Well, Bravo. I'm A Huge Fan Of Capitalism Myself. It's Great To See Well Thought Out Arguments Like Yours.
Well, bravo. I'm a huge fan of capitalism myself. It's great to see well thought out arguments like yours.
There's only one major issue that I've identified: This isn't about capitalism--it's about libertarianism. I'm not sure if you've read Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia but that's the thing for you.
Robert Nozick talked a lot about the minimal state, a concept that celebrates economic and moral freedom of the individuals and gives only limited role to the state: creating a legal system that protects people's property and guarantees the validity of contracts. This is very similar to your reasoning but it's libertarian philosophy and not directly the theory of capitalism.
Capitalism and libertarianism seem infinitely intertwined. Even so, if you look up the definition of capitalism and study the main ideas of libertarianism, you will find yourself wondering if the two are separate at all. They actually are. The U.S. didn't cease to have a capitalist system under Obama's presidency, though he's definitely not a libertarian.
In today's world, after Keynes and his successors, we have a mixed economic system, that's not laissez faire but it's also clearly not communist economy. The state does this and the state says that, courts rule this and that way and many complain why we don't have the original capitalist freedom. So why is this? Is this something good?
I could bring economic arguments but I'm sure I'd be making mistakes but more importantly the reason for having the current system can be found in political considerations:
#1: The market might always find balance eventually but, in the meantime, individual lives, which' survival are dependent on economic safety, can be hurt. So the economy of the country may find balance after a year or two of necessary fluctuation but in those years a family may go bankrupt, people can become desperate and not all of them are good-enough economists to be able to avoid undergoing serious losses. You said that these are inevitable casualties but politicians found it otherwise. More on this later.
#2: In a competition the strong/smart prevails and the weak/feeble-minded stays behind. You understood this as the order of nature. But nature isn't fair. We can say it's random and random doesn't equal fair but receiving in proper proportion in accordance with one's desert is. Being born strong or weak clearly has no relation to our desert.
According to Weber, capitalism was an unavoidable consequence of the emergence of Protestantism: People experienced a new freedom and the sensation of equality and autonomy spread very fast. And of course capitalism was a much better system than feudalism that preceded it in Europe. But it seems today that capitalism is and has been evolving.
You found morality in rewarding the productive and by the promise of these rewards motivating new members of society to become productive. It is, in fact, very moral, however, this can mean in a way rewarding the capable and ignoring the incapable and that is immoral. Why? Because no one made themselves capable. You might think hard work is your own merit, though if you can work hard it means that you have sufficient concentration and the sufficient abilities. These depend on genes and other external variables, so they do not originate from your own doing, ergo it isn't moral to reward you for something that you just happened to have.
I have introduced some political and moral arguments against laissez faire libertarianism but what are ideas for corrections--you may ask--nobody asks this, of course, but it's good to think that I'm not writing to myself...
One of the most famous political philosophers of the 20th century, John Rawls, recognized how libertarianism is unfair and so he said that a system should be formulated from behind the veil of ignorance: We decide without knowing what will be the most profitable environment for us, only considering what will surely be beneficial for everyone, since we can be successful salespersons or Hispanic cleaning ladies. Of course the veil of ignorance is an abstract thing, not something real, but it is a fair concept. Or is it?
Even Rawls came to realize that even though capabilities are contingent, the able should not be withheld their reward because they used well what was given to them. So he created the difference principle: Inequalities may exist as long as they are profitable to the whole community.
Politicians seem to have adopted Rawls' ideas, though in a very weakened way (for which I am grateful by the way). What we see today is capitalism but fixed with the tools of fairness. Politicians understood and admitted that capitalism is a clever system, working very well most of the time, but they also said that people should be protected and aided because not everyone can stand their ground in an economic competition. They decided to help the weak because politicians can't settle with inevitable casualties of any standing economic system but they ought to bring welfare to the whole community. In the other hand, politicians can never ignore what is owed to the productive and able.
At the end of the day, though, I still root for capitalism because so far it's been working nicely. What must be observed in this question is that this system has been based on morals and values, not on figures and balances. We should be critical and be critical with the eyes of the idealist and not the pragmatist.
Is capitalism working?
