6 ms·

> Long term, if political freedom doesn't bring wealth, then what is the bloody point? Seriously? You think that everything a government should strive to guara

> Long term, if political freedom doesn't bring wealth, then what is the bloody point? Seriously? You think that everything a government should strive to guarantee is a means where the end is wealth? You don't think that equality, freedom to criticize questionable government practices (even those that improve GDP), or anything else should be a goal in itself?

chrischen 13y ago
I think you probably went through the US education system? US schools brainwash kids into thinking that democracy and freedom to criticize the government are inherently good concepts, but in reality they are only desirable because of the practical effects it may or may not produce. There are no universal morals, and because of that you can't say democracy is inherently "right." So I have to side with your parent and say that democracy is only "right" if you believe that its effects in improving society objectively are "right." Schools just simplify it as "democracy is inherently right" because its easier to indoctrinate that principle.
- jackowayed 13y ago
  But the comment I replied to basically posited "wealth" as the one and only universal good by suggesting that if the government strives for something that doesn't eventually yield wealth, there's no point. An overused example: Fascism has at times lead to incredible economic growth, creating wealth that did measurable good in most citizen's lives (by ending terrible depressions). But there was more that came along with that, which mostly wasn't cutting into the country's wealth (maybe it squanders some human capital, but so does 30% unemployment, which the Nazis completely reversed in around 5 years). Despite the positive implications of fascism on "wealth", there's a lot that the Nazis did that most would be inclined to call bad. On the other hand, Scandanavian socialist democracy may not be optimal for wealth creation, but it has a lot of benefits that help people lead enjoyable lives that are free from the risk of various kinds of terrible suffering (eg. homelessness). There are no universal goods, but when pushed, very few people are actually willing to eschew all goods except wealth. And if you are, what's so special about wealth that makes it a good you're willing to quasi-universalize?
  - venus 13y ago
    I used the word wealth because I was replying to another post which used it when trying to set up a false dichotomy between political freedom on one side and "wealth" on the other, as if they're opposites and you can have one or the other, not both. I wasn't trying to say that the sole goal of government is to get everyone rich. But I did say long term - long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. For that matter the nordic social experiment cannot be said to have succeeded yet. Really, none of this has been around long enough to make any final conclusions about anything. Anyway. Instead of "wealth" you might want to read "social wealth" - the ability of a society to provide good jobs, education, social mobility, health care, long term satisfaction, security of state and person, those kinds things.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      > long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. Germany is the exporting powerhouse of Europe. But just to be clear, you would be ok with the whole holocaust thing if Germany now had the GDP (or whatever metric you want to use for "social wealth") of the US as a result?
      - lloeki 13y ago
        > Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. I think you meant Volkswagen Group, created in 1937 by the Nazis and backed by Hitler to create the Type 1 (a.k.a Beetle). Today, Volkswagen owns Audi, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, Porsche, Ducati, Seat, Skoda, and has a majority of shares in Suzuki. Mercedes is small fry compared do VG.
        flyinRyan 13y ago
        Mercedes was just off the top of my head. There are many businesses that did well under Hitler and still do well today.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    I'm sure venus meant "wealth" as "well-being." GDP is one potential way to measure it... but it may or may not be flawed. We're just referring to "wealth" as a theoretical concept we can't perfectly measure.
- oillio 13y ago
  Someone in this thread already quoted the US constitution, so I won't do it again. This is not just taught by the US school systems, this is the basis on which the United States was founded. It is taught in the school system because the populace of the US believe that there are in fact universal morals. We believe that it is self evident that one of these morals is our right (not privilege) to seek freedom to question the government. It is in the first line of our mission statement. To tell someone that their beliefs are wrong simply because of where they originated is rather arrogant. You have no idea the OP's background and how deeply they have questioned their own beliefs. It is perfectly fine to disagree with this opinion. However, you must argue against the actual opinion, dismissing it due to where or how it is taught provides nothing to the discussion. P.S. - Sorry everyone for feeding the trolls.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    I never said his beliefs were wrong. In fact, believing in universal morals is the act of treating everyone with different morals as if they are wrong. I simply argued to the parent post that is there is no such thing as universal morals, and our morals, ideals, goals are all framed around an end we want to achieve. And that end, whatever is, can be arbitrarily defined... so morals therefore are also arbitrarily defined. Believing in universal morals is stating that your morals are better than others because you believe in it. It's just like nationalism. You'll believe your country is better because you were born in it, just as you might believe your morals are better than others (universal) simply because you've been indoctrinated by them. Just as your school isn't necessarily right when indoctrinating you with morals, your country's founding fathers may not be right either. It might have been right for the purposes of the country, but you really do have to see things from other perspectives. I hope people reading this also take note of the subtle name calling oillio just committed (calling me a troll). If life were that simple we could just dismiss every opposing viewpoint as a troll, just as in minesweeper marking everything a flag... but it doesn't work that way.
- comicjk 13y ago
  I agree that there are no universal morals. I propose this solution: we let everyone follow his own morals as much as possible, and when it's impossible for everyone to be satisfied on a given point, we vote on it. Constitutional democracy is not a denial that people have different morals - it's based on that fact.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    Constitutional democracy only works if the whole population agrees to the moral and practical superiority of freedom of choice and equality of opportunity. And then it is allowed to function. It doesn't happen naturally without conscious human intervention. Naturally, if society was a crude free-for-all, we'd have things that resemble Somalia, or the Mexican drug cartels, or North Korea (along with things like The United States). In these examples of political structures, we have the most powerful taking control of whatever they can take control of. Then they hold it there with whatever means they can for as long as they can. Democracy is like this but all the people say "hey, let's try giving everyone the same amount of power so we can normalize this game called life and control this experiment for longer-term goals." Basically I'm saying that power supersedes even democracy oh the moral pyramid. There is one level even beyond democracy and here you'll find it in the company of authoritarianism, communism, etc. Power is at the top level of this pyramid. It is based on survival of the fittest. Power is the only universal moral because it is a fundamental law of nature. Democracy is not a fundamental law of nature. It is a construct of a specific subgroup of humans. It was conceived and designed to achieve a specific goal. And because there is a goal, and all goals are different, it is a subjective end. Therefore democracy is arbitrary and subjective—not a universal moral. As much as you'd like to believe in inalienable rights, if I have a gun to your head, you can bet I can alienate your "natural" rights. Yes, you'll always have the choice of death or obedience, but once you're dead, you're irrelevant. But if you have a bigger gun, then I can no longer "alienate" your rights! You can "alienate" mine! That's power. Democracy is abstracted into laws which are ultimately enforced with power (guns, police... head) Because of this, democracy is not fundamental. It is human-designed construct and therefore it is not a universal thing. Another way to think of it is like this: we have a 10 x 10 grid and we have 100 people. Democracy assigns each person a square. Power lets people take whatever squares they can defend. The end result of these two philosophies will look different, but democracy was specifically designed to artificially treat each person as equal so we can achieve the end goal of giving people a chance to succeed. Supposedly this will help society be better off, but this goal is still an arbitrary goal (though most people would agree on this) and democracy is just the means. The natural outcome is to give spaces to those who can defend it. If you can't defend the space, you don't deserve to own it. Democracy is human manipulation of this system to try to achieve better results. I will fully disclose that I am a firm supporter of democracy (because of the way it normalizes society), but I want to make it clear that it's because it's the best method so far, not because it's inherently right.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  So you think freedom to criticize the government isn't really needed? It would be cool if the government could simply murder anyone they wanted and no one could say anything? I can't believe I'm reading this on HN. And no I don't believe democracy is fundamentally "right", I believe it is the safest option we currently have because the people who want to be in control are often dangerous. How dangerous they can be is dependent on how much power they have. Show me anywhere in the history of the world where not having the right to criticize the government turned out well in the long term.
lostlogin 13y ago
I seem to remember a lottery that was run in 1984 - the Orwell book.

