Relative Slavery

bricklayer said:

There are those who cannot even imagin calibrating their sense of success or failure, rich or poor, in any other way but to slave it to their position RELATIVE TO OTHERS.
That's real slavery. A personal limitation that cannot be exceeded.

There's a beautiful example above:
"1 in 7 in the US live in poverty"
How's that for a self-serving relative scale?
There's not 1 in a 1,000 Americans living poverty, relative to (broaden the scale as needed).
You pick people that have more than you and want to be averaged in with them. You don't want to be averaged in with everybody, that would not serve you well at all, even if you were american-poor.

Relativists are bottemless pits of envy, economic suicide bombers with the attitude if-I-can't-have-it-no-one-should.

If you're going to employ a relative scale, do it.
Average yourself in with everyone. No?
No, because you're not concerned about eveyone.
You're concerned about you and how you can aquire what belongs to others and how you can prevent others from aquiring more than you.
You're not the least bit concerned about those less fortunate than you. You don't want to be averaged in with them.
You want to be averaged in with those who have more than you.
You couldn't care less about the poor, or you would give from your own means. Givers don't have a need to enforce others to do the same. That's a completely different nature, the nature of a taker.
Every bite of food in some one else's mouth make the relativist hungry.
They are bottemless pits.

We have become a plague nation, the plague is envy.

Click to expand...

Uh... because if we are relative to the rest of the planet, than the cost of things like shelter and food should be the same throughout the planet, but it is not. Cost of living in the U.S. is significantly higher than in most parts of the world so you can get by with less, that's why they refer to Americans in America and not Americans in the world, so actually 'in relative' to 'everyone else in the world' is irrelevant.

EDIT: So you support globalization comparisons, a very 'liberal' and 'NWO-ish' trait but individual freedoms a very conservative trait... *scratches my head*

Suddenly I miss MattMarriott.

There are those who cannot even imagin calibrating their sense of success or failure, rich or poor, in any other way but to slave it to their position RELATIVE TO OTHERS.
That's real slavery. A personal limitation that cannot be exceeded.

Click to expand...

Of course, you've never compared yourself to another person, have you? Do you own and manage a business, by the way? If so, when speaking to a prospective customer, do you present your business' success and products relative to that of your competitors? Or when hiring employees, do you compare their value to your business relative to each other? Are you not then part-taking in the so-called 'real slavery' that you show contempt for?

Relativists are bottemless pits of envy, economic suicide bombers with the attitude if-I-can't-have-it-no-one-should.

Click to expand...

I don't think you fully understand what Relativism is.

If you're going to employ a relative scale, do it.
Average yourself in with everyone. No?
No, because you're not concerned about eveyone.
You're concerned about you and how you can aquire what belongs to others and how you can prevent others from aquiring more than you.

Click to expand...

That's not what Relativism is, or at least, it's a poor description of it contorted by an ideological lens. Relativists believe that some quality (call it 'X') is relative to some other context, framework or situation (call it 'Y'). There is nothing inherent in the doctrine of Relativism that demands its adherents to acquire what belongs to others and to prevent others from acquiring more than them. What you call 'Relativist' is not a necessary or important (or even factual) component of the doctrine itself.

I do not contend that I do not employ a relative scale,
I contend that I do not employ a scale relative to others
to calibrate my sense of success or failure, rich or poor.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but that is not (strictly speaking) the doctrine of Relativism as understood by its proponents and critics. What you seem to be suggesting is that you do not compare yourself to others (in terms of success or wealth) out of principle. The principle being perhaps that it is either wrong or not constructive to compare one's self to others in those terms. You are claiming that you 'calibrate' your sense of success by reference to something other than comparing yourself to other individuals and their successes. Is that correct? If so, then I'm not going to argue that you are necessarily wrong in how you acquire a sense of success or wealth, but I do contend that what you describe is not 'Relativism', but something else.

Relativism affirms that truth is relative to the individual.

Such a definition of truth is self-defeating, as is calibrating relative to each other.

Click to expand...

But in a competitive environment, such as a market, 'calibrating' as you say, relative to each other, is a norm. To win over a prospective customer, you compare your product relative to that of a competitor and 'calibrate' accordingly so as to meet the consumer's perceived needs. When you go for a job interview, you try as best as you can to make yourself stand out relative to everyone else who is also applying for the same position. The kind of 'relativism' that you oppose (it's not really Relativism with a capital R, but never mind) is the product of, if not essential to, the kind of political economy that you endorse.

Truth is that which corresponds to its predicate.

Click to expand...

The correspondence theory of truth is problematic at best. Nietzsche dealt a good blow to it in 'On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense.' Basically, the kind of 'correspondence' one imagines occurring... does not occur, and perhaps cannot occur.

Both covetousness and envy can only follow from a relativist's perspective and always eventually do.

Click to expand...

You'll need to elaborate on this further. How does envy necessarily follow from comparing one's self to other people? When comparing my skills as a video gamer to one of my friends, I acknowledge that he is a better gamer than I. It doesn't follow, however, that in this comparison, and in this acknowledgment, that I necessarily envy his skilfulness. It takes more to be envious than mere comparison ratings.

bricklayer said:

I'll let you answer yourself.
Aaprt from advocating that wealth be transfered from someone else to someone else,
what have you given.

It is my experience that those who give advocate that others give,
and those who advocate transfers don't give at all.
They're most likely advocating that they receive.

The main problem with taking in the name of giving is that it destroys giving.
No socio-economic system is sustainable without giving.
Taking in the name of giving destroys giving.

I'm not saying that taking in the name of giving has done no good,
I am saying that it does no net good.

Click to expand...

That's an excellent point, I wish more people understood it. Maybe with age and experience, some will.

One thing I have observed about the difference between getting help from government and getting help ffrom anm individual is that when you are able to see face to face the person who gives you help, you see that they're making a personal sacrifice out of love. This reinforces your understanding of your own ;personal worht and that of other human beings. It also demonstrates the kind of love we frecieve from God. When you see how someone else puts your needs ahead of their own wants and needs, and understand the sacrifice, you'll want to use that assistance as responsibly as possibe. It encourages personal responsibility.

A relative perspective conceeds that another has more than me.
A realtivist's perspective concludes that I have less because another has more.

A correpondence view of truth is lierally undeniable.
To deny it one must employ it.

Any explicit attempt to deny a correpondence view of truth implicitly affirms it.

You made a statement about it and wanted me to accept that your statement corresponds to your predicate.
Should one employ your view, they would dismiss your statement.

Nietzsche claimed that truth cannot be known, except of course for that claim, I assume.

Click to expand...

No, Nietzsche claimed that he could not rule out the possibility of correspondence (that would be as dogmatic as the opposite assertion), but that if there is correspondence it is most likely due to chance. The correspondence theory is problematic because it leaves us in an epistemic quandary. How do we know that any given concept 'corresponds' to the essence of that which it purports to correspond to? The very nature of a concept does not seem to lend itself to that kind of correspondence at all, since concepts do not touch upon the essences of things-in-themselves. Concepts don't even represent the full 'thing', but rather those properties of a thing that are deemed pertinent to human beings (or are otherwise perceptually salient and cannot be ignored).

childofGod1 said:

That's an excellent point, I wish more people understood it. Maybe with age and experience, some will.

One thing I have observed about the difference between getting help from government and getting help ffrom anm individual is that when you are able to see face to face the person who gives you help, you see that they're making a personal sacrifice out of love. This reinforces your understanding of your own ;personal worht and that of other human beings. It also demonstrates the kind of love we frecieve from God. When you see how someone else puts your needs ahead of their own wants and needs, and understand the sacrifice, you'll want to use that assistance as responsibly as possibe. It encourages personal responsibility.

Click to expand...

I do actually agree with you and bricklayer to a point. The problem is that from experience, the people most likely to be for individual responsibility are those people who do not wish to give anything. I'm all for individual charity over social collectivist responsibility if the result is that the vast majority of those in need get what they need. The problem is that it's no longer the case.

And don't tell me conservatives give more than liberals. I don't know in what parts of the country it is like that, but in this town it is DEFINITELY the other way around.

I'm happy to say that I'm constantly straddling the line between paleoconservatives (who have more in common with contemporary liberals than conservatives) and the left, but I'd have much more respect for contemporary conservatives if, in holding to their moral claim for voluntary charity over governmentally forced taxation to ameliorate social problems, they would admit that they're really sucking it up when it comes to sufficiently helping out those in need through the voluntary charity they support. They never seem to admit this simple point, nor do they (perhaps worse) even admit that big social problems of poverty are even injustices.

For example, I heard Dinesh D'Souza give an overall pretty good lecture on conservatism a few weeks back, at which he responded to a questioner -- who claimed the government's role should be to help social injustices (poverty, etc.) through taxation and regulation -- by saying the government somehow takes out the fuel of a charitable impulse by coercing you to pay taxes (which actually isn't true; external coercion doesn't annul a good intention to give), and therefore we should be able to give voluntarily or not at all. Well, he didn't mention a thing of the injustice of the social ills the questioner had originally pointed out, nor did he point out how voluntary charity is much too small to aid those in need. If he, and other contemporary conservatives at large, would simply admit this point when speaking about the supposed moral question of taxation as a means to aiding social problems, I'd have much more respect for conservatives. Instead all I seem to hear about is the bogus claim that if only people would work harder, they would get what they wanted, thereby putting virtually all social problems to a moral problem that doesn't exist. And, you know, nobody says anything about the superrich, half of whom inherit the wealth they have today, and their lack of working hard.

Moreover, the neoconservative values of consumerism over oldschool values (supported by paleo-types, such as intelligence, virtue, and the like) make charity much less likely, given that consumerism works from selfishness, and charity works from selflessness.

Essentially, we need a return to a more sincere, old school conservatism (such as the paleoconservative type), or else people are naturally going to swerve towards the left to find solutions to the social problems the contemporary right isn't sufficiently addressing.

Received said:

I'm happy to say that I'm constantly straddling the line between paleoconservatives (who have more in common with contemporary liberals than conservatives) and the left, but I'd have much more respect for contemporary conservatives if, in holding to their moral claim for voluntary charity over governmentally forced taxation to ameliorate social problems, they would admit that they're really sucking it up when it comes to sufficiently helping out those in need through the voluntary charity they support.

Click to expand...

I'll admit it. I donate next to nothing to charity. Why? Because half of my income is forcibly confiscated by the state for that purpose already. So lets move on to your next bogus argument.

They never seem to admit this simple point, nor do they (perhaps worse) even admit that big social problems of poverty are even injustices.

Click to expand...

Lets get a definition of injustice shall we:

From Webster--absence of justice : the violation of right or rights of another
unfairness: an unjust act :wrong

So by definition, poverty is not an injustice. But guess what is an injustice--your solution. You seek to address a supposed injustice by inflicting a real injustice: the violation of the rights of another. You confiscate the property of some and give it to others, an act of injustice if there ever was one. But even that isnt good enough for you, you have to corrupt the concept of morality right along with it by claiming that your immoral, unjust actions are moral and just. Tell me, how are you any different from the pick-pocket? The common thug? The criminal who robs a man at the ATM? Answer: You are no different. You have only convinced yourself that you are. You just like to pretend that your altruistic ends justify your unjust means. They do not. The common criminal robs people for his own selfish ends, you rob people for altruistic ends and you believe that absolves you of any crime. It does no such thing. You use your altruism as a blank check on morality, a sort of get-out-of-jail free card that lets you commit any act of injustice you can dream up so long as it is done in the name of others. Sadly, for you, theft is theft. And theft is an injustice. You have managed to make certain forms of theft legal, but no amount of effort on your part will ever make those acts moral. Sorry. You want to lecture about injustice? How does the saying go--first take the plank out of your own eye.

lordbt said:

I'll admit it. I donate next to nothing to charity. Why? Because half of my income is forcibly confiscated by the state for that purpose already.

Click to expand...

Charity donations are tax deductible. You could donate to all the charities you want and pay less taxes in doing so, but you don't. Why should I believe if you were not taxed at all you would donate even close to the level necessary to meet demands?

Lets get a definition of injustice shall we:

From Webster--absence of justice : the violation of right or rights of another
unfairness: an unjust act :wrong

So by definition, poverty is not an injustice

Click to expand...

If poverty is not an injustice, what is it? Just?

You confiscate the property of some and give it to others, an act of injustice if there ever was one. But even that isnt good enough for you, you have to corrupt the concept of morality right along with it by claiming that your immoral, unjust actions are moral and just. Tell me, how are you any different from the pick-pocket? The common thug? The criminal who robs a man at the ATM? Answer: You are no different. You have only convinced yourself that you are. You just like to pretend that your altruistic ends justify your unjust means. They do not. The common criminal robs people for his own selfish ends, you rob people for altruistic ends and you believe that absolves you of any crime. It does no such thing. You use your altruism as a blank check on morality, a sort of get-out-of-jail free card that lets you commit any act of injustice you can dream up so long as it is done in the name of others. Sadly, for you, theft is theft. And theft is an injustice. You have managed to make certain forms of theft legal, but no amount of effort on your part will ever make those acts moral. Sorry. You want to lecture about injustice? How does the saying go--first take the plank out of your own eye.

Click to expand...

Heinz dilemma.

lordbt said:

I'll admit it. I donate next to nothing to charity. Why? Because half of my income is forcibly confiscated by the state for that purpose already. So lets move on to your next bogus argument. Lets get a definition of injustice shall we:

From Webster--absence of justice : the violation of right or rights of another
unfairness: an unjust act :wrong

So by definition, poverty is not an injustice. But guess what is an injustice--your solution. You seek to address a supposed injustice by inflicting a real injustice: the violation of the rights of another. You confiscate the property of some and give it to others, an act of injustice if there ever was one. But even that isnt good enough for you, you have to corrupt the concept of morality right along with it by claiming that your immoral, unjust actions are moral and just. Tell me, how are you any different from the pick-pocket? The common thug? The criminal who robs a man at the ATM? Answer: You are no different. You have only convinced yourself that you are. You just like to pretend that your altruistic ends justify your unjust means. They do not. The common criminal robs people for his own selfish ends, you rob people for altruistic ends and you believe that absolves you of any crime. It does no such thing. You use your altruism as a blank check on morality, a sort of get-out-of-jail free card that lets you commit any act of injustice you can dream up so long as it is done in the name of others. Sadly, for you, theft is theft. And theft is an injustice. You have managed to make certain forms of theft legal, but no amount of effort on your part will ever make those acts moral. Sorry. You want to lecture about injustice? How does the saying go--first take the plank out of your own eye.