I believe that people should be left alone and allowed to succeed or fail. People need liberty and a system that guards their liberty.
I love capitalism. Capitalism is good but it has a bad name. It’s not primarily about capital and investing. It is about property. As the legal thinker William Blackstone wrote:
There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. [Note: By “despotic,” Blackstone means “absolute.”]
Read More
More Posts from Bernatk and Others
How to fail university
First of all, attend a university, which you are most certainly not fond of. Work really hard but not as much as you see fit, instead push as hard as expectations require, and burn out. Once you're incapable of doing anything further, it won't be hard to fail enough tests to fail several subjects. I know you're smart enough to get to the exams, even if you were a total mess when you had tests. Once you're miraculously facing a couple of exams (it's wondrous because you haven't yet failed by merely the tests), make sure you're extremely busy with unrelated business and when it comes to the very week of the exams, procrastinate! More than ever in your life! More than altogether in your life! Then, when you've done enough procrastination and that voice in your head is shouting, that you should study, do some studying but pay attention to do it very skin-deeply. Okay, you're at the exam and you've completed an utterly half-ass process of learning, a.k.a no learning at all, you can be at ease, for there's a fair chance, that you'll fail. Every single subject. One by one.
There you have it, my secret recipe for failing uni.
This is an ironic approach of telling my story at how I've performed so far. OK, maybe the end was just a predection, but a very realistic one. My point is not to gain some of yourvaluablepity, and definetely not to set up an example. Well it is in fact an example but not one to follow.
What I'm trying to say with this excessive and rather sarcastic post is hidden in the very first sentence. Do not EVER give in to reasons, that lack the consideration of YOU. Every single person is unique and has a life, that has the potential to be full. However, this diversity naturally implies the pointlessness of schemes. We can't live by the guidance of movie-themes or advices of people we look up to (or sometimes ones, that we don't even look up to). We have to find our own way. And the path, that we'll follow, will eventually determine, whether we arrive at our destination or not.
Our primary aspects of considering careers are its profitability and the likelihood of being employed. But these won't make our lives worth living. Either we accept it, or not, the truth is, that we spend a major part of our days in the little boxes we call workplaces. And it matters enermously if it's right for us. And not in a sense of us being able to provide our family with everything. Our profession has to make us happy. As St. Augustine said "Love and do what you will.".
My conclusion will be hard for some of you to swallow but please bear with me. The Bible says, that we shouldn't worry about our needs for they will be fulfilled be the Divine Providence of God. And this is what makes me calm while I rerender my plan for the future. My faith gives me confidence to say all this. This is why I'm not afraid to say, that there's a certain destination I aim for. This is why I'm on the side, that says you can bravely follow your dreams. Because when you're convinced, that your dreams are justified by the Great Maker, you fear not what is yet to be faced.
Writer's note
It's been a long day. I've been called in to 2 job interviews, for which I'm happy beyond words but, other than that, oh boy, have I had a swell time?
I'll begin with something that's very close to me: literary work. Ever since I learnt how to write I've had a grand vision of my future. It's been my dream to be a great writer and I've always lived in this illusion that I'm good at it. But today I was rejected by a medium-sized company. No, not my professional application-- I wanted to be a volunteer. It's a quarterly magazine. So they said that they had my test writings checked by professionals and they found them inadequate in regards of grammar and authenticity.
The other thing is, well, literature, too. Remember when I said I've had this dream to be a great writer? Yeah, it pretty much fills every second minute of my waking hours. So here's the other story: Yesterday I recieved an answer to a query I sent to a seemingly fitting agent. She wrote that she feels honored (of course), that I contacted her, however, my work is not really for her. She (of course) encouraged me to keep on trying because she did not reject my book because of its general lack of genuineness but because of her own lack of enthusiasm about it. Yeah, it sucks. I know what you're thinking: Well what does one (1) agent matter anyway? Keep on trying, she said that too. So yes. Thank you. I've been trying. I've been trying for over a year with a total absence of fruition in any respect. I've re-written and polished my work but what does it matter now?
I've never said I'm a writer. Never to anyone. I've always believed humility is crucial and so I've never mentioned myself as a writer or artist. I didn't keep my writing a secret but I sure as rain was modest about it. Still, what I feel right now is this: I'm a complete wreck as a writer. Yeah, I'm a wreck that's for granted but why do I think I'm a writer. I never said I was and I've been constantly forcing myself not to consider myself as that. But in despair and disappointment my thoughts betray me. I'm just a sore loser and a presumptuous fool.
I'm not going to apologize for all the dismal things I've written because they aren't dismal. They're meant to teach you something. Well, who am I trying to lie to? They're meant to teach me something. Something I know and yet pretend to never have heard of. In all honesty I have a lot to learn and I've got to let go of big-faced concepts about myself. I'll be small. I'll remain small and I'll accept being that. I'm too young to be big and it takes some time to get rid of one's youth.
A truly brilliant argument has been made here about the importance of representing diversity. All the points that have been made are understandable and more than that, they are deeply rooted in the world of morals. Once again, this is brilliant.
On the contrary, it is a wrong reply. Of course diversity needs to be represented and of course writers better think outside of the box. But to, and I quote, "call bullshit on whining about diversity", is aggression.
Taking up a fight against oppression and mis-/underrepresentation is a noble quest. However, when you put pressure on an amateur writer, in order to make them write differently because of the lack of POC or LGBTQ or other similar groups in their own work of fiction, you are, in a way using coercion. You use your authority without respect toward the person in question.
Writing fiction grants people absolute creative freedom. It gives them nonetheless when they start producing mistakes. A mistake can be in the nature of grammar or plot but it can also manifest in leaving out the diversity of our world from their fictional one. It will, in all probability, result in simply not getting published, or even if they get that far, not receiving a lot of praise.
Tolkien's work is criticized often because it is stereotypical. It originally meant that good characters remained good ones and bad ones remained bad. Contemporaries like to call it stereotypical because it involves no POC and such. However, Tolkien did not as far as consider anything but white folks because he had certain historical interpretations and theories, which he wanted to involve in his fantasy books. His ideas were about English people and French people and he mainly thought about the English people he saw around himself and not people from other lands.
Yes, Tolkien could have been concerned about diversity more and in the sense that we use this word today. Of course he did not, still he wrote relevant fantasy novels. Evidently, not focusing on writing about diversity does not equal failing at writing. Then it begs the question: if there are ways, where people do not include POC or disabled characters in their stories, still can become great authors, why is this blog so strongly against people, who tend to take up this other mental? I thought this blog is about writing tips and not political ones.
Now this is another question: can one write a blog, where, if opposed, his political views will not affect his actions and reactions? Naturally, this is very hard to imagine. Still, it seems as though central attitudes of the blogger and the writer meet in a conflict. But this is not true. The person, who tries to write and struggles to include 'diverse' characters, does not believe or promote that POC are inferior or that disabilities do not exist or whatnot. This person might be, in real life, a great supporter of diversity, even so, they might be homosexual. This question was in the nature of literature and not political philosophy or traits of personality.
I must return to a point I have already made. This is an aggressive, maybe oppressive response. The person, who asked the question, did not oppose anyone, they just failed to portray a group of people. It is a nice thing to encourage them to invest more and work a little harder, in order to understand others, different from them, but to say that they are wrong to not include such characters is unfair and flat-out oppression. It is because you, with your relevant authority, influence them to make a point in their writing, which they originally did not intend. It is just right to stand up for the people, who fail to do that for themselves, and I, personally, am with you there. But this is just writing. It is not professional and it is unfair to tell people what philosophy to follow when writing. One could stand up and tell people that they should exclude christian characters from their books because christianity promotes hate and inequality. (I must note that this is a false argument) But if people started to just use atheist characters, their stories would change in nature. (I must also note that it could be rarely applied because christian characters are seldom written and I think hardly anyone disagrees with this practice) The change, although, would not be because the list of characters would be less diverse but because the authors, who initially planned to involve them, had their reasons why they had that certain set of characters the way they are.
Writers can, of course, err and they should be encouraged to be empathic and thoughtful, it is a very noble thing, I say again. But this is not political propaganda for or against diversity, it is fiction. One could easily oppose me, by saying that at least implicitly it is against POC for instance, since they are not included. But the lack of promotion is not the same as opposition.
