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.
Does an economy exist to serve people or do people exist to serve an economy?
How one answers that question pretty much determines their position on many, if not most, political issues.
In current terms, one can take the position that the economy is poor because too many people are lazy and won't accept work, or one could take the position that the economy is poor because there are too few jobs available for millions who would rather be working.
The more fundamental question is: what is (the) economy?
Is it a big glorious whole that should require the support from everyone at the cost of personal liberty or is it something more subjective and can some people feel economically secure while others don't?
People who manage their own wealth in a good way will be economically secure even while many others are not.
It's wrong and dangerous to think of the economy as a whole because it encourages group thinking. Socialism.
Do you see your fellow Americans as decent, hard-working folks doing their best to make a go of it in life or do you see them as lazy, shiftless leeches devouring your tax dollars?
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroTrashed
The more fundamental question is: what is (the) economy?
Is it a big glorious whole that should require the support from everyone at the cost of personal liberty or is it something more subjective and can some people feel economically secure while others don't?
People who manage their own wealth in a good way will be economically secure even while many others are not.
It's wrong and dangerous to think of the economy as a whole because it encourages group thinking. Socialism.
So any time we try to think as a whole (instead of selfishly), like promoting the general welfare, it's "Socialism" (...lol)?!
Actually, that's the real issue implicit in the OP.... whether or not we share some responsibility for each other as a nation (economically and otherwise), or whether it basically just comes down to "every man for themselves and devil take the hindmost" (aka, Social Darwinism).
I think all societies are inevitably socialistic. The division of labor has made us all interdependent. Not since the days of the hunter/gatherer has anyone been been "self-reliant" and even in those groups, there was a divison of labor and interdependence, as seen recently in the American Indians of the 19th century.
Does an economy exist to serve people or do people exist to serve an economy?
How one answers that question pretty much determines their position on many, if not most, political issues.
In current terms, one can take the position that the economy is poor because too many people are lazy and won't accept work, or one could take the position that the economy is poor because there are too few jobs available for millions who would rather be working.
Uh, does gravity exist to serve people?
An economy is merely the result of interaction, just like gravity. And just like gravity, there are laws in economics that must be obeyed, and if you fail to obey them, then you suffer negative consequences, and also like gravity, the extent of your suffering is related to the extent of your violations.
So only a fool would even attempt to answer the question.
Your ability to control the economy is on a par with your ability to control the collision of the Milky Way Galaxy with the Andromeda Galaxy.
Good luck with that...
So any time we try to think as a whole (instead of selfishly), like promoting the general welfare, it's "Socialism" (...lol)?!
Actually, that's the real issue implicit in the OP.... whether or not we share some responsibility for each other as a nation (economically and otherwise), or whether it basically just comes down to "every man for themselves and devil take the hindmost" (aka, Social Darwinism).
If you read the declaration of independence you will notice the document is based on the "Common WE" and "When a PEOPLE" and other affirmations of the collective.
Social Darwinism is just an excuse for selfishness, exploitation of our fellows and a very great EVIL in the affairs of Mankind.
If you read the declaration of independence you will notice the document is based on the "Common WE" and "When a PEOPLE" and other affirmations of the collective.
Social Darwinism is just an excuse for selfishness, exploitation of our fellows and a very great EVIL in the affairs of Mankind.
You can have your communities and commit yourself to those without have a Unitarian government which looks just like the King and for which created the DoI.
Quote:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
There's nothing in there that says you can form a unitary state or take what you want from other because you have some strange affliction to place yourself and everyone else in the lowest common denominator category.
Why don't you worry about your own country and stop trying to meddle in the affairs of another for your own gain and your own outmoded and outdated political philosophies.
I love how Adam Smith referred to the concept that in the engagement of an individual pursuing self interest, comes the "Invisible Hand" which causes benefit to the society, even if this was never the intent.
I don't work for the collective, I work for "my" personal gain, to enrich "my" life. I work to earn money for me and my family. Some may consider this is selfish, but the result of pursuing "my" self interest is society benefits from work that would otherwise go undone.
The question becomes which philosophy provides greater good for the society? Does the philosophy I hold, one that has me working for my self interests, encouraging me to work harder, longer, putting more effort into my actions in pursuit of my own self interests provide better results than a philosophy of working for the interests of the society, where regardless of my efforts, I will receive an equal division of the efforts of myself and others?
I believe Adam Smith was absolutely correct in his theory that an individual pursuing their own self interest will work harder, thereby unintentionally benefit society.
Last edited by KS_Referee; 11-22-2012 at 05:46 PM..
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.
A corollary question:
