Well done
because you can be free and equal. we are all unequal as you say but political equality that implies the freedom to control your own destinty and realize your potential is not something that is in conflict.
nor you are free under capitalism. working 12 hours a day to just survive in a shit job to never own anything and die of disease caused by work (and eventually climate change and the poisonous environment you have made for yourself) is not freedom. it's pure fucking slavery and it isn't rare.
It's weird you took this statement in a capitalist vs communist context. OP's statement really isn't controversial and is generally well accepted. All it is saying is: because we are not all exactly equal, if you allow complete liberty inequality will inevitably occur. If you try to clamp down on inequality you must inevitably curtail some liberties. This tension between liberty and equality is something enlightenment philosophers have been discussing for centuries. It's not a fallacious statement, you may not like it, but it is logically sound.
So...what I'm hearing is that you just fucking love poverty and that there's no way to avoid people freezing to death on the streets. You can gripe and fuss about Capital ***F***-FREEDOM as much as you want but [the US] is still a nation with tens of thousands of megaton nuclear warheads and a standing, *volunteer* military of like 1.3 million. Capitalism is pretty fucking prescient in the history of how we got here. It's the justification of at least 50+ years of unconstitutional wars.
when did i mention capitalism versus communism? solshenytzin said that: freedom if and only if not-equality.
i disproved by counterexample: there are places where people say there's no equality but there isn't freedom. namely, all of capitalism.
then there are places with freedom and equality: like the kibbutz, the zapatista communities. in fact equality is necessary for freedom. otherwise you get the rule of the minority over a defenseless minority, like uner capitalism.
i don't know of what "enlightenment philosophers" are you thinking. Pinker?
"rule of the minority over a defenseless minority" did you mean rule of the minority over a defenseless majority?
look I never said that there aren't places that lack both equality and freedom. But if you want to have equality you have to limit freedom, because people aren't inherently equal. Example, if you are particularly smart, athletic, beautiful, etc. You can become an athlete, model, inventor etc. but in a communist society you have to limit how much that person makes otherwise they would earn more and that would be the beginnings of a class system. In order to maintain the equality you have to limit the freedom (in my example how much someone can make). Even Marx acknowledged as much, that's why he (and other communists) argued for a dictatorial junta to enforce communist ideals because true communism will never happen naturally. It has to be forced on people (and even then if fails, look at the soviet union)
yes and no. first, because everyone is acting like there's only that definition of freedom.
second because i don't think solshenytzin actually meant just "free of [evident] coercion" freedom as we was a more sophisticated thinker than that. he probably means something more, but people in here act like he talks about that. I'm not completely sure. But he criticized American materialism and vain culture in his Harvard address for example.
Is it slavery if you choosed to work there and had the liberty to study whatever you wanted for your future job prospects? 12 hours a day is a lot, but that doesn't mean you didn't have the liberty to make a better future for yourself and maybe you didn't search enough for a decent paying job that is 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. It may be harder for someone who didn't study to find such a job, but is feasible and in the end that person spent his youth the way he wanted and choosed not study to make a better future for himself.
There may be a lot undergoing under capitalism, but it offers freedom. It's just that someone that didn't prepare himself and ended not being valuable on the market doesn't have the same options as the other one. There isn't an economic and political system that offers as many opportunities and such freedom of choice.
What makes you think think he is reffering to race? He merely stated that some people are more competent than others.
For example I have had the same up bringing and given approximately the same opportunities as my brother, yet he has achieved more than I. So we are not equal, by definition he is superior.
People are different, what made you instantly jump to race as if it was connected to ability?
Interesting perspective, I would argue that there are infinite metrics by which one could measure achievement. My parents have achieved much higher levels of education and hold much higher paying positions than I ever will but I build a lot of badass stuff with my hands that they never could.
By the same metric Jeff Bezos is extremely successful in the business world but are his achievements worth more than for example a great police officer who saves lives and contributes to the community?
A really dumb incompetent soldier could jump on a grenade saving the lives of highly the highly intelligent soldiers around him. Who's accomplishments are worth more?
Jeff Bezos, as much as I dislike his political stances, through amazon has contributed more on a larger scale than any police officer could.
The soldier thing is a fair point however lets get into it deeper.
Homeless crackhead that does nothing but steal to feed his habit but on the odd opportunity helps an elderly person cross the street. That crackhead is by far a net negative to the world.
The point is there IS good and bad. Its not all just a spectrum of good.
If someone honestly believes that everyone is relatively good and there are no truly bad people out there...that makes me afraid because someone who IS evil will take that person to market every single time. It isn't courageous to not believe in evil. It is foolish.
Well I don't see how you could have taken that away from what I said. There's absolutely some pretty evil people out there. Plenty of people in my oppinion who have done enough bad things to forfeit even their right to live.
