h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Individual liberties are important...but we need Otto to come along and explain precisely why they must be considered simultaneously with social justice - not as an either/or but a both/and."

Because freedom for the pike means the death of the minnows. Or something like that.

"My working theory is that when people emphasise individual liberty as the be all and end all, that is not the starting point for their political philosophy but something they use *to justify* their politics."

Yep. They involve very deeply confused notions of what liberty actually is and what its value is. Roughly, I think they confuse liberty with property, and don't seem to understand that both liberty and property rights are inevitably a trade-off. In other words, the liberties and property I enjoy impact upon others. They also don't like state power (other than to stop mafia-like behaviour, which is what unregulated capitalism will end up being), but somehow don't mind corporate power.

"Screw that Ayn Rand shit, basically."

Yep. Proper craziness. And her cultists are even worse, apparently believing that Kant is the most evil person who ever lived (or words to that effect) or that it's immoral of me to give money to the starving. I've never yet come across a Randriod who's read any other work of philosophy. If people must indulge in this kind of thing, it's Robert Nozick they should be reading. Don't agree with him either, but at least there's some degree of intellectual rigour.

You missed your cue to talk about Rawls, Otto. Doesn't he talk about simultaneous consideration of individual liberty and fairness/societal good?

A short note on Property. Etymologically, and to Adam Smith, 'Property' is related to 'proper manners'. It's the stuff that rounds off the rough edges and makes us proper human beings. Think of it as 'nice shit'. There's nothing wrong with it per se.

To Marx, Communism was some (possibly mythical - he was a philosopher) land where everyone has nice shit. Will we ever get there? Who knows? The idea is to try.

If you really insist on me talking about Rawls, I'll oblige, though he's probably not the best illustration of that particular point.

For Rawls, the first principle of justice is the widest possible package of basic liberties for everyone consistent with the same package for everyone else. This takes priority over the second principle, that economic and financial arrangements should maximise the position of the least well off.

So arguably, for Rawls, liberty comes before fairness in terms of the distribution of wealth, and he was criticised for this. However, when Rawls talks of liberties, he's talking about freedom of speech, religion, assembly, conscience, etc and so on, and he requires that the same package be available to everyone.

And why these principles? Because - according to Rawls - they are the principles that would be chosen if you had to select principles of justice behind the 'veil of ignorance' - behind which you know nothing of yourself, your interests, your talents, your generation, your gender, your preferences etc and so on.

It's always good to have a reminder.

Oddly enough I was thinking of you and Christianity recently. Because I was thinking of the sometimes noted similarity between Marxism and Christianity.

Marxism recognises that it's a crappy old world, that competition is inevitable etc. etc. Marxists are brutal realists. But they refuse to let things take their course: they want things to be better. Marxists are naive dreamers. Various people have compared this to the Christian ideas of sin and redemption. Graham Greene, for one.

"they refuse to let things take their course: they want things to be better"

The question that occurs is, "yes, but what do they actually propose to DO?"

For me the question becomes "What happened to the old fashioned philathropists ?2 People like the Cadbury's or the Rowntrees, or countless other rich men who cared about the quality of workers' lives. (To a degree I know)

Nowadays stock-holders seem to demand profits from their anonimity and thus all abuses of privilege is reasonable. But who are these heartless "stock-holders" ?

Well it seems they're unit trusts or merchant banks or pension companies, or unions.

So its those people we need to sort out.

>>The question that occurs is, "yes, but what do they actually propose to DO?"

And it's a good question. A short answer would be 'promote revolution' - that being the only way to affect change in the right direction. Just 'Being Nice' inna liberal stylee won't work. But 'promote revolution' doesn't necessarily mean storming the Winter Palace and shit. Although sometimes it does.

I like to think of it as meaning 'Do whatever is required in your local context to grab back the wealth that has been accumulated from lower down.' But that's dreadfully simplistic so please don't quote me on it.

But it's...complicated. Not a cop out. Not patronising. It's genuinely complicated. I'm not the sort of Marxist who thinks there's a pre-ordained political programme.

Hell - do *you* know how to make the world better?

McKay:

>>Well it seems they're unit trusts or merchant banks or pension companies, or unions.

>>So its those people we need to sort out.

Well, OK. But it's not entirely simple if it means *you* taking a hit on *your* pension.

House prices is another good example. It is in lenders interests that we should all own expensive homes. The Public Good would be affordable housing. Are we ready to see our house prices collapse?

And stock - as Ben has mentioned, that is what funds companies day to day. No stock, no growth, company fails to compete and goes under.

Meh. The only *sensible* answer is Communism. Secretly we all know this, but the problem is getting there in a sensible way.

<<people like the Cadbury´s<<

Or André Godin, a french philanthropist, follower of Fourier (the idea of Phalansteries) who built a housing for his workers. It is a model.

(I´ve been in google for a while and haven´t found much info in english about Godin)

The Cadbury´s were Quakers, btw.

::

How to make things better?

Control the financial mafia.

Stop basing our economies on wasteful comsumption.

Educate in empathy and cooperation. what you for others stay in your heart for ever and will reconfort you always (being social animals, surely that is a feeling we have in our genes).

