If I Ran the World......
- Thread starter Jan
- Start date
- Status
posted by HarveyJ:
Yes, and right to boot. I don't reserve a lot of time for arguing on the internet, but briefly ...
This would be romantic if it weren't so laughable. The only clear winner in 20th century advances was state power, which did indeed make wild, fantastic leaps and bounds.
Total nonsense -- the idea that "survival of the fittest" somehow precludes the idea that there can be rational self-interest behind an act of charity or kindness is the typical anti-human viewpoint one expects from this sort of debate (and why, again, I tend to just ignore them entirely, but since I interjected my previous comment I did sort of bring it on myself.)
"I am a crazed fascist who is trying to kill you." That's what I hear when people say stuff like that.
To reiterate my point above: the profit motive is the only thing that has ever lead to any worthwhile activity on the part of any person since the dawn of prehistoric human civilisation. If you hear the word "money" when I say "profit" then you are misunderstanding me. The simple thought process which leads a person to recognise that some efforts can lead to greater rewards than others, in pursuit of similar goals; and the tendency to gravitate towards those actions which have the highest ratios of risk/effort to reward is the single most profound aspect of human consciousness, and its spark in early man is what led us to start civilisations in the first place ("Hey Grog, did you know that we can actually put seeds in the ground and force it to GROW FUCKING FOOD instead of having to chase food around all of our lives?" = profit motive.)
So no, the profit motive does not need to be tempered with social welfare. Social welfare, such as will exist in the world, is totally and utterly dependent on the profit motive. All other schemes to try to "force good" on the world are doomed to failure.
Subsequent comments you made about 1950s TV shows and doing better than the neighbours etc. reinforce my belief that you misunderstood what I meant when I said "profit motive." I hope this clarifies it somewhat.
Also, just an aside, but while my views may be a little extreme (eg. "I think Ron Paul is a pointy beard away from being V.I. Lenin" kind of extreme) my comparison to Somalia and literally taking the world back to cavemen days as an attempt to improve it were in fact tongue-in-cheek. I realise that the world does not buy what I am selling, and generally do not seek or wish to change it in anyway. If one takes a look at human history in a macro sense, it has always gone through cyclical periods of good and bad, of progress and regress, etc. and it is a natural human conceit for each generation to believe it is living in history's most significant time, and that The Time For Change Is Now. It's just not my thing, to be honest.
Frank
Yes, and right to boot. I don't reserve a lot of time for arguing on the internet, but briefly ...
This would be romantic if it weren't so laughable. The only clear winner in 20th century advances was state power, which did indeed make wild, fantastic leaps and bounds.
Total nonsense -- the idea that "survival of the fittest" somehow precludes the idea that there can be rational self-interest behind an act of charity or kindness is the typical anti-human viewpoint one expects from this sort of debate (and why, again, I tend to just ignore them entirely, but since I interjected my previous comment I did sort of bring it on myself.)
"I am a crazed fascist who is trying to kill you." That's what I hear when people say stuff like that.
To reiterate my point above: the profit motive is the only thing that has ever lead to any worthwhile activity on the part of any person since the dawn of prehistoric human civilisation. If you hear the word "money" when I say "profit" then you are misunderstanding me. The simple thought process which leads a person to recognise that some efforts can lead to greater rewards than others, in pursuit of similar goals; and the tendency to gravitate towards those actions which have the highest ratios of risk/effort to reward is the single most profound aspect of human consciousness, and its spark in early man is what led us to start civilisations in the first place ("Hey Grog, did you know that we can actually put seeds in the ground and force it to GROW FUCKING FOOD instead of having to chase food around all of our lives?" = profit motive.)
So no, the profit motive does not need to be tempered with social welfare. Social welfare, such as will exist in the world, is totally and utterly dependent on the profit motive. All other schemes to try to "force good" on the world are doomed to failure.
Subsequent comments you made about 1950s TV shows and doing better than the neighbours etc. reinforce my belief that you misunderstood what I meant when I said "profit motive." I hope this clarifies it somewhat.
Also, just an aside, but while my views may be a little extreme (eg. "I think Ron Paul is a pointy beard away from being V.I. Lenin" kind of extreme) my comparison to Somalia and literally taking the world back to cavemen days as an attempt to improve it were in fact tongue-in-cheek. I realise that the world does not buy what I am selling, and generally do not seek or wish to change it in anyway. If one takes a look at human history in a macro sense, it has always gone through cyclical periods of good and bad, of progress and regress, etc. and it is a natural human conceit for each generation to believe it is living in history's most significant time, and that The Time For Change Is Now. It's just not my thing, to be honest.
Frank
HarveyJ
He is - THE CACTUS!
fm1234: From your explanation, yes, I DID misunderstand what you meant by profit motive.
Having clarified it, I will concede a few of your points visavis self interest and the drive it creates.
Having clarified it, I will concede a few of your points visavis self interest and the drive it creates.
- Status