chrischen 13y ago

I think you probably went through the US education system? US schools brainwash kids into thinking that democracy and freedom to criticize the government are inherently good concepts, but in reality they are only desirable because of the practical effects it may or may not produce. There are no universal morals, and because of that you can't say democracy is inherently "right." So I have to side with your parent and say that democracy is only "right" if you believe that its effects in improving society objectively are "right." Schools just simplify it as "democracy is inherently right" because its easier to indoctrinate that principle.

jackowayed 13y ago
But the comment I replied to basically posited "wealth" as the one and only universal good by suggesting that if the government strives for something that doesn't eventually yield wealth, there's no point. An overused example: Fascism has at times lead to incredible economic growth, creating wealth that did measurable good in most citizen's lives (by ending terrible depressions). But there was more that came along with that, which mostly wasn't cutting into the country's wealth (maybe it squanders some human capital, but so does 30% unemployment, which the Nazis completely reversed in around 5 years). Despite the positive implications of fascism on "wealth", there's a lot that the Nazis did that most would be inclined to call bad. On the other hand, Scandanavian socialist democracy may not be optimal for wealth creation, but it has a lot of benefits that help people lead enjoyable lives that are free from the risk of various kinds of terrible suffering (eg. homelessness). There are no universal goods, but when pushed, very few people are actually willing to eschew all goods except wealth. And if you are, what's so special about wealth that makes it a good you're willing to quasi-universalize?
- venus 13y ago
  I used the word wealth because I was replying to another post which used it when trying to set up a false dichotomy between political freedom on one side and "wealth" on the other, as if they're opposites and you can have one or the other, not both. I wasn't trying to say that the sole goal of government is to get everyone rich. But I did say long term - long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. For that matter the nordic social experiment cannot be said to have succeeded yet. Really, none of this has been around long enough to make any final conclusions about anything. Anyway. Instead of "wealth" you might want to read "social wealth" - the ability of a society to provide good jobs, education, social mobility, health care, long term satisfaction, security of state and person, those kinds things.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    > long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. Germany is the exporting powerhouse of Europe. But just to be clear, you would be ok with the whole holocaust thing if Germany now had the GDP (or whatever metric you want to use for "social wealth") of the US as a result?
    - lloeki 13y ago
      > Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. I think you meant Volkswagen Group, created in 1937 by the Nazis and backed by Hitler to create the Type 1 (a.k.a Beetle). Today, Volkswagen owns Audi, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, Porsche, Ducati, Seat, Skoda, and has a majority of shares in Suzuki. Mercedes is small fry compared do VG.
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        Mercedes was just off the top of my head. There are many businesses that did well under Hitler and still do well today.
- chrischen 13y ago
  I'm sure venus meant "wealth" as "well-being." GDP is one potential way to measure it... but it may or may not be flawed. We're just referring to "wealth" as a theoretical concept we can't perfectly measure.
oillio 13y ago
Someone in this thread already quoted the US constitution, so I won't do it again. This is not just taught by the US school systems, this is the basis on which the United States was founded. It is taught in the school system because the populace of the US believe that there are in fact universal morals. We believe that it is self evident that one of these morals is our right (not privilege) to seek freedom to question the government. It is in the first line of our mission statement. To tell someone that their beliefs are wrong simply because of where they originated is rather arrogant. You have no idea the OP's background and how deeply they have questioned their own beliefs. It is perfectly fine to disagree with this opinion. However, you must argue against the actual opinion, dismissing it due to where or how it is taught provides nothing to the discussion. P.S. - Sorry everyone for feeding the trolls.
- chrischen 13y ago
  I never said his beliefs were wrong. In fact, believing in universal morals is the act of treating everyone with different morals as if they are wrong. I simply argued to the parent post that is there is no such thing as universal morals, and our morals, ideals, goals are all framed around an end we want to achieve. And that end, whatever is, can be arbitrarily defined... so morals therefore are also arbitrarily defined. Believing in universal morals is stating that your morals are better than others because you believe in it. It's just like nationalism. You'll believe your country is better because you were born in it, just as you might believe your morals are better than others (universal) simply because you've been indoctrinated by them. Just as your school isn't necessarily right when indoctrinating you with morals, your country's founding fathers may not be right either. It might have been right for the purposes of the country, but you really do have to see things from other perspectives. I hope people reading this also take note of the subtle name calling oillio just committed (calling me a troll). If life were that simple we could just dismiss every opposing viewpoint as a troll, just as in minesweeper marking everything a flag... but it doesn't work that way.
comicjk 13y ago
I agree that there are no universal morals. I propose this solution: we let everyone follow his own morals as much as possible, and when it's impossible for everyone to be satisfied on a given point, we vote on it. Constitutional democracy is not a denial that people have different morals - it's based on that fact.
- chrischen 13y ago
  Constitutional democracy only works if the whole population agrees to the moral and practical superiority of freedom of choice and equality of opportunity. And then it is allowed to function. It doesn't happen naturally without conscious human intervention. Naturally, if society was a crude free-for-all, we'd have things that resemble Somalia, or the Mexican drug cartels, or North Korea (along with things like The United States). In these examples of political structures, we have the most powerful taking control of whatever they can take control of. Then they hold it there with whatever means they can for as long as they can. Democracy is like this but all the people say "hey, let's try giving everyone the same amount of power so we can normalize this game called life and control this experiment for longer-term goals." Basically I'm saying that power supersedes even democracy oh the moral pyramid. There is one level even beyond democracy and here you'll find it in the company of authoritarianism, communism, etc. Power is at the top level of this pyramid. It is based on survival of the fittest. Power is the only universal moral because it is a fundamental law of nature. Democracy is not a fundamental law of nature. It is a construct of a specific subgroup of humans. It was conceived and designed to achieve a specific goal. And because there is a goal, and all goals are different, it is a subjective end. Therefore democracy is arbitrary and subjective—not a universal moral. As much as you'd like to believe in inalienable rights, if I have a gun to your head, you can bet I can alienate your "natural" rights. Yes, you'll always have the choice of death or obedience, but once you're dead, you're irrelevant. But if you have a bigger gun, then I can no longer "alienate" your rights! You can "alienate" mine! That's power. Democracy is abstracted into laws which are ultimately enforced with power (guns, police... head) Because of this, democracy is not fundamental. It is human-designed construct and therefore it is not a universal thing. Another way to think of it is like this: we have a 10 x 10 grid and we have 100 people. Democracy assigns each person a square. Power lets people take whatever squares they can defend. The end result of these two philosophies will look different, but democracy was specifically designed to artificially treat each person as equal so we can achieve the end goal of giving people a chance to succeed. Supposedly this will help society be better off, but this goal is still an arbitrary goal (though most people would agree on this) and democracy is just the means. The natural outcome is to give spaces to those who can defend it. If you can't defend the space, you don't deserve to own it. Democracy is human manipulation of this system to try to achieve better results. I will fully disclose that I am a firm supporter of democracy (because of the way it normalizes society), but I want to make it clear that it's because it's the best method so far, not because it's inherently right.
flyinRyan 13y ago
So you think freedom to criticize the government isn't really needed? It would be cool if the government could simply murder anyone they wanted and no one could say anything? I can't believe I'm reading this on HN. And no I don't believe democracy is fundamentally "right", I believe it is the safest option we currently have because the people who want to be in control are often dangerous. How dangerous they can be is dependent on how much power they have. Show me anywhere in the history of the world where not having the right to criticize the government turned out well in the long term.

lostlogin 13y ago

I seem to remember a lottery that was run in 1984 - the Orwell book.