- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Individuals value, collectives cant

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on May 06, 1999 at 16:07:07:

In Reply to: But it doesn't mean pissing on your neighbor's lawn posted by Nikhil Jaikumar on May 06, 1999 at 14:15:38:

: you and i differ on our assessment of "natural ability" and how important it is. first of all, i doubt that natural ability is distributed as unequally as you say. Secondly, when people do possess exceptional natural ability(genius), I suspect taht for them work would be its own reward.

In experience I find people outwardly similar have very different 'ability profiles' which would make one person more adept at productive effort than another. I find it very plausable that two same size communities could have significantly (which neednt be huge) 'unequal' distribution of those of ability.

: Then the government has an obligation to supply them with eqquivalent access to resources, or to encourage them to move.

You mean to undo the advantage of C1s geographical location and hand it to C2 (and make a net loss in the process of transfering)? Govt at its worst, acting as master not servant.

: True, but there's the challenge of developing an undeveloped area, there's the feeling of having doen something good, there's the obligation to common numanity, and the simple factbof human brotherhood. also, tehre is more work to be done in C@ than in C!. Hence this vacuum of labor and expertise woudl get filled, boith for moral reapns, biological reasons (human empathy) and for the "challenge" of it.

If you said "hopefully"at the end of that assertion I would understand its context. As it is, i would not rely on such hopes.

: In a socialist society education will help this problem, but not amke it go away.

You mean that an attempt will take place to quell peoples natural tendency to value other people differently? How utterly horrifying.

: Still, it doesn't matter. Just because you love your klid more doesn't eman that you spit on strangers' lawns every day.

It means that the parent will feed their child before feeding anothers, will clothe and educate their child before anotehrs - and to be realistic would probably clothe and educate their child before feeding anothers, as is evidenced by every parent the wolrd over who is doing just that. 'Educate' that out of humans!

: they always cause it in some direct or indirect way- respources are finite, in C! uses them tehen C@ can't.

Those resources didnt exist before C1 made them into useful items. Without C1, C2 wouldnt even have the choice to rob them. C1 are to be held over precisely *because* they produce, but would be seen as lovely and innocent and warranting help if they did not! Such injustice!

: Unlikely taht tehy woudl sink below again. If tehre is a deficit in ability in C2, the genuises will drift to C2 because they see more work to be done there

Better to build upon foundation than be force to constanly lay them down again. I suspect genuises prefer to start high and carry on up.

: Why would smart peopel stay in C1, a community which ahs less need for them?

Less 'need' but more opportunity to explore further away from the supply of day to day needs. they'd love it in C1!

: People's natural abilities vary much less than you think. Intelligenmce is mainly determined by environment, as are many other abilities (barring an exceptional few.)

Insufficient data to prove one or the other. If ability is environmentally determined then C2 are even worse off - its a poor place to flourish. C1 would foster ever greater ability, building upon the backs of others.

: I don't consider thsi exploitation, and I don't consider anything wrong with taking a cut across teh board. anyway, if C2 is below C1 tehy SHOULD gain at c1's expense. that's only fair and just.

If justice means that the able be reduced in order to support the less able then Im not surprised that 'injustice' is so popular. Do you realize that unless C1 agreed to this then such action would constitute a punishment for ability? A disincentive to be able?

: No, that's an individuals goal, teh collective gaol is teh good of humanity, since goods are produced collevctively thsi si what counts....

1 parent loves her child more than others. 1000 parents do so aswell. Collectivity cannot be anything except individuals.

I contend that if such a communitarian society were to come about it would revert to individualism for the above reasons. Its not going to happen Nikhil, because people dont want it to happen. Really think abut these things. Im not here to 'trump' socialism for my entertainment - If I make a point its because I do believe what I am saying is realistic, ie based upon what is actual. I don not agree with socialism, not because it fails in countries like USSR, but because I believe it fails in its principles. Because people value some things and some people more than others there is no collective good.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup