What part of "we all" didn't you get? This debate is far from being about you or your government. As a matter of fact, it is not only about the obviously "evil" governments you say have been slaughtering people, but about how you might be blinded by your government to think exactly that, that you are doing just fine.
Did you even watch the video?
Sure, I agree with you that once the whole world has been "globalized", the concept of culture won't be connected to a nation or a territory anymore. A certain way of thinking, dressing, eating, will no longer be American, European, or African; it will be common to a few people scattered around the globe: their own culture, which they chose by themselves and wasn't imposed by traditions.
When you say that in a global culture everyone will share "the same movies, the same music, the same clothing, etc", you forget that within the globalized places you mentioned, people are doing exactly the opposite of "same": smaller and smaller subcultures are appearing everyday, from the people who juggle to the people who believe they are legendary creatures.
I believe that today's globalized subcultures will be tomorrow's cultures. And I see it as a good thing, because people will be more free to choose what they are into, instead of just doing whatever everyone around them is doing.
I think that what we are seeing today is exactly the opposite; the media worldwide, rather than making us all the same, is slowly giving us the chance to divide into smaller tribes according to our personal preferences. Every day, more people have access to cable TV, youtube, mp3s, online movies, online radios... We don't have to stick to open channels and traditional radio stations anymore. Rather than the whole world loving a specific band, we are all developing a taste for "independent music". People living in more globalized cities, rather than becoming similar to each other, are having access to different fashions, cuizines, etc.
I think that, as a result, the only thinking which is becoming the same among us all is that everyone is different and entitled to their own tastes.
In spite of what some people might think, capitalism hasn't been working. It has been aggravating inequalities in the world as a whole, irresponsibly using up our planet's resources, and fermenting a global culture of selfishness and detachment from real problems.
Listing all of capitalism's flaws here is not necessary, all that needs to be pointed out is that if we go on with capitalism (regulated or not) and the consumerist culture that it requires in order to keep money circulating, our planet will simply run out of resources at some point. Can we do better? For our own sake, we have to!
The most dangerous threat to progress is to believe that an ultimate solution has been found. The answer to the question here and any future question of the kind is Yes. We can always do better, even if we don't know how to yet.
As for alternatives, I won't claim to know the ultimate solution, but I believe that treating the problem more objectively with the use of the scientific method is the best way to find a proper way of organizing scarce resources at the moment. How to give a good life for 6 billion people on the finite planet we have? Certainly a system based on subjectivity such as elections and the corporate world cannot answer this question adequately. The following video talks about that.
What and how? I guess people are writing whatever the feel like, and that should be something good, no? People having the chance to express themselves freely, without having to follow a standard. When you say that nothing important comes out of it, you are directly supporting the idea that people in general don't know what they should be doing, they need guidance, they need to follow grammatical rules, they need to stay restricted to standard models, they should be talking about certain things in a certain way. People have been having dumb thoughts since ever, the difference is that now they have the chance to share them with the world. We can take it as a bad thing and wish these people would be forbidden to show the world what is inside their heads, or we can be positive and trust that the human mind will slowly do a natural selection which favors important memes.
OK, let me interrupt this ping pong for a bit and try to make sense of what both of us have been trying to say so far.
We are trying to figure out if the government has been somehow restricting our freedom or not. That’s one of the main ideas presented on the video. I think the answer for this question is clear: yes. Everyone is born inside the boundaries of a country, automatically under the law of those who control that territory, under the condition that if we don’t follow them, the government was given by others the right to imprison us, kill us. You have been defending the idea that no, we are totally free, and that’s a lie: from birth we are not allowed to do certain things, we are forced into life in society and educated for that. This is independent of whether all this control is here for our own good or not.
The video is not only saying we are not free to do whatever we want, its main point is that governments will arrange their laws in order to have better productivity, the same way as farmers managing their cattle, caring for the cattle’s well-being only as far as it affects productivity. Personally, I think this is a fair description of the reality we live in. Perhaps you understood it as if governments were doing this out of pure evil and thirst for power, but I see them doing it just the same way a poor farmer would do to survive given the circumstances. Governments don’t want to die, and they need a good economy to stay alive, they need a good economy to get stronger and be able to be there for their people eventually. Sometimes, however, they have to compromise their nation’s well being for the economy, and they have been doing so, if they think that the end justifies the means and that benefits will come on the long run. They need to send them in wars, to take their money to bailout banks, to pollute the air they breathe… We are all slaves to capitalism, because the government is a slave to capitalism.
