The owner may die in the office from obesity and a sedentary lifestyle too. So what? The owner may die in a car crash from all the travelling he has to do, etc. etc. There's risks with everything in life so don't bullshit. The worker also doesn't necessarily risk serious injury or death - it all depends on the job. — Agustino

We're talking about the risk which is directly related to the person's occupation. Those risks which you claim the owner is involved in, are unrelated, and are therefore not relevant to the discussion. The risk you referred to was the risk of loosing a pile of cash, and this is just an illusion of risk, a number in the ledger. How does a changing number in the ledger translate to real risk, so as to be comparable to the risk which the miner takes in going to work every day?

Why don't you tell him that money can't buy him power? — Agustino

If he came here to see me, I'd tell him just that. But I'm not going out of the way to do so. Judging by the content of the clip, he seems to already recognize that he has no real power.

So long as you can order them to do something and they execute it, then you do have power. — Agustino

So which person in the film clip would you say has "power", Mr. Cummings, Mr Gowdy? Surely Mr.Shkreli demonstrates no capacity to tell anyone what to do. He claims the fifth.

Right, but nobody has any doubts about that. Governing society requires the use of fair-weather friends since most people aren't that moral to begin with. So leaders always have to make good use of these people in order to successfully govern a society. Their energy, greed and lust has to be channeled in productive directions. — Agustino

There is contradiction inherent within this position though. If the rich person values money, and the fair-weather friend is relieving him of his money, to give him the illusion of power, then how can you say that the rich person is using the fair-weather friend? Clearly the opposite is the case. The fact that the term "fair-weather friend" is used, is evidence that the opposite is really the case.

I don't understand why you say I'm bashful, but to answer your question, power is influence and capacity to direct the march of society - capacity to set the rules. — Agustino

"Direct the march of society"? What does that mean? The capacity to set rules is not the same thing as inspiring people to follow rules. I can set all the rules I want, but not even my own dog is going to follow those rules. If I point guns at peoples' heads, and force them to follow rules, I can only point so many guns, and as soon as the people are out of my sights, they will not follow my rules. It's only a matter of a short period of time before one comes up behind me.

There's only some people who can handle power morally, and they should as per Plato, want it the most. — Agustino

You've got this backwards. According to Plato, it's the people who want it the least, who are best suited to rule. They know it's the worst possible job to have, and will only take that job if the present ruler is so bad that living under this rule is worse than ruling.

The law only exists when it is enforced, and it can only be enforced by the powerful (naturally). And when the powerful are immoral and corrupt, then you're fucked, if they happen to put their eyes on you. — Agustino

When power has to be "enforced", this is not true power, it is the illusion of power. It is so because the person will only follow the rule while being threatened with the use of force. Once that person gets oneself outside the line of force, that person will conspire to relieve the other of the capacity to use force

Power doesn't mean loyalty. Loyalty is, or can be, an important aspect of power, but it's not the only one. — Agustino

Clearly loyalty is necessary to sustain any real power. And so-called "power" through the use of force does not promote loyalty. Therefore this so-called power is not real power.

Power means the capacity to decide on the direction of society, to influence others, and/or the capacity to guarantee (or not) property and other rights. — Agustino

I still don't know what you mean by "direction of society". Could you explicate? Society consists of a whole bunch of people. They are only going to go in the direction which they want to go. How could one person have the capacity to decide the direction of society?

We're talking about the risk which is directly related to the person's occupation. Those risks which you claim the owner is involved in, are unrelated, and are therefore not relevant to the discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes they are related. If you're forced to sit on the chair all day long in an office, and be on the phone the whole time, that certainly is going to impact your health in a not so good way.

The risk you referred to was the risk of loosing a pile of cash, and this is just an illusion of risk, a number in the ledger. How does a changing number in the ledger translate to real risk, so as to be comparable to the risk which the miner takes in going to work every day? — Metaphysician Undercover

Losing a pile of cash is very relevant. He may not have money to feed his family if he loses a pile of cash. His aspirations to be an entrepreneur may be shattered. His credit-worthiness may be shattered. And so forth. Maybe if he took the money, or part of it, from the wrong person, he may even get shot. Or a competitor may arrange to have him killed. Or the government could get him in jail for not adequately following certain laws. Who knows - there's a lot of things that could potentially happen to the entrepreneur, that cannot happen to the worker.

Judging by the content of the clip, he seems to already recognize that he has no real power. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then tell me, why is he laughing at the judicial system?

So which person in the film clip would you say has "power", Mr. Cummings, Mr Gowdy? Surely Mr.Shkreli demonstrates no capacity to tell anyone what to do. He claims the fifth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Mr. Shkreli, because the others are not capable to get what they want out of him, and he openly mocks them. By openly mocking them, and showing them they have no authority over him, he is demonstrating power. He tells them, not verbally, but non-verbally, you can't do anything to me.

There is contradiction inherent within this position though. If the rich person values money, and the fair-weather friend is relieving him of his money, to give him the illusion of power, then how can you say that the rich person is using the fair-weather friend? — Metaphysician Undercover

Who said it is only an illusion of power? I've defined power in this case as having his orders followed. He can get his orders followed, therefore he is powerful.

Clearly the opposite is the case. The fact that the term "fair-weather friend" is used, is evidence that the opposite is really the case. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well it is true that the fair-weather friend also likes the arrangement, otherwise he wouldn't be doing favours for the rich man. Of course he's also profiting from it, but he doesn't get to decide on what gets done. Rather the rich man tells him do this, and he just does it.

"Direct the march of society"? What does that mean? — Metaphysician Undercover

It means deciding what will happen in the world. Why does that confuse you? It means deciding whether, for example, the Central Bank will print more dough or not.

The capacity to set rules is not the same thing as inspiring people to follow rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

Remember that rules only exist in-so-far as they are followed/enforced, so the capacity to set rules absolutely entails that others will follow them. Otherwise you're simply not setting rules, you're just kidding yourself.

If I point guns at peoples' heads, and force them to follow rules, I can only point so many guns, and as soon as the people are out of my sights, they will not follow my rules. It's only a matter of a short period of time before one comes up behind me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, you've discovered that brute force isn't a very good way to get mass obedience over the long term. That's true, Sun Tzu, and all other military strategists didn't think otherwise either.

You've got this backwards. According to Plato, it's the people who want it the least, who are best suited to rule. They know it's the worst possible job to have, and will only take that job if the present ruler is so bad that living under this rule is worse than ruling. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, obviously they should want it the least in the sense that it can be dangerous to themselves and their families. But they should want it the most in the sense that if they don't want it, someone worse than them will. So if you have the necessary capacities, you should try to rise to the top to prevent someone worse than you from doing it, even if doing so will put you and your family at risk.

When power has to be "enforced", this is not true power, it is the illusion of power. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope, I didn't say power has to be enforced. Please read again.

And so-called "power" through the use of force does not promote loyalty. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree, but loyalty is not necessary from everyone.

I still don't know what you mean by "direction of society". Could you explicate? Society consists of a whole bunch of people. They are only going to go in the direction which they want to go. How could one person have the capacity to decide the direction of society? — Metaphysician Undercover

By, for example, using their money to fund a certain ideology over another for example. Then one ideology will have more resources, and hence more capacity to disseminate through society (like George Soros does). By setting the laws which delimit what others can and can't do. By deciding what gets aired on TV (in the case they own media for example). And so forth. Really, you're asking quite naive questions it seems to me...

I meant to say that neo-liberalism isn't the answer to the things you demand from it, e.g eliminating poverty or homelessness. — Question

Why neo-liberalism?

Losing a pile of cash is very relevant. He may not have money to feed his family if he loses a pile of cash. — Agustino

He's not a good business man if he invests so much that losing it will leave him unable to feed his family.