Participating in citizens organizations so that Power to the people come true.
etc.

I was reading about Godin and the Phalansteries etc recently (in a very good biography of Engels).

What you say is true, Maria. But then you have to do the next thing. And the next thing. And the next. There's no rest for the wicked.

Meanwhile, 'They' will be doing it back at you.

But keep on struggling. Two steps forward one step back. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. And eventually you'll 'Emerge Into Communism'. And flit around like lovely butterflies.

Is this true or just wishful thinking? Is human history a constantly progress towards perfection - or could it just as equally go horribly wrong? I think that what Marx is saying is that what we have at the moment just ain't gonna work. Capitalism is pretty horrible in the first place anyway - for some. But even if our attitude is that it's OK on balance*, it contains the seeds of its own destruction and left to its own devices will collapse fatally. So we'd better use our best human smarts to make sure that when it falls over it falls in the right direction.

Actually, there may be lots of little falls. The idea is 'If we're going to have a revolution, make sure the good guys win.'





* And actually Marx rather liked Capitalism in its way. Capitalism delivers Nice Shit.

Do I know how to make the world better?

No.

I don't believe anyone does. I believe the Iain M. Banks mantra: "Money is a sign of poverty". We live in an age of scarcity. The only positively constructive thing I can think of that we can do to actually make life better and fairer at some point is to work towards, and do nothing to hinder, our progress towards a post-scarcity society. With sufficient technological progress, there is no particular reason why every single living human shouldn't have all their needs and most of their wishes catered to. If you're positively helping towards that goal, you're part of the solution. If you're not, you're part of the precipitate.

Well, of course, 'The Culture' is actually a thinly veiled Communism. (I haven't read any Iain M - yet - only Iain but I've heard him say it in interviews. Plus I know a friend of his.)

Yup. That's what we're aiming for. Not for moral reasons or aesthetic preference but because we have no choice: nothing else will work. Question is whether we're smart enough to get there before we kill ourselves.

Go on. Admit it. When you started this thread you didn't think we'd be agreeing.

Actually, no, I was steering it towards a point where I could say I did already know that the Culture is Communism, and that I therefore highly recommend the books to you (as well as everyone else).

The thing is, the communism only works because everyone has everything they want, and it's essentially a benign dictatorship where humans are the pets of the artificial intelligences in charge. Not that I wouldn't kill everyone I know to live there, of course, which is ironic because that very attitude would probably disqualify me from citizenship...

Well I'd be happy for everyone to have affordable housing - I'll take the hit on my house-price - it's all owed to the banks anyway.

<>

I disagree with this: I'd say that it's to create wealth, which is a huge distinction. As an example, think of a mining company which generates £50m in profits, but leaves £100m in cleanup costs for a community/govt to pay for. This leaves the society as a whole with less wealth. If that's what businesses are for then they can off.

Also, people trafficking is hugely lucrative. The fact that by any standards it's illegal and immoral just shows, as has been said, that we don't just live in an economic world. I wonder when most of them are arguing for more economic growth, what they think we'll do with it all. Few of them realise that economics is a subset of sociology.

As for libertarianism, it's all about the freedom 'to'; a more balanced view would include the freedom 'from' as well.

"a mining company which generates £50m in profits, but leaves £100m in cleanup costs for a community/govt to pay for"

That's a successful company, right there, which has done precisely what it "should" have. If the community/government did not legally required the company to clean it up, why would it? It has a responsibility to its shareholders to maximise their return on their investment, and cleaning something up that they don't have to is the very definition of a waste of money.

Every company I've ever worked for has discharged effluent of one sort or another, and has spent a good deal of money making it as clean as it NEEDS to be... and no cleaner. Because to do otherwise would risk not just the shareholders' returns, but the jobs and livelihood of the employees. That is how it works.

It requires a strong government and a strong legislative framework, and ideally it requires that that framework is global, so you can't just offshore your operations to somewhere dirt-poor that can't tell you to be cleaner.

<> Hoo

Exactly, so there's an immediate check on enterprise. As a society, we can make the decision through various laws etc. that only businesses that create wealth, as opposed to profits, do business. IE, £200m profits are taxed to pay the cleanup costs. MF seems to disagree though.

@SoRB:

>>The thing is, the communism only works because everyone has everything they want, and it's essentially a benign dictatorship where humans are the pets of the artificial intelligences in charge.

Well that's more akin to The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, only with 'puters instead of proletarians in charge. Actually what we're after is a withering away of the state where shit is simply free - end of.

Where technology fits ibto this is a slightly separate question. It isn't *simply* a matter of technologu liberating us. Technology doesn't necessarily do that, without cwnership of the means of production. Ask any Luddite.

*reads the conversation between Hoo and Ed with interest*

@Maria - Is there a possible Guide entry there...?

@Pedro - So long as you know I don't agree with Friedman and am not quoting him to endorse an opinion of mine.

Dear Mrs Zen,
are you a mind reader? I thought of an entry last night, also thought that if Malabarista is interested she could make a great one,since architechture is her field.

Until March I can´t write anything else except the curriculum planning I have to present in February.

Nice you thought that.