Humanitarianism

[Peter1469]

Progressives aren't a political party. Oh, wait, 1912....

You're talking about Rand. She was an Objectivist. Bit I can't talk of Progressivism?


I have already in enough detail explained to you what her philosophy was and the difference between selfishness and self-interest, yet you keep circling the wagons.


Progress implies change, change in science, technology, education, politics, even economics. Such efforts cost money. So I ask again, what funded that progress? It doesn't just happen as if by magic.


You're right, capitalism is around 500 years old:



It's record in history. And not only did incomes shoot up exponentially, but health, lifestyle, and wealth, what you and others want to redistribute.

Note too the progress you claim from the Stone Age...none whatsoever.

Odd argument to begin with free markets protect individuals but at the same time exploit individuals. What you're doing there is conjoining Adam Smith's view with Karl Marx's.

Mercantilism was much like what we have today, the government controlling the economy.

Corporations are the equivalent of joint-stock companies under Mercantilism. Modern corporation have absolutely no relationship to corporations under fascism. Corporations today are government entities, created by law and protected by the government and given all sorts of favors like subsidies and tax cuts by the government. That collusion is the epitome of corruption.

But if coporations collude with the government, rent seek government favors, then they are part of state capitalism and no part of the free market. As Franz Oppenheimer put it in his 1975 The State: "I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor, and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the ‘economic means’ for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the 'political means'."


It actually depends on how you define socialism. Is welfare socialism? Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_...ism_(Germany):



So an anti-socialist conservative instituted the first welfare system to stave off rising socialism in Germany in 1883, and the socialists stole his thunder.

I don't consider social programs socialist. Socialism is central planning of the economy where the government owns and runs industry and companies, like in communist Russia, communist China though they are moving toward state capitalism.


With socialism there is no pudding. The government thinks you prefer sardines and crackers.

Joint-stock companies were very different from modern corporation, particularly global corporations. JSCs had very limited purposes and set life-spans.

[Chris]

I guess it's a matter of semantics, but we agree here. I agree that Socialism in your definition is never going to be successful. But social programmes are essential to civilisation. I think a point of agreement is the best place to leave it - don't you?

Right. For example Canada has socialized healthcare but that's not socialism. The Scandanavian countries have socialized much, or had and are now changing back to conservative capitalism.

So, yes, those are social programs. And my main contention in this thread is such programs depend very much on capitalism to fund them.

[Chris]

Joint-stock companies were very different from modern corporation, particularly global corporations. JSCs had very limited purposes and set life-spans.

True but the collusion between them and the governments back then were much the same.

[Peter1469]

True but the collusion between them and the governments back then were much the same.

Very true.

[Chris]

Young people seem to struggle with the concept of socialism.

Remarkably many seem to favor it these days just the same.

[CCitizen]

Young people seem to struggle with the concept of socialism.

Scandinavian Socialism is based on more individual rights. Communism was a totally different ideology based on extra duties of individuals.

[CCitizen]

I am 100% against Social Darwinism and survival of the fittest. All humans must be helped -- even people who can not provide for themselves.

[CCitizen]

I don't know what 'contemporary liberals' (whoever they are) do, cos I don't speak your political language
Deuteronomy 15:10
Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.
Deuteronomy 16:17
Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you.
Proverbs 11:24-25
There is one who scatters, and yet increases all the more, and there is one who withholds what is justly due, and yet it results only in want. The generous man will be prosperous, and he who waters will himself be watered.
Proverbs 21:26
…the righteous gives and does not hold back.
Proverbs 22:9
He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.
Proverbs 28:27
He who gives to the poor will never want, but he who shuts his eyes will have many curses.

Thank you! Indeed, The Old Testament in which we as Jews believe and the Christian New Testament command giving to the poor. I donate 10% of my income to Orthodox Jewish charities. The Law is The Law.

[donttread]

I think you conflate humanitarianism and natural law to begin with.

Social Darwinism is a Progressive thing, not a conservative one. Darwin considered humans valuable. Survival of the fittest was not his idea but a $#@!ization of his ideas on evolution. SeeLarry Arnhart's Darwinian Conservatism for a conservative view of Darwin.

You seem to confuse the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness with being provided with it by society.

It's not that simple due to the tilted table. I'm a fiscal conservative , especially at the federal level. However states have more freedom to run social programs and are a little better at it.
Bottom line Hundreds of "Paris Hilton's and millions of homeless should not exist in the same society at the same time. It is a sign that the society has failed

[CCitizen]

Bottom line Hundreds of "Paris Hilton's and millions of homeless should not exist in the same society at the same time. It is a sign that the society has failed

I agree 100%. By not taxing millionaires more, our Society lets millions of people prematurely die due to poverty and illness. That is inhumane.