mega-post.....
All governments exist for the sole purpose of securing wealth to those who have the most of it.
That's a hasty generalization. The truth is that governments are made up mostly of average people doing various jobs that are necessary to sustain a large group of economically active citizens.
If the sole purpose of government is "securing wealth to hose who have the most of it," then where did those people get their wealth in the first place, before it could be protected by the government?
Kitty:
Government is the natural and inevitable outcome of humans' inherent tendencies toward social ranking and a desire for structure. In that sense, I believe government in and of itself is inherently neutral as it confers no benefit nor detriment to anyone, but governments that have been created by man are generally made with the intent to benefit society as a whole.
I guess Kitty and I are the only people arguing the neutral theory in this thread! I agree with you Kitty, with the caveat that there are exceptions, of course.
ebola:
I disagree [that government is a natural property of human social interaction on a macrolevel], as governance has not accompanied paleolithic society (at least with necessity)
Populations are often tiny, so no "government" is necessary. Further, we have little data on the forms of social hierarchy in premodern man. Current groups free from modern influence are rare. It's a pretty weak inference that paleolithic society was in any way anarchic. It is an inference, however, that anarchists really like to make.
There is a variety of organizations possible in paleolithic societies. Often, cheifs will rise to power because of charasma and wisdom, and their counsel will be non-binding and non-forcible.
This sounds like an overly idealistic view. Also bear in mind that simple lifestyles only require simple rules. "Don't eat more than your share of food." "Do participate in communal work/activity." "Don't freak out and hurt people." I recently saw a documentary on a group of humans living in the brazilian jungle who are known as cannibals. In reality, the cannibalism only occurs when someone has severly breached social norms. Thus murderers and rapists are sometimes killed and eaten. How's THAT for law and order?
This idea that paleolithic "societies" are somehow free from the constraints of modern society is misguided. We are all bound to behave in ways which are in harmony with our surroundings and our fellow organisms.
and the majority of our history is paleolithic.
The majority of life on earth throughout history has also been unicellular, but the amount of time spent at a certain level of organization is irrelevant. Organisms evolve dynamically, and change can occur rapidly. Selection for the ability to exist in larger social groups is ongoing, I believe.
We can ask whether intent matters when governments have systemic tendencies that undermine the positive aims of their founders.
Usually things with systemic tendencies are those that are natural, physical processes. Governments will change and evolve too. They are not destined to evolve in an unfavorable or oppressive direction, anymore than a drop of water is destined to follow a certain path down a hill.
Truthspeaker1:
Factorary workers started filling cargos with steel and other junk parts to simply meet certain quotas that were inflicted upon them. Everyone was paid the same anyways, so why bother working?
And that is precisely what the WORKERS THEMSELVES will tell you. People who are cool with central planning prefer to think that this sort of argument against the soviet system is just more capitalist ideology, but strangely enough they never mention that the WORKERS themselves grasped the absurdity of equalized pay.
ebola:
You could alternately argue that workers in the USSR saw their lack of power in state bureaucracies and consequently became disenfranchized.
Well I think that much is obvious, the question is why did they become disenfranchised. Truthspeaker was saying that it was probably due to the fact that there was no incentive to work. They were being disenfranchised, not from the "political process", but from their own economic instincts.
Not to mention that people often resent this degree of routinization being inflicted upon them from above, regardless of whether it is "efficient"
A lot of things in life are routine, especially if you are a non-human organism! The point was that the soviet system didn't end up being very efficient.
Truthspeaker1:
Does it make sense for a doctor and a worker to make the same wage if the doctor went to school for 10 more years?
No. This theme has appeared many times on this board
ebola:
This only makes sense in a context where medical school is expensive. Otherwise, being a doctor is much more fulfilling than working in a factory...at least for most people.
You are misinterpreting the original question. He noted that medical school takes 10 years, but what that really means is that medical school will ALWAYS be expensive, whether you measure it in dollars or physical matter, or intellectual expertise. Training a doctor requires millions of dollars worth of equipment, millions of dollars worth of staff, buidings, books, a research industry, etc. Not to mention thousands of hours of personal attention. And then consider the effort required to master the subject of medicine. It is an intellectual challenge of great magnitude. In that sense, it is also extremely expensive to the individual. The degree to which medicine is fulfilling is nearly irrelevant, because the resources required to train a doctor are massive, both from the perspective of the student and the institution.
Free Radical:
does this subtley imply that social darwinism is the natural order of things?
Yes.
natural selection is surely inevitable, but as rational beings i think we can transcend hierarchy, or at least make it more of a gentle hierarchy like that among friends.
I think so too, but transcend is the wrong word. We are still very much a competetive species, we just no longer need to compete for basic resources. I know that tommorow morning, a cool stream of purified microbe-free water will be waiting for me in the pipes. No need to fight for best position at the watering hole. However, we do compete for things, like access to mates and access to money.
ebola:
Why do we posit human nature in the face of other mechanisms[when trying to explain human greed]?
LiveIllegal:
Why, when explaining negative human behaviors, is "human nature" (an arbitrary term) assumed to be the primary driving force, when there are numerous other factors to consider?
A substantial part of our behavior is determined by what kind of organism we are, how our brains are constructed, etc...It is quite reasonable to argue that human greed is hard-wired. It seems pointless to compose an alternative explanation, just because you don't like the more plausible one.
in these arguments, it seems that people are overwhelmingly pessimistic about what motivates individuals. They seem to forget that we are inherently social creatures, and that we generally do things to gain acceptance in society.
I agree completely. I typically approach things from that sort of optimistic stance. But never forget that our inherent "social" nature is always balanced by our inherent "greed." There are no examples of altruism in nature - somebody always benefits. In most cases, both organisms in the relationship benefit. It is a mistake to interpret this as evidence of altruism...it is merely two species interacting for a mutual benefit.
