Nice vid. Dont know how often you're online, but Im writing a paper on dist. justice right now, and would love to hear your 2cents if you hit me up via PM
Quoting Aristotle and various texts this guy claims to tell us what the 'truth' is. At the end of the day he ventures a right wing opinion suggesting that redistribution of wealth (no matter how lazily or ill gotten) is bad. I don't buy it.
@refwise Mr RefWise, u dont have to "buy it." But if u disagree, explain why? Tell me which points u see as contentious. Also, I hope u understood my position... basically it was that I support "equal opportunity" but NOT "equal outcomes." I support a FREE Nationalized Higher Education system (thats as left wing as one can be) but I oppose taxation in order to redistribute wealth. Regardless, please tell me what u didnt like or get... refuting my video with NO counter points just sounds empty?
@kailabreece - thanks for the video and the opinion .. I was just thinking there isn't enough on Youtube on the topic of distributive justice. Regarding your point. It seems to boil down to 'those who work hard and those who do not work hard receive an equal share' versus 'the richest 10% own 80% of wealth' .. and you opt for the latter. Of course nothing is perfect but we should aim for a centralised entity that we trust to deal honestly and accountably with a reality of greater complexity.
@refwise Regarding the disparity in wealth, I dont think redistribution is the way 2 fix that trend. The wealthy have greater financial opportunities that allow their money 2 make more money. Earnings from the stock market r reinvested 2 produce a larger return. Those that r poor, dont have resources 2 enhance their economic position. Rather they r forced 2 spend the remaining income on items that wont produce wealth & will depreciate. The goal shouldnt b 2 redistribute but teach opportunity.
Interesting statements, but I did not hear anything new. it is a shame that the American mind is being wasted in the same ideas that are not really leading to any solutions. I could ask millions of people in America a similar question and it would just seem as people possessed a micro chip with the same exact answer containing the same exact words.Have Americans been socialized to think and act like politicians? Are we trying to appease our selfs more than anything?
@purpleflowerx Interesting comment, but I did not hear an opinion of your own. I'm not even sure what you're referring to... I'm willing to guess you don't either. Please, make a comment with substance or do not comment at all. Any "waster american mind" can be critical, but very few can provide solutions or ideas. Have you any?
How can languages be about to have enough resolution of real events and matters? I would say we are looking in the wrong medium (here I am refering to langauges) for defining justice. Languages can only be premitive as our mind and most often dragful languages system are simply confusing. We need multimedia for laws to bridge our language gaps. Don't be too proud about our languages and verbose definitions. Look at human being as it is. They aren't just cultures, tools or quantifiable objects.
As Hayek points out social or distributive justice is a meaningless concept.
'Strictly speaking, only human conduct can be called just or unjust. If we apply the terms to a state of affairs, they have meaning only in so far as we hold someone responsible for bringing it about or allowing it to come about'.
FA Hayek, Law Legislation & Liberty, Routledge, 1982, volume 2, page 31
Society by definition is not an entity that can be held to account since society is a spontaneous order which is a state of affairs that has no goal or end.(created by human action but not by human design). Social justice or justice as desert only makes sense in a made order where people are commanded what to do, since the distribution in such an order is the result of deliberate design and not just a state of affairs. Only then does a 'just distribution' become a meaningful concept.
States of affairs are generally accepted in philosophy as collections of individual events. Certainly human actions (or in-actions) are relevant to justice. A society which refused to act to defend one of its own cities would be considered to have acted unjustly, even though they took no action at all. A state of affairs characterized by large-scale inaction to alleviate poverty (especially among children who are not at fault) could easily be in violation of norms of distributive justice.
I wouldn't want to try to articulate it in under 500 characters. :)
The thing with Adam Smith, is that he's held up by right-wing extremists in defense of their ideology, even though he refutes it in places. I doubt most of them have read Wealth of Nations.
I think "human nature" is a misnomer. I prefer "human behavior." We are, to a very, VERY large extent, the product of our environment and upbringing.
Your question about merit contains the unstated premise that someone is qualified and entitled to make that determination, which is false. The "invisible hand of the market" is a spook you can't invoke to play the role.
No offense but you sound stuck in a US-centric cowboy-individualist mindset, which is pure mythology.
No offense taken. I think you're incorrect. :) How would you articulte "distributive justice?" I too do not buy into the invisible hand, but I am a fan of Mr. Adam Smith. As for MY understanding of what "human nature" is, it is the sum of the basic instinctual properties of homosapiens. Be well.