My point of view is that the market and the economy ruthlessly rule us all. The economy might be a nice study of how things have been so far, but staying limited to that keeps us from seeing better ways of how things could be. Economic principles have been established throughout years, but haven’t been keeping up with our technological reality, population growth etc.
Capitalism’s assumption that, for example, people need incentive to do something productive, ignore the success of initiatives such as Wikipedia and Couch surfing for example. While this kind of service is still not perfect, yes, there will be space for people who “realize being selfish is profitable”, but it’s a fact that their space is getting smaller.
The whole idea that people face tradeoffs, and therefore they must have something to offer, also needs to catch up with technology. Not only the trend is that we will be offered more goods/services for free as technology advances, but also technology is limiting what people have to offer. Less people have opportunities to work everyday as machines take their place in factories, services, etc. Monetary economy’s solution is that every person on the planet should be doing more meaningful jobs then. But how do you measure meaningful if we are entering an era where most things can and will be offered for free? What if a person has a special talent to edit funny videos and post them on youtube for free making millions of people happy, is this person dispensable to the world just because they don’t have a way of making money?
Personally, I believe it’s a matter of time until capitalism collapses. It’s just not sustainable, simple as that. The system has to stop requiring people to make money 5 days a week just to deserve a place in society, because that is becoming less possible and less necessary.
The question arises “so, how are we going to distribute resources without money?” First, we have to realize that capitalism is not only dividing resources unequally, but it is also carelessly using up all the resources on the planet. Why does everyone need to own a car for example? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to have a system where you take the first car you see on the street, drive where you want to go, and leave the car there for the next person? I know systems like this are still not perfect, but what I want you to see is that capitalism could never support this kind of structure, because it conflicts directly with the need for consumers. The market needs us all to be consumers. Capitalism and this strong idea of private property will eat up the planet’s resources before we know it. Having that said, I think we have to start looking towards sustainable ways of producing goods for everyone, without destroying the planet and, why not, without human intervention so we can be free to do other things.
You say people like me annoy you for just complaining without providing an alternative. First, I think that whether we have an alternative or not, capitalism will collapse soon. The question is, are we going to be ready for that? Or are we going to continue holding on to something which doesn’t work, uselessly trying to adapt it to our new reality? I know it doesn’t work, you know it doesn’t work, the difference seems to be that you are satisfied with that, and I’m not. For me, the most important step in this transition out of this market system is to change the way people think. We have to start making people aware that we are living in an unsustainable and unfair world, and things can be better for everyone. We need more people like Wikipedia/Couch surfing users, and less people like you, who say “I think we will come up with a better system someday; but until that day comes, being a greedy bastard is probably the best thing you can do for society.” Well, it is not, this is actually the worst thing you could be doing, and people like you annoy the hell out of me.
Once people have changed this primitive way of thinking (yes, I believe it’s totally possible for us to see the advantages in not being selfish), then we are going to put our efforts on the right things. If we put as much effort on finding ways for a sustainable life, as we have been putting on finding ways to make war, our science can take us far. We need to stop trusting the farmer, and start doing things for each other. If things can be done right, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t.
The modern idea of government does suck, but it sucks less than any of the historical social arrangements.
And then? History teaches us about the past. I won’t be content with something just because it “sucks less”…
The market is good. It has historically proven itself to be the most effective way of organizing scare resources.
You are aware that one in four of your compatriots are obese while there is still hungry people in the world, right? Many sources say that the world produces enough food for every human being on the planet, and then there are sources like yours saying it doesn't. I'm not in a position to say who is right, but judging by the waste I see every day with my own eyes, I'm inclined to believe that the market is actually highly ineffective. The need to sell food tops the need to feed. Food is wastefully being given to people who don't make good use of it because money dictates the market.
You say economics is the study of how people deal with scarcity, I say economics is the study of how scarcity can be profitable, and of how to create artificial needs (artificial scarcity) on people, so the money keeps circulating. It’s very irresponsible to keep feeding this cycle! How many perfectly wearable shoes, for example, are being thrown away every day? Can the planet keep up?
You seem to think very locally. There are no first world countries like this. Of course not, they have China to exploit workers for them. Can the market be sustainable in a global level?
Also, one of the most evil ideas supported by the market is that of supply and demand. It's like airlines charging us more during high season. I'm sure they have some very logical economic lame excuse for things like this, for how at the end the “consumer wins”, but at the end of the day the truth is that CEOs are getting rich at our expense, and they don't even deserve it.
Basic necessities are provided through various welfare programs.
OK, tell me one country where people can happily live their lives without having to answer to anyone, and we will discuss from there.
Which ones would you get rid of?
I don't think that just getting rid of certain regulations is going to solve anything. The whole system has to be rebuilt around freedom, and assure one person's freedom doesn't affect another person's one. The only thing the system should protect is individual freedom, and access to correct information. We can forget about regulating marriage, regulating what people consume, what they wear, where they can go... Whyyy??? Why can a bird go wherever it wants without answering to anyone, whereas me, just another animal born in this planet, have to play by rules made up by people who were here before me? Can't we set people free? Not only free to enjoy nature, but free to enjoy all the knowledge human kind has gathered so far! (sorry for the outburst, it's just that these things make me deeply mad)
Isn't the ruling class just as enslaved as the "cattle"?
Sure. Personally, I think both great CEOs and Chinese factory workers are slaves - slaves of money and the system which was built around money. There's just one thing...
tries to keep it as low as possible, so the price the consumer pays isn't too high, and covered in that end price is the business's profit...??
Hehe, that's a very cute thing you are saying... You make it sound like big companies are trying to keep the price low for the good of the consumers, and taking a fair share for themselves, proportional to the impressive job they do.
I agree with you, convenience and price are things we cannot just ignore nowadays. Unfortunately, even if we care, we don't have that many options in life... I wish I could live without giving a penny to big corporations, but this means I wouldn't be able to enjoy all the things technology and science have given us so far: I'd have to leave my computer, my shoes, my shampoo, my books...
I don't think we should be thankful to corporations for giving us so many nice goods, I think we should be mad that we cannot have access to technology without having to go through awfully rich intermediaries who just want to become richer no matter what.
Personally, I don't look for an idea's origin every time I hear something new. I like to be free from preconceptions in my analysis, because this allows me to see ideas for what they are, not what they should be. Are we still talking about the video above? Because if we are talking about its producer, or the republican party in the US, I'm not particularly interested in that right now. If you think this video can only be seen inside a certain context, it's your right. I just think that being closed into your preconceptions has traces of close-mindedness. Personally, I think that the idea of government we have today, centralized in other people's hands, does suck. And I also think market sucks. If you don't think this makes sense, maybe we are talking about different things.
it assumes people are angels and that we'll all be better off without regulation.
OK, you touched an important point. Greed, selfishness... Are they part of our human nature? Probably... A system which requires competitiveness so people can have access to the basic necessities of life, a system which creates artificial needs in us because the economy has to keep moving, does this system bring out these bad characteristics in us? YES. So are we born as angels? No, we are born to be competitive, violent, greedy, hungry, horny. Can a healthy system make us use our brains to understand these impulses should be controlled? Sure, to a certain extent. I think people who defend regulations with the "we are no angels" excuse forget how much our environment can bring out the good - or evil - in us.
I do think regulations could be much less than now, giving us the chance to think by ourselves - and make the good choice. We need more liberty simply because this would make us more aware.
Government provides public goods
Can food, for example, be a public good? If we have the technological capacities to produce food completely sustainably, with no human labor necessary to feed the whole planet, how would the economy work? Considering most people working in the world do it not to starve to death, don't you think that many would choose not to work? Does nowaday's government want us all to be fed for free? How would you make money circulate then? Create artificial needs in us? That is controlling. Governments nowadays need people to work, need slaves. Would they be interested in giving us free food, shared goods? No. Your "free rider problem" only exists because we have this illusion of scarcity. Economics is based on scarcity, on creating scarcity, on exclusion.
A more direct Democracy based on internet
Now we are talking. One thing you got totally wrong about my point of view is that I don't want regulations. What I don't want is this many regulations, and no system where some people are given more power than others. Having a government composed of people is bound to be unfair, because it is based on unequality of power. No one knows what is better for millions of people, and no one should be given the power to rule over others. It doesn't matter how much civil participation you have, as long as there are states controlled by people it's not gonna work. I put with you my hopes on technology, I think it can take us to new levels of fairness.
I strongly suggest you the movie Zeitgeist Addendum, you might not completely agree with it, but it probably shows a point of view you are not used to.
I haven't watched many of his videos, so I'm not sure what you mean with your simplistic generalization that all libertarians want is a free market and happy capitalism. This movie definitely says nothing of the kind...
