Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was searching the phrase "sumptuary laws.".Sumptuary laws are laws designed to limit or discourage consumption. The effect of England's old sumptuary laws was to ensure that the rich could afford just about everything.I came across it in my reading of Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson by Gordon S. Wood. Going back to ancient Greek time, there was a philosopher named Epicuris, who believed (link to source):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Epicurus
First published Mon Jan 10, 2005; substantive revision Fri Jul 8, 2022
The philosophy of Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) was a complete and interdependent system, involving a view of the goal of human life (happiness, resulting from absence of physical pain and mental disturbance), an empiricist theory of knowledge (sensations, together with the perception of pleasure and pain, are infallible criteria), a description of nature based on atomistic materialism, and a naturalistic account of evolution, from the formation of the world to the emergence of human societies.
The incoming Christian culture did not agree, as I read in The Swerve: How the World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt. I did not think of any modern connections in thought, Indeed, I had thought that this line of thinking was recent, a response to post-War prosperity.
Much has been written of late about the affluent society in which we live, and much fun poked at some of the irrational "status symbols" set out like golden snares to trap the unwary consumer at every turn. Until recently, little has been said about the most irrational and weirdest of the lot, lying in ambush for all of us at the end of the road- -the modern American funeral.
Apparently, this goes back to John Adams and further, to the Puritans. I wonder if now it influences advocacy of self-abnegation with environmental laws and other policies.
I would say that people are worried about greed, but some people can definitely go extreme and question the necessity of every purchase.
I agree.
This relates to the pangs of guilt society has for overconsumption. Sometimes it expresses itself directly and other times through various environmental and social causes.
An article on CNN made me think of this thread. It is about a very "red" county in Arizona attempting to regulate the use of water from the ground. Normally, we think of conservatives as mostly against regulation.
My view is that laws in general are a cheap way to get people to enforce the point of view of a particular group of people. It can go either way with the battle for water in Arizona. Residents can regulate water usage to address their concerns about large farms depleting the groundwater. This would deprive the large farms of unregulated consumption which leads to your topic - enjoying life. The groundwater can also be left untouched by regulations but that would deprive the residents of a secure future or the ability to enjoy life in the future.
Conservatives have also been known to protect affluence - that rich people have a right to more power over others, have a right to purchase more goods and services than others, have a right to more natural resources. But if the protectors of affluent people cross the line, as they are trying to do in Arizona by limiting water consumption by wealthy farms, conservatives will see firsthand what it is like to go up against those they have been promoting. How do they balance their idealistic Conservative world of no regulation and promotion of wealth (even when they are not) to a situation where they want to protect a natural resource for their own happiness? One method is through religion and it is a very inexpensive way to do it.
I would say that people are worried about greed, but some people can definitely go extreme and question the necessity of every purchase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
I agree.
This relates to the pangs of guilt society has for overconsumption. Sometimes it expresses itself directly and other times through various environmental and social causes.
A lot of us here have Depression era parents, people who were born in the late teens and all of the 20's. My parents certainly had that mentality of buying cheap, not buying a lot, never taking an expensive vacation and certainly never eating out at an expensive restaurant. I myself haven't seen guilt expressed through environmental and social causes, although I'm sure it has for some people. Some of the younger generation in my family are conspicuous consumers, others are extreme minimalists, others are vegan/vegetarian. It's a mish mash with no clear cut lines. For myself, I don't like conspicuous consumption that expresses itself as "macho" and "vainglorious" types of purchases and activities. I would prefer to spend my money quite otherwise. For me, it doesn't have to do with guilt, rather preference.
It's not so much guilt, it's that chasing excessive hedonism is a trap that can railroad one's life. We have a nation that is glued to screens and drugs and the more time goes on the more off put I personally am by certain aspects of our culture.
I pursue intellectual enjoyment in my free time that or mindfulness and nature. To each their own. I've never been one to be stimulated by toys like motorcycles boats and sports cars or seedy nightclubs and lines of cocaine or other mind-altering drugs. Extrovert and pop culture like to push this idea that you must overstimulate yourself to enjoy everything life has to offer and not all of us are wired to want to do that.
Sometimes I wonder if the people who can't control their impulses try to guilt those who can so they don't feel bad about their impulsive behavior. Nobody wants to be judged for the way they live their lives after all, and sometimes hyper responsible people can come off as a bit judgmental towards people who are too impulsive or blow all their money. In the end I don't care what people do as long as I don't have to bail them out over and over again with my tax dollars because they refuse to make good life choices. Even then that's a form of judgmentalism I need to get over for my own personal growth. In the end there's no point in judging anyone because we are all human and I don't really need to elaborate on that.
I'm not sure if we can compare apples and oranges by citing as an example use of water. There's less of a debate about conserving resources if those resources are limited and the point of doing so is to ensure either that there's enough for everyone, or that the resource won't disappear entirely (or both). Then we're not talking about the issue of hedonism and whether that, in and of itself, is good or bad, but rather the issue of selfishness and not caring if other people go without as long as you get yours. Completely different moral and social issue.
The real question we want to debate probably would be, "If the resource {be it money, food, water, whatever} were unlimited, everyone could have as much as they wanted without anyone else being deprived, and it would never run out/become harmed by the consumption, would/should we still limit our consumption?"
Sometimes I wonder if the people who can't control their impulses try to guilt those who can so they don't feel bad about their impulsive behavior. Nobody wants to be judged for the way they live their lives after all, and sometimes hyper responsible people can come off as a bit judgmental towards people who are too impulsive or blow all their money. In the end I don't care what people do as long as I don't have to bail them out over and over again with my tax dollars because they refuse to make good life choices. Even then that's a form of judgmentalism I need to get over for my own personal growth. In the end there's no point in judging anyone because we are all human and I don't really need to elaborate on that.
I assume that the two highlighted parts refer to different sets of people. The people at Davos, see Davos and its danger to Democracy | Transnational Institute exemplify, in my view, the former. These people binge on private jets, lavish meals and entertainment, and yet advocated control of "climate change" and the average people dialing down their life styles. This past summer the World Economic Forum (its nickname is "Davos") advocated limitations on private vehicle ownership, see World Economic Forum calls to reduce private vehicles by eliminating "ownership." Their method of "sharing" will be private chauffers so they're not worried. They can indulge themselves freely and enjoy wagging their fingers at the "hoi-polloi." The other people at worst come off the way a high school student who's 15 going on 50 comes off, i.e. a bit stuck up but otherwise harmless. The former category are people who have power, influence and money (some of it not real) so they can wind up controlling a lot. The "Davos" types get their calls returned by actual leaders and legislators.
You and me, not so much. The best we can do, if disgruntled enough by contemplated "reforms" is vote in people like Reagan in place of people like Carter. That does at least some good.
A lot of us here have Depression era parents, people who were born in the late teens and all of the 20's. My parents certainly had that mentality of buying cheap, not buying a lot, never taking an expensive vacation and certainly never eating out at an expensive restaurant. I myself haven't seen guilt expressed through environmental and social causes, although I'm sure it has for some people. Some of the younger generation in my family are conspicuous consumers, others are extreme minimalists, others are vegan/vegetarian. It's a mish mash with no clear cut lines. For myself, I don't like conspicuous consumption that expresses itself as "macho" and "vainglorious" types of purchases and activities. I would prefer to spend my money quite otherwise. For me, it doesn't have to do with guilt, rather preference.
Thank you for sharing that. Just to clarify my post, I was thinking of the point of view of those who write laws or advocates against over consumption and not the individual reasons why somebody might be careful with their purchases. Fromthe OP:
Quote:
I wonder if now it influences advocacy of self-abnegation with environmental laws and other policies.
Thank you for sharing that. Just to clarify my post, I was thinking of the point of view of those who write laws or advocates against over consumption and not the individual reasons why somebody might be careful with their purchases. Fromthe OP:
Exactly, and that is what this thread is about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