Everybody should be held to the same standard, thats the problem. The system becomes corrupt because the wicked get what the righteous deserve, and the righteous get what the wicked have earned. Those who worked hard SHOULD get rewarded, but we know that at the end of the days working hard may leave you broke, the rich get rich because they learn to steal from folks- Dis. justice may be a non-factor if the laws were obeyed in the first place,and the super-elite didnt run everything...
to Graagh. You are right, communism could work the same way socialism could work. In a small setting where the least amount of corruption is possible. If men were a better species, more types of government would work, if men were a perfect species, government would not need to exist. This is why I advocate small limited government. Those in power are corrupt, corrupted, or manipulated in every society. Governments rarely last more than 500 years. There is reason to this.
Great video, though I do think that communism COULD work if it is voluntary and is implemented in a community small enough for everyone to know everyone, so that they are more willing to work for the common good. There is also egoist communism, according to which communism is the result of consistently following the egoism of Max Stirner.
Thanks for the compliment... So you think communism COULD work? I would like to beleive that, I just see human nature not allowing for a truely "communal" system. Pre and Post modern governments that have attempted this seem to fall under similar traps and get outpaced by more meritocratic/capitalist systems... nonetheless, who knows... I love Marx! I need to look into Max Sirner more... thanks... any suggested reads? Have you read the Ego and its own?
Please define "human nature." There's human behavior, which is shaped by one's environment, but human nature sounds like woo-woo to me. That is, I don't deny a certain level of basic instinct, but the whole "man is naturally good/bad" is sheer nonsense (we invented good/bad).
Anyway, communism is a classless and, therefore, stateless society. It is anarchism. Ignore the propaganda (from both left and right: watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI) that tries to define it as top-down.
Good video. In the sense of pure equality of resource distribution or wealth, I think that distributive justice is both utopian and unjust because it inherently clashes with other more fundamental senses of justice (such as the individual rights of those who carry the burden of being distributed from rather than distributed to) and it is an attempt to plan and model society in defiance of its more organic distributions. All such plans will not be able to adapt to the changes within society.
Nice vid. Dont know how often you're online, but Im writing a paper on dist. justice right now, and would love to hear your 2cents if you hit me up via PM
vvbn7890 8 months ago
Quoting Aristotle and various texts this guy claims to tell us what the 'truth' is. At the end of the day he ventures a right wing opinion suggesting that redistribution of wealth (no matter how lazily or ill gotten) is bad. I don't buy it.
refwise 1 year ago
@refwise Mr RefWise, u dont have to "buy it." But if u disagree, explain why? Tell me which points u see as contentious. Also, I hope u understood my position... basically it was that I support "equal opportunity" but NOT "equal outcomes." I support a FREE Nationalized Higher Education system (thats as left wing as one can be) but I oppose taxation in order to redistribute wealth. Regardless, please tell me what u didnt like or get... refuting my video with NO counter points just sounds empty?
kailabreece 1 year ago
@kailabreece - thanks for the video and the opinion .. I was just thinking there isn't enough on Youtube on the topic of distributive justice. Regarding your point. It seems to boil down to 'those who work hard and those who do not work hard receive an equal share' versus 'the richest 10% own 80% of wealth' .. and you opt for the latter. Of course nothing is perfect but we should aim for a centralised entity that we trust to deal honestly and accountably with a reality of greater complexity.
refwise 1 year ago
@refwise Regarding the disparity in wealth, I dont think redistribution is the way 2 fix that trend. The wealthy have greater financial opportunities that allow their money 2 make more money. Earnings from the stock market r reinvested 2 produce a larger return. Those that r poor, dont have resources 2 enhance their economic position. Rather they r forced 2 spend the remaining income on items that wont produce wealth & will depreciate. The goal shouldnt b 2 redistribute but teach opportunity.
kailabreece 1 year ago
Interesting statements, but I did not hear anything new. it is a shame that the American mind is being wasted in the same ideas that are not really leading to any solutions. I could ask millions of people in America a similar question and it would just seem as people possessed a micro chip with the same exact answer containing the same exact words.Have Americans been socialized to think and act like politicians? Are we trying to appease our selfs more than anything?
purpleflowerx 1 year ago
@purpleflowerx Interesting comment, but I did not hear an opinion of your own. I'm not even sure what you're referring to... I'm willing to guess you don't either. Please, make a comment with substance or do not comment at all. Any "waster american mind" can be critical, but very few can provide solutions or ideas. Have you any?
kailabreece 1 year ago
How can languages be about to have enough resolution of real events and matters? I would say we are looking in the wrong medium (here I am refering to langauges) for defining justice. Languages can only be premitive as our mind and most often dragful languages system are simply confusing. We need multimedia for laws to bridge our language gaps. Don't be too proud about our languages and verbose definitions. Look at human being as it is. They aren't just cultures, tools or quantifiable objects.
beancube2008 2 years ago
Very beautiful comment friend. Thank you.
Thoughts certainly worth a sit down...
kailabreece 2 years ago
As Hayek points out social or distributive justice is a meaningless concept.