I think it's very easy for you to sit on your high horse and look down on people who, on your view, are too naive to understand the complexities involving a government. The functions of a government are indeed very complex, but you are implying that whoever questions their existence are nothing more than fools who don't understand this complexity. Coming to a debate with the preconception that your opponent is naive keeps you from improving your knowledge about the world through that discussion. I don't believe in God, but I would never start an argument with a religious person with the preconception that they don't understand what I'm talking about. They have brains just like I do, and their perception of the world is just as limited as mine, so I can never know if there's something I can learn from them. I try to keep my mind open.
You seem to deeply trust the idea of a democratic government. All these things you said it is ideally supposed to do for us are very nice. However, you recognize it yourself that things are not working exactly the way they should. In this case, I think it's more than necessary to stop and ask Why?. Remember the lessons of communism? It was a very nice idea on paper, but it didn't work well once you put human beings in the equation. Maybe it's the same for government itself? I think we should ask these kinds of questions more often... Does corruption come from the roots of the idea behind government? Maybe this system would work well in a simpler world, but have we reached such a complexity where we are just tying knot over knot and it has become too complicated for it to fix itself with the tools we've been using so far? It's law over law, bureaucracy over bureaucracy... Are our lives becoming better, easier? Could they be easier?
I think all these questions are worth asking, don't you? Honestly, have you ever actually stopped to think about them, or are you too busy pursuing the ideals of democracy as they were given to you, to be able to be really objective about the problems we have? To me, your previous argument sounded pretty similar to those used by religious people: substitute "democracy" with "Bible" and you have "The Bible gives us moral values, it makes us good, it keeps us alway from drugs....... Yes, the Bible has problems, but the alternatives are much worse".
I'm not saying I have answers, or maybe not even better alternatives... I'm just honestly looking for a solution. I'm looking forward to your reply, the same way I like to hear religious people's arguments.
Cheers ^^
This renewable resource story has been bothering me ever since I read your reply, and now I know why. The word I should have used is perpetual resource, as in "those in no danger of long-term availability". This is the case of solar radiation, tides, winds, etc.
Sorry for the double dispute =P
Oops, that's true, trees are a renewable resource. But I'm still wondering if the overall impact of producing paper doesn't end up being worse than that of the energy used to distribute virtual content in a larger scale than it is today (if we consider a world where people are reasonable enough not to use polluting energy anymore).
Besides, I think that if we should waste space and energy on planting something, this should be food.
About the environment... The difference between physical books and virtual ones can be resumed into a difference between the environmental impact of producing paper and producing energy. While paper production is limited by the amount of resources on the planet, those being trees and recyclable paper, clean energy production is basically unlimited (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal...).
Looking into a better future, where more and more people have access to education and information, do you think it's possible for every single person in the world to own a physical copy of the books they love and buy a daily newspaper? There are just not that many trees available. Keeping information trapped into non-renewable resources is the same as not allowing the whole world to have access to it.
You mention recycling... I wonder how much energy is wasted into it...
Check out this promotional video for Kindle 2. It explains how the screen is not illuminated from the back like normal computer screens, so you can read it anywhere you can read a book. Also, how you can change the font size, turn pages without scrolling, add your notes on the side and much more... Remember this is just the beginning of such machines, once more and more people start using them, the software might get much more interesting ^^
Kill parts of our species in order to pass on our own genes? Your comment has traces of Richard Dawkins's selfish gene theory, where the perpetuation of genes is more important than that of species. I like the theory very much, because it explains much of evolution, but as Dawkins said himself, human beings have transcended our simple natural instincts and now we use our rational brains for more than finding ways to reproduce successfully. We dedicate our lives to various things, such as art, science, entertainment, happiness... If your goal in life is to reproduce, fine, but let me break the news for you: most of us have abandoned the caveman mindset a long time ago. Your argument of assuring the perpetuation of your own genes could be used not only to defend atomic bombs, but also to support a guy who kills another one at a bar because they were both hitting on the same woman. Sorry, we don't live by jungle's rules anymore...
An atomic bomb not only kills "enemies", but it also destroys nature, and the radioactivity stays there for a very long time. Imagine if these things start being used in wars, carelessly! I'm pretty sure your dear genes wouldn't stay here for long. Seriously, why to do this to our planet? We need it!
Also, your argument that weapons are necessary in order to protect us from other species and guarantee food just doesn't make sense in the technological world we have today. Most people have never faced a bear in their lives, and those who live in places where bears are present have found out that prevention is far better than just killing bears as they show up.
We have amazing brains, we should use them! Not only to understand the nature of bears, but also the nature of our so called "enemies". Coexisting in peace is better for everyone.