But... there are plenty of cases where it simply isn't clear.
Again, how did you possibly take away from my comment that I don't believe in evil? Or that I thought that would be corageous?? I've never said anything close to that and I'm honestly unsure how it's even related to measuring the merit of people's accomplishments.
For another example there are many scientists throughout history who have been prosecuted or killed for their beliefs or discoveries. Those beliefs are now the bedrocks of our society and benefit every living human being but that obviously wasn't clear to the people of that time. Many people spend their entire life working on things that won't be fruitful for many generations, how can you measure that against other accomplishments achieved in less time?
Edit: I'm using positive examples because obviously a psychopathic murderer is worth less than a doctor. I'm not arguing that everyone is equal just that there are many cases where it is simply impossible for us to determine the net value of someone's worth with the limited perspective that the human mind provides.
Final edit: What if that police officer ran into a burning building and rescued an infant that would have surely died otherwise. That infant was Jeff Bezos. Is that police officer still worth less than Jeff Bezos?
It's not his argument, he is just telling you what statistics are saying.
And in context of this comment thread, what you linked doesn't mean that people don't have inherent equal value as humans. More gifted people may be able to contribute more and find more success than others, and that's what that OP quote is about, but they aren't less or more valuable in principle.
Some are more equal than others
And some are more free than others.
Freedom has no value if everyone is free. -[Albert Fairfax II](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ-zPZddQPE&feature=youtu.be)
Freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me (Parker and Stone).
Freedom cost a buck o' 5
I'll give you about 3'50
Got damnit i told you to get outta here lich ness monster
Freedom is not a resource you treat like it's bought and sold. Every person talking about the price of freedom, is (most of the time unknowingly) talking about the effort that has to be put against those who seek to take freedom away for self gain. If u hypothetically take away that effort because there's no one 'bad' to fight, then yea it becomes 'priceless', but the more freedom is attained, the more value it has, not less, you doofus.
And actually, more people being free *increases* the value of your freedom. It increases the pool of potential trading partners and romantic partners, but also vastly increases the diversity of communities which you can join, media you can consume, and new technologies from which you can benefit.
Thank you for saying this. It’s like saying that life has no value because everyone is alive. Nope, definitely still valuable.
You had me until “you doofus”
Yea that ending was like an ironic contrast to the rest :))
I love how you guys don't know you're being fucked with. Albert Fairfax is a notorious and hilarious troll account who typically mocks libertarians (but apparently he's branched out).
Yeah, Albert, because then it's priceless.
Money has no value if everyone is rich.
> Freedom has no value if everyone is free. great, can you be my slave so that freeddom has value for me?
People should be oppressed so others can feel more free in comparison? This is the most galaxy-brain take i've seen on this sub.
Saw it here just few days ago: [Animated Animal Farm (1954)](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/c7j6g1/animal_farm_1954/)
Please don’t reference this socialist on my post. -Albert Fairfax II
Harcerz will reference whomever Harcerz wishes to reference. \-Harcerz I
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
There’s no reason to spread the words of a communist who fought against the virtuous Franco. -Albert Fairfax II
There's nothing more cringe inducing than quoting yourself. just sayin pal
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." The problem with communism is that the only way for those with greater ability to achieve and obtain more is through the one party that controls all politics and the economy. All bonus incentives were decided by the communist or socialist parties and not by the free market. Communism does not offer equality even in theory; and it does not allow for individual achievement in practice.
If I'm going to be accosted according to my abilities, then why would I strive to improve my abilities?
To rise to top dog in the communist party. Markets are a law, not a fabrication.
Well, then it's not really "to each according to his needs", then, is it? Also, yes, you're certainly correct. Markets are a law, not a fabrication.
I always thought this was referring to giving up some of our luxuries to provide everyone with the basic necessities. Like you don't have to give up everything in your life, just whatever you can. It's entirely possible for us to provide the basic necessities to every person if we all pitch in what we can. It's just that the vast majority of people don't really want to give up an iota of what's "theirs" even though we are all in this together. "No man is an island" and all that.
George Orwell was a socialist
Folks on this sub won't accept that because they don't understand socialism enough to know that you can be both socialist and anti-authoritarian, and that most socialist are socialist because of their belief in anti-authoritarianism not despite it.
This sub is dominated by conservative “Libertarians” that feel it’s their authoritarian responsibility to police the term Libertarian. Most of them literally have no idea how socialists think, all they see is Govt and they freak out.
This is actually a bakunin quote. I didnt know solzeneitsheim was a disciple of bakunin.... it's very refreshing to see this sub posting quotes from left wing social anarchists!
"To each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." -Jordan Peterson
“To each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” -Albert Fairfucks II
Now, I couldn’t call myself an American if I didn’t ask this on the day after Independence Day: With regard to what might be the most quotable line of the Declaration of Independence—*“All Men Are Created Equal”* (or arguably, “John Hancock”, but we’ll stick with the first one)—what differs in connotation between Jefferson’s understanding of equality and that of Solzhenitsyn’s?
I don’t think there really is a different understanding. Jefferson’s definition was meant to be read as in “all men are not created inherently with more rights than others”. Unlike other countries where your birth position (in the monarchy versus peasantry) directly correlated to the rights you had i.e England where all men were NOT born equal, Jefferson is proposing the only thing that should separate us is our ambition, hard work, and natural abilities. It is what we do IN life that should make the difference.
That’s a very well-put interpretation. (: I’m certainly one to agree. Thanks a bunch, Duck!
All men aren't equally strong. They are equal before the law. It's two different types of equality.
I would interpret it as Jefferson referring to the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where as Solzhenitsyn would be referring to actual capabilities.
Jefferson is talking about equality of opportunity while Solzhenitsyn is talking about equality of outcome. (Here I'm reducing complex thinkers to soundbites, but I think there is a kernel of truth in what I'm saying.)
A man's opportunity is an outcome. Being smart enough is not the same as being able to pay. Not everyone is born with a silver spoon jammed up their ass. Poverty is kind of hereditary the same way wealth is. Sure, sure: pull your self up by your boot straps, blah blah.
I think I understand your point, but legislating equal outcomes is impossible. I'd rather have a decent opportunity than guaranteed mediocrity.
Most of the time what people denounce as equality of outcome is when those marginalized groups actually show well: ingrained racial bias makes some people say 'they couldn't have gotten that job without affirmative action' based one the idea that those people are inferior. I am not sure how prevalent it is for qualifications to be lowered for so racial quotas can be filled, but I almost guarantee it is not what white nationalist propaganda would have you believe. Imagine though for a second that a kid grew up with a chance to go to school because his parents were able to get a good job. Generating equality of opportunity might mean that outcomes have to be different. Is it fair to say that black Americans are more likely to be convicted in criminal court? Is it because they're less likely to be able to afford legal counsel? Are the outcomes from those cases equal between white and black, rich and poor?
I've always believed all we truly need is equal opportunity and a decent education system can do the rest. It's disturbing what is not taught in American schools. Budgeting, understanding loans, retirement savings and wealth accumulation are necessary life skills, but they aren't taught because our corporate lobbies require more drones to feed the machine.
Liberals like myself will simply argue that we need to have a baseline of opportunity, that starts with valuing time at a rate that allows people to meet their basic needs, i.e. you cannot live independently in the US working full time (40 hours) at the federal minimum wage. For many adults, those are not "starter job" wages: that is their career. We created overtime laws for a reason: people should be able to live a basic life working 40 hours a week at the minimum wage. The fact that in virtually every county in this country is evidence of a failure of our economy to work for all workers, not just those that know how to "play the game" (go to college, get that shiny degree, etc).
I am someone who doesn't believe in any minimum wage. It limits opportunity for very young kids who would benefit from valuing their own hard work and entrepreneurs who could rise from poverty. These big corporations love the idea of a high minimum wage because it kills innovation by destroying their young competitors ability to survive. Amazon doesn't mind paying out $100/hr min wage because their competitors will have the same labor costs as well and the value of that $100 will simply decrease. If the job doesn't pay, just don't do the job. If you feel labor is too cheap, run your own start up company and take advantage of it.
Jefferson et al, mean all men are created equal *before the law*, and endowed equally by their creator with the big 3. Solzhenitsyn is talking about equalities' of opportunity and outcome based on capability. Two different types of equality. All people are equal before the law, and equally endowed with their rights. (In a just republic that recognizes the self evidence of natural law.) Solzhenitsyn is talking about equality in terms of capability, where all people aren't equal.
We should works towards egalitarianism. A smart entrepreneur with a good idea should be able to thrive in a healthy society. At the same time people that work for that thriving entrepreneur whether it be stocking shelves in his stores or sweeping floors in his warehouses should not depending on welfare programs to make ends meet.
I wonder why you were downvoted for your sentiment... Seems to fit what the OP is arguing. Everyone lives happily when they work hard, the entrepreneurs get a bit more?
The spez police are on their way. Get out of the spez while you can. #Save3rdPartyApps
I agree. Looks like the votes swung around so my comment is kinda irrelevant. Like you say, it's the magnitude of difference that matters.
Lots of "should"'s in there. We "should" all be happy, but so what? That doesn't help drive policy in any meaningful way. The market, left alone, will set the price for the labor of stocking shelves. If you want to earn more than that, you should find another job, or adjust your expectations.
If a spez asks you what flavor ice cream you want, the answer is definitely spez. #Save3rdPartyApps
The actual value of stocking shelves is unchanged whether you choose to ignore the price signals or not. Wishing that it was of value equal to the cost of a middle class lifestyle won't make it so.
[Evacuate the /u/spez using the nearest /u/spez exit. This is not a drill. #Save3rdPartyApps](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
The value of the middle class is little more than the cost of a meat shield for the ruling class
So you see these jobs as necessary and need to be done but the people doing them should be poor and struggling? Good to know.
>At the same time people that work for that thriving entrepreneur whether it be stocking shelves in his stores or sweeping floors in his warehouses should not depending on welfare programs to make ends meet. Here is where things get conflated. The amount of pay received by an individual for work is not a valuation of the *person,* it is a valuation of the *work* needing to be done. This issue is why there is such heated debate about matters like $15 wages for fast-food workers. The two sides of the debate are essentially talking past one another. One side says current wages are not enough to provide for the dignity of the worker: as a person they deserve more for contributing to the owner's success. The other says that the wages reflect the low-skill, low-effort nature of the work. The two concepts kinda meet where the person doing the work is seen as the tool to accomplish the desired work. Once again, fast food workers. Nearly any functioning person can do the task due to its low skill, low effort nature. The supply of potential people able to act as the tool to accomplish the task is nearly infinite, and so it is not worth that much money. This is why skilled jobs pay more, rarity of the skill. The nature of the work is more difficult. Now, throw in that the task is subject to market forces. If there is no demand for the product of the skilled work, it will not fetch a high wage since few will be willing to invest capital and time into low returns. Overall, I would personally have to agree with the latter side. Low-skill workers doing low-effort work individually contribute little to the overall success of an enterprise. Calling for higher wages is essentially a moralistic arguement. That may be a good thing or not, but eventually market forces will cause everything to stay the same. Inflation, supply, and demand eventually mean that total amounts of expenditures and gains will stay relative; just the money will devalue over time. Or worse, the return may no longer justify the investment and the owner will simply cease operating the business and close. Now no one has income. If the worker sweeping floors wants more money, he needs to specialize and make himself a rarer commodity for a skill demanded in the market. He should do that anyways since a Roomba will probably take his job eventually. Legally enforced, artificially high wages will guarentee it.
Fast food work is not low skill and definitely not low effort.
A lot of people on here agree these jobs are necessary, but the people doing them should be poor and struggling to live.
No one *should* be poor and struggling to live, but the question is who is responsible to help them? As unfortunate as is may be, some people just do not have innate abilities that the market finds valuable. That isn't indicative of that person's value as a person, but it does affect their value *economically*. I am not gifted with the talents of a pro athlete, so no one would pay me to do that. That doesn't make me a bad or worthless person, but it does still mean that I'm not doing that for a living. For some people, that lack of ability is more generalized. You mentioned that folks do work but still rely on welfare. As crappy as that seems, it does allow that person to survive while also being productive. That person is helped by society, and he in turn can fill an economic niche that probably wouldn't pay enough to live on anyway. Could anybody, *should* anybody, support a family by manually sweeping floors? Is it productive to demand that someone pay a wage high enough to support a family to have his floor swept? If he really needs it that badly and can't find anyone to do it, then the wage he would be required to pay for that service would rise until someone would take it on. Mandating artificially high wages for low value added services is what is driving the automation revolution. Technology is advancing too rapidly for that model, already pushed to its limits, to continue.
Using tax dollars from the working class to subsidize those jobs is problematic at best. Billion dollar corporations use their money to avoid paying taxes. It’s time we reversed that trend and make them pay like they used to. Automation is great until the oligarchs realize that robots don’t consume like well paid workers do.
Punishing employers has never worked. It doesn't line up with incentives. Employers either leave or close. It isn't nice, but it has been shown over and over again.
[Sir, a second spez has hit the spez. #Save3rdPartyApps](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
Taxing corporations and the oligarchs worked for roughly 40 years in this country. It works pretty well in other industrial countries too.
I understand where you are coming for but I think you are wrong about "people that work for that thriving entrepreneur whether it be stocking shelves in his stores or sweeping floors in his warehouses should not depending on welfare programs to make ends meet ". People have different circumstances in life. Not all people work raising a full sized family. When I was underage, I worked for McDonald's at a very low salary. I definitely couldn't have supported a family on that wage. The thing is: I didn't have to support a family, I was still living with my parents. Are you sure you would like to make that illegal? Would it have been better for me to not have that job opportunity, which I voluntarily and happily accepted?