'Strictly speaking, only human conduct can be called just or unjust. If we apply the terms to a state of affairs, they have meaning only in so far as we hold someone responsible for bringing it about or allowing it to come about'.
FA Hayek, Law Legislation & Liberty, Routledge, 1982, volume 2, page 31
Malthus0 2 years ago
Society by definition is not an entity that can be held to account since society is a spontaneous order which is a state of affairs that has no goal or end.(created by human action but not by human design). Social justice or justice as desert only makes sense in a made order where people are commanded what to do, since the distribution in such an order is the result of deliberate design and not just a state of affairs. Only then does a 'just distribution' become a meaningful concept.
Malthus0 2 years ago
Thank you for those excellent points.
kailabreece 2 years ago
States of affairs are generally accepted in philosophy as collections of individual events. Certainly human actions (or in-actions) are relevant to justice. A society which refused to act to defend one of its own cities would be considered to have acted unjustly, even though they took no action at all. A state of affairs characterized by large-scale inaction to alleviate poverty (especially among children who are not at fault) could easily be in violation of norms of distributive justice.
iamthewalrus1599 1 year ago
@iamthewalrus1599 Good point friend.
kailabreece 1 year ago
Comment removed
Malthus0 2 years ago
I wouldn't want to try to articulate it in under 500 characters. :)
The thing with Adam Smith, is that he's held up by right-wing extremists in defense of their ideology, even though he refutes it in places. I doubt most of them have read Wealth of Nations.
I think "human nature" is a misnomer. I prefer "human behavior." We are, to a very, VERY large extent, the product of our environment and upbringing.
vktrsx 3 years ago
Well said friend.
kailabreece 3 years ago
Your question about merit contains the unstated premise that someone is qualified and entitled to make that determination, which is false. The "invisible hand of the market" is a spook you can't invoke to play the role.
No offense but you sound stuck in a US-centric cowboy-individualist mindset, which is pure mythology.
vktrsx 3 years ago
No offense taken. I think you're incorrect. :) How would you articulte "distributive justice?" I too do not buy into the invisible hand, but I am a fan of Mr. Adam Smith. As for MY understanding of what "human nature" is, it is the sum of the basic instinctual properties of homosapiens. Be well.
kailabreece 3 years ago
Everybody should be held to the same standard, thats the problem. The system becomes corrupt because the wicked get what the righteous deserve, and the righteous get what the wicked have earned. Those who worked hard SHOULD get rewarded, but we know that at the end of the days working hard may leave you broke, the rich get rich because they learn to steal from folks- Dis. justice may be a non-factor if the laws were obeyed in the first place,and the super-elite didnt run everything...
jesseakers 3 years ago
equal access to opportunity... Well put! Also really liked brainpolice2's statement.
Clyaton 3 years ago
to Graagh. You are right, communism could work the same way socialism could work. In a small setting where the least amount of corruption is possible. If men were a better species, more types of government would work, if men were a perfect species, government would not need to exist. This is why I advocate small limited government. Those in power are corrupt, corrupted, or manipulated in every society. Governments rarely last more than 500 years. There is reason to this.
Clyaton 3 years ago
Great video, though I do think that communism COULD work if it is voluntary and is implemented in a community small enough for everyone to know everyone, so that they are more willing to work for the common good. There is also egoist communism, according to which communism is the result of consistently following the egoism of Max Stirner.
Still, excellent video.
graaaaaagh 3 years ago
Thanks for the compliment... So you think communism COULD work? I would like to beleive that, I just see human nature not allowing for a truely "communal" system. Pre and Post modern governments that have attempted this seem to fall under similar traps and get outpaced by more meritocratic/capitalist systems... nonetheless, who knows... I love Marx! I need to look into Max Sirner more... thanks... any suggested reads? Have you read the Ego and its own?
kailabreece 3 years ago
Yeah, here's an egoist communist text:
scribd . com /doc/5445156 /The-Right-To-Be-Greedy
graaaaaagh 3 years ago
Please define "human nature." There's human behavior, which is shaped by one's environment, but human nature sounds like woo-woo to me. That is, I don't deny a certain level of basic instinct, but the whole "man is naturally good/bad" is sheer nonsense (we invented good/bad).
Anyway, communism is a classless and, therefore, stateless society. It is anarchism. Ignore the propaganda (from both left and right: watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI) that tries to define it as top-down.
vktrsx 3 years ago
Good video. In the sense of pure equality of resource distribution or wealth, I think that distributive justice is both utopian and unjust because it inherently clashes with other more fundamental senses of justice (such as the individual rights of those who carry the burden of being distributed from rather than distributed to) and it is an attempt to plan and model society in defiance of its more organic distributions. All such plans will not be able to adapt to the changes within society.
brainpolice2 3 years ago 3
nice vid :)
dakshinamurti 3 years ago