Click to expand...

Slave to the rich.

Everyone please read LordBT's post before this example:

OK, so LordBT is a resident of an island with 8 other individuals. He OWNS the middle of the island with great fields for growing corn, while the others live on the beach. There is no fish in the sea, the only food anyone can get at is the corn. They don't have anything to eat. LordBT gets upset and cries "INJUSTICE" when they steal his corn, or "redistribute it from LordBT to themselves." Right? There is no injustice according to LordBT in not feeding those people. He won't even let him work on his fields because he can export to somewhere else. He lives outside their economy. It is not an injustice to be heartless to LordBT.

We all need to realize what some Libertarians are: they are heartless individuals that would call your death by starvation a "market correction."

It's as simple as that!

Myself? I think it is a cruel injustice to starve cities, and along with them, individuals, of the financing needed to make a healthy living. I think SOCIETIES were formed to curb common problems.

Some people cannot think outside of themselves long enough to even be a little compassionate or considerate. They simply lack something in that department. These folks DESERVE POVERTY in my opinion, just to pull them out of their contentment. Folks like this don't have a SINGLE CLUE about economics, but want to tell you all their definition of INJUSTICE as if they are the end-all/be-all on the subject.

I would never in my life want to be someone like that, ever! I wouldn't blame my mother for shooting me if I screeched even an ounce of what they think...

What a bunch of jerks, with there simple-minded, INCREDIBLY SIMPLE-MINDED, ATROCIOUSLY SIMPLE-MINDED "everything starts with property, not people" jazz!

lordbt, please don't respond to questions by begging them. Totally serious here. I respect your responses, and they make me think more than most other posters. We got into a debate about determining whether what one earns according to market logic is tantamount to justice. You define justice according to the way you'd like to, according to keeping one's property without justifying how everything a person owns is rightfully his simply because it resulted from his work, and then use rhetoric towards my points.

Something's wrong here, cap'n.

lordbt apparently equates progressive taxation with stealing. As if people who have more than enough income to get by (the top .1% have so much that they wouldn't be able to spend it if they tried) don't voluntarily live in a society that has granted them the financial advantages it has and have to live with a government which taxes them at the lowest rates in history -- as if they're getting treated in the same way as a thief would treat them, or a terrorist, or whatever.

Well, whatever.

XTE said:

We all need to realize what some Libertarians are: they are heartless individuals that would call your death by starvation a "market correction."

Click to expand...

I don't think lordbt is intentionally being heartless. I think he has a rather rigid definition of freedom which works according to property rights, and therefore excludes any type of taxation and equates it with stealing. He justifies this definition of stealing by appealing to a strict interpretation of the constitution, and then considers any negative externalities (such as poverty) to a type of market that results in hugely lopsided wealth as, what? Bad. But the world's tough, and no matter how bad society is in general, no matter how ridiculously wealthy some individuals get, it's always immoral to take from the rich what's theirs (without justifying how everything they earn is rightfully theirs -- which, granted, isn't an easy subject to talk about), and for everyone else, well, it's tough.

That's how society is indirectly defined by lordbt. Justice and fair play for a few, tough luck and "you should've tried harder" for everyone else.

I'm kind of surprised there's so many people railing against the O.P. It may have been somewhat of an obscure post, but the point of it makes sense.

Somebody made a comment about trying to "Keep up with the Jones' ." Basically striving just to 'one-up' the other guy. Unfortunately this is the way alot of people live their lives, and when you look at people I'll think you'll find that those who are inclined to compare what they have (material possesions) to what others have are some of the most unhappy, insecure people around.

Solomon made similar observations in Ecclesiastes 4:4-

And I saw that all labor and all achievement spring from man's envy of his neighbor. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Click to expand...

There were some pretty bad responses to the O.P., some which show ignorance. As here, Solomon isn't saying that people shouldn't pursue a better life ('better' as in material possesions or a better living situation). He's addressing the reasons why people are chasing after the things that they are. If what you pursue is in line with God's plan for your life, it will bring you contentment; if not it will just leave you empty, and pursuing the next best thing.