Diversity is to be promoted and encouraged, it is not a question, but a natural truth. But the only right way to stand up for a good cause is peaceful and requires a meek and humble soul.
Writing is not about your comfort. I have no idea who sold you the idea that writing is a comfortable, easy thing. Pushing yourself as a writer is part of the experience. If you feel uncomfortable about writing diverse characters, then you need to double down and commit yourself to doing the best...
...you say that it’s a confession of weakness for a scientist not to write.
Fitzgerald - Tender is the Night
One day Joseph, a Masai warrior, who was walking along one of these hot, dirty African roads, met someone who shared the gospel of Jesus Christ with him, and then and there, he accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. The power of the spirit began transforming his life, and he was filled with such excitement and joy that the first thing he wanted to do was return to his own village and there share the good news to the members of his own local tribe. Joseph began going from door to door telling everyone he met about the cross, suffering, and the salvation that it offered, expecting to see their faces light up the way his had. And to his amazement, the villagers not only didn’t care, they became violent. The men of the village seized him, held him to the ground while the women beat him with strands of barbed wire. He was dragged from the village and left to die alone in the bush. Joseph somehow managed to crawl to a water hole and there, after days of passing in and out of consciousness, found the strength to get up. He wondered about the hostile reception that he had received from people he had known all his life. He decided he must have said something wrong or left something out from the story of Jesus. After rehearsing the message that he gave at first, he decided to go back and share this message again. Joseph limped into the circle of huts and began to proclaim Jesus. “He died for you so that you might find forgiveness and come to know the living God,” he pleaded. Again he was grabbed by the men of the village and held while the women beat him, reopening wounds that had just begun to heal. Once more, they dragged him unconscious from the village and left him to die. To have survived the first beating was truly remarkable. To live through the second was a miracle. Again, days later, Joseph awoke in the wilderness, bruised, scarred, determined to go back. He returned to the small village, and this time, they attacked him before he had a chance to open his mouth. As they flogged him for the third and possibly the last time, he again spoke to them of Jesus Christ, the Lord. Before he passed out, the last thing he saw was the women who were beating him began to weep. This time, he awoke in his own bed. The ones who had so severely beaten him were now trying to save his life and nurse him back to health. And the entire village came to Christ.
How Our Suffering Glorifies the Greatness of the Grace of God by John Piper (via worshipgifs)
Diving Head First
What I want this post to be is a reminder for later times.
"6 Be determined and confident, for you will be the leader of these people as they occupy this land which I promised their ancestors. 7 Just be determined, be confident; and make sure that you obey the whole Law that my servant Moses gave you. Do not neglect any part of it and you will succeed wherever you go. 8 Be sure that the book of the Law is always read in your worship. Study it day and night, and make sure that you obey everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful. 9 Remember that I have commanded you to be determined and confident! Do not be afraid or discouraged, for I, the Lord your God, am with you wherever you go."" Joshua 1:6-9 GNT
I am standing up now and doing what my tasks are. I will keep on writing but with determination and confidence. I will also study and think as well as I can. I will run as fast as I can, do as many things as possible.
I do realize that the quoted scripture is not a promise given to me. It teaches the right mindset: when I see my mission, I have to be determined and confident. (I also realize that a mission can only be something through which I glorify the Lord and something that's focus is Jesus. Although it is not limited to the explicit forms of worship; it may take the form of art, for example (see also: Switchfoot))
It is highlighted even in the scripture above but it's also said beautifully as follows:
" 8 Physical exercise has some value, but spiritual exercise is valuable in every way, because it promises life both for the present and for the future. 9 This is a true saying, to be completely accepted and believed. 10 We struggle and work hard, because we have placed our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all and especially of those who believe." 1 Timothy 4:8-10 GNT
It is the spiritual ground, where I must be standing firm before anything else and only from there can I move out to do anything.
So let this day be remembered and may purity, love and humility toward God be the things marking the way.
-
bernatk reblogged this · 11 years ago -
bernatk reblogged this · 11 years ago
-
malmac reblogged this · 11 years ago
I mostly write. Read at your leisure but remember that my posts are usually produced half-asleep and if you confront me for anything that came from me I will be surprisingly fierce and unforeseeably collected. Although I hope we will agree and you will have a good time.
213 posts