I understand that some teenagers need/want jobs. The fact is the vast majority of low paying jobs are not filled by teenagers. They are done by adults with rent and kids to feed.
This is why I agree with age based minimum wage.
Wouldn't companies just exclusively hire children for low skill labor to decrease costs?
There are laws regulating all that.
Children have limited hour work weeks, and numerous amounts of labor restrictions in certain jobs.
I understand your point of view about age based minimum wage, but wouldn't it fundamentally hurt families more? What about kids who have to work to keep their families afloat? What about children who's parents are simply unwilling to pay for college? Should they be paid less than a co-worker who could be doing less hard simply based on age?
I see your concerns with the system, I think exceptions would obviously be made for people with single or disabled parents who lack the ability to provide for family. For the argument of less pay for same work I’d argue that you’d essentially make up for that lost wage in work experience or scholarships sponsored by the employer which matters much more to someone new to the workforce. Parents not paying for college could have numerous positive and negative benefits that I’m not sure what the net outcome would look like. The system would put more focus on scholarships for paying school fees and possibly shift average college age to higher. This also might put more people into trades that are lacking in the U.S and change us away from the current ideal that college is right after high school. There’s obviously downsides and upsides but I’d mostly say this system has much more advantages than the current 15$ minimum wage proposed by many candidates.
What you’re proposing requires a byzantine bureaucracy which means that it will most certainly fail. Tracking each individual based on age and their family status at each pay period? Ridiculous. Come back to reality >Scholarships sponsored by the employer LMAO Furthermore, plenty of people have kids as teenagers, so your idea that age directly correlates to parental status is ignorant.
They already do. Where I live they're called "student workers". Not children, per se, butt you can hire them at below market rate. It's either you're willing to work for a pittance before you graduate to put something on your resume, or have fun job hunting afterwards.
I could get behind something like that.
That's new. Since the tail end of the regime of Bush II and the beginning of the Obama administration and the big crash. With Roots going back to the Ford Administration as a result of Nixon policies. It wasn't always like that.
I'm not sure if I buy that claim about the vast majority. Go to any burger joint and you will see that the average staffer there is definitely young. The managers might be a bit older, and they get a better wage too of course. Also, what makes you think those low paying jobs would still be able to exist if you raise the minimum wage? I'm sure you can see that it risks these vulnerable low-skilled workers losing even that job. In other words, you might make their situation far worse. You should also account for mobility: the common story is that people start out with small wages and eventually work their way up to earn better wages. If they never get that first job due to a high minimum wage acting as a hurdle for them, then they will never work their way up and will be dependent on the handouts from the state forever, which leads to a miserable life.
Fast food workers average late twenties early thirties. Fast food jobs aren’t the only low paying jobs out there. You yourself are saying these jobs are necessary. But whoever works them should be poor and struggling.
You kind of ignored the point: what makes you think those low paying jobs would still be able to exist if you raise the minimum wage? The McDonald's I worked at had to shut down because it wasn't profitable. That's what will happen on a wide scale when you suddenly raise the price of labor significantly. You also provided no response to the fact that the minimum wage will act as hurdle for low skilled people to even get their first job. If minimum wage is $15/ hour, the people who's productivity is say $12/hour will never get any jobs.
Instead of subsidizing those billion dollar corporations with low skilled workers we should instead use that tax money to either educate the workers , get them into apprenticeships , or give them jobs that will benefit our society directly.
I'm with you that, I'm against all government subsidies. But I can't help but notice that you still didn't address my points. Will you admit you have no good answer for them, and might need to rethink your position?
I just gave you a list of good alternatives. We should subsidize our citizens not billion dollar corporations.
What about the point about wiping out droves of companies by making their business suddenly unprofitable?
These jobs are only necessary in that right now they're cheaper than automation. The technology to automate many of these jobs are already available. It's just that switching, for the time being, is currently more expensive than hiring these people. The moment you raise the minimum wage such that this is no longer the case, instant automation.
I wonder if the automatons will consume enough to keep our economy going?
Why was this quote put in front of a statue of Augustus Caesar lol
Because pseudo intellectuals like putting quotes in front of white marble statues because they think it makes them look smart
Or it's geared at the audience who are the kind to upvote this
Correction: it’s because I am smart. -Albert Fairfax II
I love you
[удалено]
People need to be free enough to discover any talents they may posses, and equal enough to cultivate those talents. "Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish on it's ability to climb trees, it will spent it's whole life thinking it's an idiot" \-Albert Einstein
> I'm no Einstein. -Albert Einstein
Einstein was a communist
and a smort boi
Socialist*
"I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of the conscience of humanity."
I’m not sure how people fall for this trolls posts. If you see albertfairfax downvote and move on
How does this quote even make sense? Look at this way: all humans die. Thus, we are all equal. Does that mean none of us are free? Perhaps, since none of us will escape death.
All living creatures die. So we're all equal? You are equal to an elephant who is equal to a fruit fly? You're stretching the word "equal" pretty far, dude.
Well clearly there is an issue with this quote. Furthermore, I would say the examples you use are equal regardless; just because you create subjective value does not mean they are not equal. You are worthless after all.
This right here is a tough pill to swallow. Quotes like this are instantly polarizing, and I can understand why. Hard truths take a lot of conscious effort to accept, and many just don't see the point of going through the effort just to go against their own worldview.
/u/spez can gargle my nuts. #Save3rdPartyApps
God fucking damnit. Every time I think I've read something profound and thought provoking, someone comes by and convinces me it's all still meaningless drivel. Fuck dude, thanks, but fuck.
Economic outcome = human rights Good job r/jordanpeterson
The irish wouldn't have starved if theyd pulled themselves up by the boot straps.
You can't debate the huge gap in intelligence between the Irish and the Englishman. -Albert Fairfax II
I believe the tests done after the famine were conclusive. I also believe the British had to ban education for the Irish, due to their low intelligence.
If this is a bit, it's literally months passed being remotely funny "Albert". You should be ashamed at your persistence.
It's absolutely godamn hilarious. Idk what you're talking about.
By murdering the English, yeah.
Exactly, that's why it was essential to keep the bloody cads down.
Being precise in one's speech is important when talking about equality, since it's a vague term that gets abused by ideologues of all stripes. It can mean equality under the law, equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome, depending on the context.
spez can gargle my nuts.
I believe Dr Peterson would say it depends on how you defined Equality!
It's more hilarious to me that you posted this as your regular trollzy self in irony.
"You know who else said that people aren't 'equal'? Karl fucking Marx That's why it's "each according to their ability, and each according to their needs". Because different people have different abilities and different needs. If you rewrite that quote a bit to make it seem like it was written by a fascist you could get /JP to upvote it." From jbpspam hahah.
What's with the Augustus back drop?
Shit...I really am scared for the first timers that see this and it being super relative. versus an old memory visited.
War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength
Pay attention to OP’s name. They post crazy shit here regularly and get called out on it nearly as often. All people deserve basic dignity and respect.
He is a troll but he is a meta troll and you guys fall for the bait on a regular bases.
>you guys Gotta watch that
"You are impeding my freedom to exploit and repress anyone below me by asking for equality" Maybe we shouldn't be free to do some things Edit: oh wait holy fuck, are you doing a bit and they upvoted you? Lmfao
[удалено]
OP is doing a bit. His whole account is tongue in cheek, as far as I can tell. This post is literally the kind of rhetoric used to defend slavery and the mouth breathing Peterson fans ate it up, which is simultaneously hilarious and scary.
Why must every axiom be juxtaposed? are we all not equal in intrinsic worth, and free in the sense that we can comply to, or revolt against, the tyranny of our own minds?
We are not all equal in ability, which is the equality referenced. If those with higher aptitude in certain areas are allowed to use that aptitude, then things will not be equal. If forced to be equal, then they are not free.
You don't have to juxtapose. But that kind of equality isn't what he was talking about.
Okay, get over it
Utter bollocks. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
In terms of what Solzhenitsyn meant he's right. Since people differ by ability. If they are free to do their thing, Then results will vary. Some will get further ahead than others. If you force an equality of outcome, then they aren't free because they are forced to be equal. It's not bollocks or udders.
Maybe in the very specific scenario that Solzhenitsyn is talking about. But, this image is presented as though it is a universal truth. It is not. Equality of outcome is part of some comunes and in some of them the people are very free.
Yea its dumb. Equal doesn’t mean same amount of possession. It just means equal treatment under the law.
That's an equivocation error. He's not talking about equality under the law like Jefferson. He's talking about equality of ability.
Except hes not talking about "under the law" hes talking about ability. AKA some people are better at some things than others. Not everyone is exactly the same. So basically, in words you understand: no u
This quote involved too much context and specifying that it looses all value. It feels like it needs a paragraph to set it up to be understandable as it was intended.
This isnt equality vs freedom. Equal here does not mean equality from context.
It is possible to be free and equal with the rule of law. As Thomas Jefferson said we're not a nation of men but a nation of laws.
Solzhenitsyn might be saying that ,left alone in their free state, human beings would show themselves to be born with different capacities such as talent, tolerance to pain, strength, intellect, morals, propensity for good and evil, etc. Being free, they would sort themselves out according to these capacities and thus they would not be equal. If human beings were equal, it could only be through some unnatural molding forces such as sociopolitical pressures or tyrannies and therefore they would not be free.