Maybe if he took the money, or part of it, from the wrong person, he may even get shot. Or a competitor may arrange to have him killed. Or the government could get him in jail for not adequately following certain laws. — Agustino

These are all signs of bad business, and are not the type of risk that a good business man would take.

Then tell me, why is he laughing at the judicial system? — Agustino

Being smug in no way indicates that one has power. I've seen that same smug expression on murderers getting sentenced to life in prison. What makes you that laughing at the judicial system, even while it passes judgement on you, constitutes having power? And make no mistake, they are passing judgement on Mr.Shkreli, because it is clear that one may only invoke the fifth amendment when answering the question may incriminate the witness. Since Mr. Shrkeli claims the fifth for every question, he is clearly a criminal, as he believes that answering any question may incriminate him.

Who said it is only an illusion of power? I've defined power in this case as having his orders followed. He can get his orders followed, therefore he is powerful. — Agustino

It is an illusion because his orders are only being followed to the extent that the follower is getting paid. The one getting paid is actually in the position of having power, because that person can simply refuse to do what the other wants, requesting more and more money. Since the one whom you think has power, is obliged to pay the requests of the others, since he desires to have the feeling of power (that the others are following his orders), it is the others, the ones demanding money, and getting paid, who are having their orders followed, not the one paying.

Well it is true that the fair-weather friend also likes the arrangement, otherwise he wouldn't be doing favours for the rich man. Of course he's also profiting from it, but he doesn't get to decide on what gets done. Rather the rich man tells him do this, and he just does it. — Agustino

Do you know what "fair-weather friend" means? He's only a friend while it is profitable to him. So as long as he is getting paid, and profiting from it, he will do favours for the rich man. But as soon as he doesn't think that it's worth his while to do such favours he'll quit doing them. So the rich man really has no capacity of "power" over the fair-weather friend, who is the one that decides when he will and will not do what the rich man desires of him. And if that rich man is belligerent, the fair-weather friend will rapidly become an enemy.

Yes, obviously they should want it the least in the sense that it can be dangerous to themselves and their families. But they should want it the most in the sense that if they don't want it, someone worse than them will. So if you have the necessary capacities, you should try to rise to the top to prevent someone worse than you from doing it, even if doing so will put you and your family at risk. — Agustino

I think you misunderstand Plato. It's not that ruling is a dangerous job, it is that ruling is the most difficult job, and that's why the person who would make the best ruler, would not want the job. The person recognizes that to do a good job of ruling is extremely difficult. The person would not want to do the job of ruling and do a poor job of it, but it would be too difficult to do a good job of it. So the ones who take the job are those who don't care whether or not they do a good job, they want the job for other reasons.

Nope, I didn't say power has to be enforced. Please read again. — Agustino

What you did say, is that the law must be enforced, and only power can enforce the law.

The law only exists when it is enforced, and it can only be enforced by the powerful (naturally). — Agustino

So you assume a relation between law and power, such that law only exists through the means of enforcement. Remember, your claim is that laws do not have existence unless they are being followed, so the existence of laws is dependent on enforcement.

Now, you separate power from laws, saying that power does not necessarily enforce. If power is not used to enforce rules, what is it used for? For example, you define power as the capacity to make people do what you want. Suppose one has that capacity, power, wouldn't that person be making rules so that the others would be doing what is wanted? Without rules, the others won't be doing what the one with power wants. And enforcement, according to you, is a necessary aspect of laws. So enforcement and power are related, according to your claims. The person has no power to make others do what is wanted, without enforcement.

The real issue, is that I believe you have the concept of power very confused. I think power is having people want to do what you want them to. So there is no issue of enforcement here, there is just an issue of letting the people know how they can best serve you. From this perspective, the powerful make rules and laws which the people obey because they want to obey them, not because of enforcement. Having power is not, as you claim, having the capacity to make people do what you want them to do, it is having the capacity to let people know what they want to do. In this way, they do what you want them to, willingly. They want to please you because what you say is logical, consistent, and meaningful, so they trust that in pleasing you, they are doing good tasks. With respect to power, "enforcement" is a misplaced concept. Enforcement is just a part of that illusion of power which is not real power. If one must enforce one's laws, instead of having the people follow the laws willingly, that person cannot be said to have any real power.

Really, you're asking quite naive questions it seems to me... — Agustino

My questions must be naïve, because it is quite evident that your understanding of the nature of the relationship between laws, power, and the human will, is very naïve. You think that the human will must be forced to follow laws. Of course this is contrary to the nature of will, which resists being forced to do anything. So I must lower myself to this manner of speaking until we can get beyond this basic misunderstanding.

Why neo-liberalism? — Terrapin Station

Liberalism and neo-liberalism have been the guiding philosophy of the right and left in the US and Europe for a good number of years. You can see the impact of fathers of Liberalism (Adam Smith, John Locke) in the foundation of the United States. So, it's quite important that we address neo-liberalism because of its profound impact on political thought since a good number of years, here, in the US, and in Europe.

I'd even say that China has embraced neo-liberalism to a great extent in economic thought.

What does that have to do with my comments though?

What was the question?

My first comment was about not buying that "Nothing organizes labor and resources as well as the market." I pointed out a number of problems a la homelessness, lack of health care, etc. You made a comment about "Applying undue duress on the system for not fixing every socio-economic problem is not fair." I asked you to clarify what counts as "undue duress on the system." Then you responded by saying "I meant to say that neo-liberalism isn't the answer to the things you demand from it," But I wasn't saying anything about neo-liberalism. So I asked you why you brought up neo-liberalism.

I pointed out a number of problems a la homelessness, lack of health care, etc. — Terrapin Station

So, what's the issue here? Is it that you are just unhappy that the market doesn't employ these people or what exactly?

I brought up neo-liberalism because that is/has been the guiding economic policy of the West for a great deal of time now in which 'enlightened self-interest' plays out as I have described in my OP.

So, what's the issue here? — Question

The issue was simply that I disagree with this claim: "Nothing organizes labor and resources as well as the market."

I wasn't saying anything about "neo-liberalism."

Ok, I understand that much. So, you have to have some alternative. What is it then?

'enlightened self-interest' — Question

I wish I knew what "enlightened" self-interest was. Is that what guides "enlightened despots"?

Ok, I understand that much. So, you have to have some alternative. What is it then? — Question

Yeah, I have my own, very idiosyncratic system I'd put in place instead, but it's not something I can detail very well in short message board posts. My system is a very idiosyncratic blend of socialism and libertarianism.

He's not a good business man if he invests so much that losing it will leave him unable to feed his family. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well then, I guess most businessmen aren't "good businessmen" then.

These are all signs of bad business, and are not the type of risk that a good business man would take. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know based on what you're saying they are signs of bad business. Sounds more like an excuse to me. It's like me saying "oh getting injured in a mine happened because he's just a bad worker".

What makes you that laughing at the judicial system, even while it passes judgement on you, constitutes having power? — Metaphysician Undercover

Except that as far as I'm aware they haven't been able to pass judgement on him, even till today.

The one getting paid is actually in the position of having power, because that person can simply refuse to do what the other wants, requesting more and more money. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, they can't. They'll be replaced by someone who is willing to do it for less. The rich man has the power. The other one doesn't. If he wants to get paid, he must obey. The rich man, if he wants whatever he wants done, doesn't have to obey anyone. If someone refuses to do what he asks, he just needs to go to the next person. There's always another one waiting. The rich man will in the end still get what he wants.

Since the one whom you think has power, is obliged to pay the requests of the others, since he desires to have the feeling of power (that the others are following his orders), it is the others, the ones demanding money, and getting paid, who are having their orders followed, not the one paying. — Metaphysician Undercover

No he's not obliged to pay anyone's requests in particular.

Do you know what "fair-weather friend" means? He's only a friend while it is profitable to him. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure.

And if that rich man is belligerent, the fair-weather friend will rapidly become an enemy. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's if the fair-weather friend doesn't need the rich man's money.

is the most difficult job — Metaphysician Undercover

What do you mean by "difficult"? It's a job not worth doing based on purely rewards vs risk analysis. That's why it's difficult.

So you assume a relation between law and power, such that law only exists through the means of enforcement. — Metaphysician Undercover

In what sense is there a law against pickpocketing if no pickpocketer ever gets punished? We can agree that if there is a written law, and it is never enforced, then it actually doesn't exist at all. Really this is not rocket science MU.

Now, you separate power from laws, saying that power does not necessarily enforce. — Metaphysician Undercover

Power is more than simply the capacity to enforce laws, rules, etc. It also includes, for example, changing them.

For example, you define power as the capacity to make people do what you want. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I haven't said it's just that. In fact, power has nothing with making people do what YOU want, only with making people do something.

Suppose one has that capacity, power, wouldn't that person be making rules so that the others would be doing what is wanted? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, a phone call can be enough.

I think power is having people want to do what you want them to — Metaphysician Undercover

Is Trump powerful?

From this perspective, the powerful make rules and laws which the people obey because they want to obey them, not because of enforcement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Riiiight, I guess we should remove all punishments from the law, people will just obey anyway. No punishment for breaking the law. Why the hell don't we do that?!

They want to please you because what you say is logical, consistent, and meaningful, so they trust that in pleasing you, they are doing good tasks. — Metaphysician Undercover

>:O >:O >:O Hahahaha! And clearly most people are very rational, and very capable to perceive that what you say is logical, consistent and meaningful.

You think that the human will must be forced to follow laws. — Metaphysician Undercover

What role do punishments for breaking the law play?

And don't take it the wrong way, I agree that people willingly doing X because they believe it is good, right, etc. is part of power. It's just not the only thing though. That's important for people in your family to do and inner circle. You obviously won't enforce rules against your wife to obey, or on your friends, or closest associates, etc. Such relationships are built on sentiment. But business relationships aren't built on sentiment. I can tell one of my clients, "look, you have a decision to make, you either pay me X, or we won't be working together anymore" - if I were to say the same thing to my wife, she'll hit me in the face. Why? Because it's a different kind of relationship. Power doesn't function in the same way in both cases, which is the mistake you are making.

Start a new thread if you'd like. Ill be the first to read through it.

Caveat: it includes lots of sex. ;)

I'd have to basically write a book. I'm not going to do that on a message board. As it is it's a pet peeve of mine that people write such long posts on message boards.

Thank you for saving my virgin ears or rather eyes. O:)

But, then again wasn't Augustine a sinner before he became a saint?

Can you at least present the main arguments here or is that too much?

But, then again wasn't Augustine a sinner before he became a saint? — Question

Yes, he used to pray "God give me chastity, but not yet!" ;)

I wish I knew what "enlightened" self-interest was. — Bitter Crank

It's like dried water; really useful, except for the slight drawback that it can't possibly exist.

It's like dried water; really useful, except for the slight drawback that it can't possibly exist. — unenlightened

It's ice, isn't it?

Frozen is dried? Not in my supermarket.

Oh, you mean like dried papaya. Yes. Freezing wouldn't accomplish that.

Freeze-dried papaya? Freeze dried peaches are crunchy tasty.

Extreme altruism might be self defeating in some contexts because it can give out the somewhat negative message that one's own life is relatively worthless. Extreme self sacrifice is presumably not something you would advise the recipients of your altruism to do.

Dried pineapple is awesome too.

So, you would say that buying cheap goods, in the end, harms the poorest by supporting and perpetuating their exploitation?

Say no, not as such

What do you mean? I don't understand.