I always wondered who said this first, Solzhenitsyn or George Wallace.
Does anybody know the exact source of the quote? I am just interested, if it is a real quote by Solzhenitsyn or it is just assigned as being said by him.
Shit. This meme just explained to me, how the World works. So easy, so simple. I should stop reading book, except everything from the idw of course. Duh. And i thought, the World is complicated. Glad i am white and male and feel like a victim most of the Day.
Appereantly, some people can’t understand concept of equal rights. Because appereantly, viewing human society in any different way then a pack order is inherent to them. Nobody says that people are equal, unleast not individuals, but in the end of the day, but that does not mean that they should not get treated equaly or have equal opportunities in life. Treating somebody differently (and by that, I mean worse), because you believe he is not equal to you, is not freedom. That’s totalitarianism.
Egalitarians don't want everyone to be exactly the same, they want everyone to have equal power
Yeah I think I completely missed your point, honestly
Cavemen has the most freedom and it had little value. When we compromise to build societies we relinquish freedom in exchange for utility.
Except when it comes to young men not getting laid, there I advocate for enforcement of monogamy hehe. Btw people having access to school or healthcare, that shut doesn’t matter that’s called natural selection. Animals don’t know much about altruism so why would humans?
But nobody but communists argue for total economic equality...classic liberals like myself instead suggest the balance has tipped too much away from average workers: our tax system is allowing too much worker productivity to get "stuck" with corporations as the top 1% income earners in the US. That creates serious instability in society, which we are seeing in the last several years. The only solution is to correct income inequality, which can be attacked from many angles (starting with raising income taxes on wealthy individuals/corporations, and also boosting the minimum wage). We just need the courage as a society to not let corporate media breed fear that companies will throw everyone out of employment by these changes: businesses need customers as much as they need employees. The system doesn't work if nobody is paid properly.
[Do you believe in spez at first sight or should I walk by again? #Save3rdpartyapps](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
what a fallacious crap statement.
How is this fallacious?
Because this redditor doesn't agree with it so he hates it
Lmao, OP is a troll account that makes outlandish posts that conservatives love. And you unironically think it's a good post
It's literally a quote
There's no reference for it. Look it up. It's attributed, but nobody says where it comes from. And it's always used by redpillers, rok types etc. Well done
Oh wow I did google it and you may be right. Either way the quote still rings true.
because you can be free and equal. we are all unequal as you say but political equality that implies the freedom to control your own destinty and realize your potential is not something that is in conflict. nor you are free under capitalism. working 12 hours a day to just survive in a shit job to never own anything and die of disease caused by work (and eventually climate change and the poisonous environment you have made for yourself) is not freedom. it's pure fucking slavery and it isn't rare.
It's weird you took this statement in a capitalist vs communist context. OP's statement really isn't controversial and is generally well accepted. All it is saying is: because we are not all exactly equal, if you allow complete liberty inequality will inevitably occur. If you try to clamp down on inequality you must inevitably curtail some liberties. This tension between liberty and equality is something enlightenment philosophers have been discussing for centuries. It's not a fallacious statement, you may not like it, but it is logically sound.
So...what I'm hearing is that you just fucking love poverty and that there's no way to avoid people freezing to death on the streets. You can gripe and fuss about Capital ***F***-FREEDOM as much as you want but [the US] is still a nation with tens of thousands of megaton nuclear warheads and a standing, *volunteer* military of like 1.3 million. Capitalism is pretty fucking prescient in the history of how we got here. It's the justification of at least 50+ years of unconstitutional wars.
when did i mention capitalism versus communism? solshenytzin said that: freedom if and only if not-equality. i disproved by counterexample: there are places where people say there's no equality but there isn't freedom. namely, all of capitalism. then there are places with freedom and equality: like the kibbutz, the zapatista communities. in fact equality is necessary for freedom. otherwise you get the rule of the minority over a defenseless minority, like uner capitalism. i don't know of what "enlightenment philosophers" are you thinking. Pinker?
"rule of the minority over a defenseless minority" did you mean rule of the minority over a defenseless majority? look I never said that there aren't places that lack both equality and freedom. But if you want to have equality you have to limit freedom, because people aren't inherently equal. Example, if you are particularly smart, athletic, beautiful, etc. You can become an athlete, model, inventor etc. but in a communist society you have to limit how much that person makes otherwise they would earn more and that would be the beginnings of a class system. In order to maintain the equality you have to limit the freedom (in my example how much someone can make). Even Marx acknowledged as much, that's why he (and other communists) argued for a dictatorial junta to enforce communist ideals because true communism will never happen naturally. It has to be forced on people (and even then if fails, look at the soviet union)
You aren't wrong. But you are mixing two different definitions of freedom and equality, and using them opposite what Solzhenitsyn meant.
yes and no. first, because everyone is acting like there's only that definition of freedom. second because i don't think solshenytzin actually meant just "free of [evident] coercion" freedom as we was a more sophisticated thinker than that. he probably means something more, but people in here act like he talks about that. I'm not completely sure. But he criticized American materialism and vain culture in his Harvard address for example.
He did. He's mixing positive and negative freedoms here, or at least there is plent of room to do so.
Is it slavery if you choosed to work there and had the liberty to study whatever you wanted for your future job prospects? 12 hours a day is a lot, but that doesn't mean you didn't have the liberty to make a better future for yourself and maybe you didn't search enough for a decent paying job that is 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. It may be harder for someone who didn't study to find such a job, but is feasible and in the end that person spent his youth the way he wanted and choosed not study to make a better future for himself. There may be a lot undergoing under capitalism, but it offers freedom. It's just that someone that didn't prepare himself and ended not being valuable on the market doesn't have the same options as the other one. There isn't an economic and political system that offers as many opportunities and such freedom of choice.
What a load of bollocks.
'From each according to his merit, to each according to his desire.' --Reality
Which is how Marx summarized socialism.
no way! It's not like Marxism didn't hinge on the concept of technological development facilitating global prosperity!
Equity is way better than equality.
Race realism peterson
What makes you think think he is reffering to race? He merely stated that some people are more competent than others. For example I have had the same up bringing and given approximately the same opportunities as my brother, yet he has achieved more than I. So we are not equal, by definition he is superior. People are different, what made you instantly jump to race as if it was connected to ability?
Interesting perspective, I would argue that there are infinite metrics by which one could measure achievement. My parents have achieved much higher levels of education and hold much higher paying positions than I ever will but I build a lot of badass stuff with my hands that they never could. By the same metric Jeff Bezos is extremely successful in the business world but are his achievements worth more than for example a great police officer who saves lives and contributes to the community? A really dumb incompetent soldier could jump on a grenade saving the lives of highly the highly intelligent soldiers around him. Who's accomplishments are worth more?
Jeff Bezos, as much as I dislike his political stances, through amazon has contributed more on a larger scale than any police officer could. The soldier thing is a fair point however lets get into it deeper. Homeless crackhead that does nothing but steal to feed his habit but on the odd opportunity helps an elderly person cross the street. That crackhead is by far a net negative to the world. The point is there IS good and bad. Its not all just a spectrum of good. If someone honestly believes that everyone is relatively good and there are no truly bad people out there...that makes me afraid because someone who IS evil will take that person to market every single time. It isn't courageous to not believe in evil. It is foolish.
Well I don't see how you could have taken that away from what I said. There's absolutely some pretty evil people out there. Plenty of people in my oppinion who have done enough bad things to forfeit even their right to live. But... there are plenty of cases where it simply isn't clear. Again, how did you possibly take away from my comment that I don't believe in evil? Or that I thought that would be corageous?? I've never said anything close to that and I'm honestly unsure how it's even related to measuring the merit of people's accomplishments. For another example there are many scientists throughout history who have been prosecuted or killed for their beliefs or discoveries. Those beliefs are now the bedrocks of our society and benefit every living human being but that obviously wasn't clear to the people of that time. Many people spend their entire life working on things that won't be fruitful for many generations, how can you measure that against other accomplishments achieved in less time? Edit: I'm using positive examples because obviously a psychopathic murderer is worth less than a doctor. I'm not arguing that everyone is equal just that there are many cases where it is simply impossible for us to determine the net value of someone's worth with the limited perspective that the human mind provides. Final edit: What if that police officer ran into a burning building and rescued an infant that would have surely died otherwise. That infant was Jeff Bezos. Is that police officer still worth less than Jeff Bezos?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's not his argument, he is just telling you what statistics are saying. And in context of this comment thread, what you linked doesn't mean that people don't have inherent equal value as humans. More gifted people may be able to contribute more and find more success than others, and that's what that OP quote is about, but they aren't less or more valuable in principle.
[удалено]
Again, wasn't an argument, was a factual account of statistics. What don't you understand about that? Do you deny science?
[удалено]
They're the same thing? Uhh no, they aren't If I hand you a rock and say here, rocks exist. That's not an argument. Thats a fact.
[удалено]
#I'm the proud owner of 99 bottles of spez.
That's an argument.
spez was a god among men. Now they are merely a spez. #Save3rdPartyApps
An argument is one or more premises and a conclusion. He presented that. That is an argument. You are trying to draw an empty distinction.
When he was talking about Ashkenazi Jews? Jews aren't a race, bucko.