Perhaps it's a difference in definition, then. Selfishness <> evil. Think about infants. They are the most selfish beasts on the planet, but, I would say, they are incapable of evil thoughts, at least according to my definition.

geojanes wrote:Perhaps it's a difference in definition, then. Selfishness <> evil. Think about infants. They are the most selfish beasts on the planet, but, I would say, they are incapable of evil thoughts, at least according to my definition.

Right, but when it comes to government, selfishness IS the problem. Imagine what the US would look like if no one was lazy, everyone worked as hard as they could, no one stole anything and anything more than you need was given voluntarily to someone in need.

We would be one rich country.

However, some people are lazy. Some people work, but aren't interested in doing their best. Many people think taking advantage of some situations (stealing from work, IP theft, or more grandiose theft) is just fine.

This is why government may be the answer in some instances, but it is never a "good" answer.

Doctor Fate wrote:Another example: Why can't pure socialism work? Why is Marx wrong and Orwell right (in Animal Farm)?

You clearly did not get the message of Animal Farm. Orwell was a life-long socialist, and affirmed that after having writing Animal Farm and Nineteen Eight-Four. Both books are as much an attack on those who pervert socialism for their own ends as anything else. Both are left-wing critiques of the Soviet Union and similar states.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Another example: Why can't pure socialism work? Why is Marx wrong and Orwell right (in Animal Farm)?

You clearly did not get the message of Animal Farm. Orwell was a life-long socialist, and affirmed that after having writing Animal Farm and Nineteen Eight-Four. Both books are as much an attack on those who pervert socialism for their own ends as anything else. Both are left-wing critiques of the Soviet Union and similar states.

Oh, okay, so Orwell didn't propose that getting rid of the farmer and putting the pigs in charge was no improvement?

It had nothing to do with human nature? Oh, okay, thanks.

Hey, while you're at it, Mr. Orwell Expert, go to wikipedia and straighten it out:

The novel addresses not only the corruption of the revolution by its leaders but also how wickedness, indifference, ignorance, greed and myopia corrupt the revolution. It portrays corrupt leadership as the flaw in revolution, rather than the act of revolution itself. It also shows how potential ignorance and indifference to problems within a revolution could allow horrors to happen if a smooth transition to a people's government is not achieved.

In fact, why not just stay there for a week or two?

Doctor Fate wrote:Oh, okay, so Orwell didn't propose that getting rid of the farmer and putting the pigs in charge was no improvement?

Yes. In that, he was alluding to revolutionary (and particularly post-revolutionary) regimes. They don't even need to be socialist revolutions to encounter the danger of simply replacing the old boss with the new boss.

It had nothing to do with human nature? Oh, okay, thanks.

Of course it had something to do with human nature. But not necessarily the same misanthropic message that you have for us.

Oh, we are dealing with an intellectual here. English major, or Pol Sci?

Or just someone who gets their knowledge from Wikipedia, perhaps.

Where in that bit you quoted did it mention socialism? The same revolutionary/post-revolutionary issues arose after the English Civil War, the American and French Revolutions, the Bolivaran Revolutions and all kinds of non-socialist revolutions around the world.

So, now you are getting to the message of Animal Farm, are you prepared to accept that it's not a denunciation of socialism?

Read carefully, Ofoolio.

I did not say that Animal Farm was a denunciation of socialism. It had to do with the untrustworthiness of people.

That's not misanthropy. It's reality.

Doctor Fate wrote:Read carefully, Ofoolio.

I did not say that Animal Farm was a denunciation of socialism. It had to do with the untrustworthiness of people.

That's not misanthropy. It's reality.

Oh, so when you wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Another example: Why can't pure socialism work? Why is Marx wrong and Orwell right (in Animal Farm)?

you didn't actually mean to juxtapose Animal Farm and Marx and how they talked about socialism?

Orwell was a socialist. He thought socialism would work, and he even thought revolution could work (although he was generally of more of a democratic bent). Animal Farm is not saying 'pure socialism doesn't work'. It's saying 'the dictatorship of the proletariat can be hijacked', which is a different thing entirely.

And quit calling people names. 'Ofoolio' - what is that about?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Read carefully, Ofoolio.

I did not say that Animal Farm was a denunciation of socialism. It had to do with the untrustworthiness of people.

That's not misanthropy. It's reality.

Oh, so when you wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Another example: Why can't pure socialism work? Why is Marx wrong and Orwell right (in Animal Farm)?

you didn't actually mean to juxtapose Animal Farm and Marx and how they talked about socialism?

Orwell was a socialist. He thought socialism would work, and he even thought revolution could work (although he was generally of more of a democratic bent). Animal Farm is not saying 'pure socialism doesn't work'. It's saying 'the dictatorship of the proletariat can be hijacked', which is a different thing entirely.

And quit calling people names. 'Ofoolio' - what is that about?

I'm pretty tired of your ridiculous argumentation. In context, my point was clear. The entire line was about the nature of mankind. It was not a dissection of Orwell's work. You knew that and were pretty much being a jerk.

I'm pretty tired of your need to call people names.

I fully realise that your comments were simply superficial and glib, which is why I wanted to be sure you actually understood what Animal Farm is about (and why it's not actually saying - as you did - that pure socialism can't work).

But it's all just opinion and assertion, without much behind it. Your assumption of inherent evil in man is driving your conclusions, which you then feed back as evidence to back up your assumption. It's pretty circular logic. You don't 'prove' anything by using a work of fiction as your evidence.

The problem with your working assumption is, frankly, that it would pretty much lead to the conclusion that any system or society is doomed to fail. That was my point on the previous page with the list of other organisations.

Not to mention that nature abhors a vaccuum. Remove the 'government' and something else will take it's place - another institution or set of institutions will have some 'power' over us.

I don't disagree that we need to be vigilant about governments, they can indeed be wasteful and malign. But so can any other human agency, and it's not simply a case of setting arbitrary limits on what government can and cannot do that stops it - it's active engagement.

danivon wrote:I'm pretty tired of your need to call people names.

I fully realise that your comments were simply superficial and glib, which is why I wanted to be sure you actually understood what Animal Farm is about (and why it's not actually saying - as you did - that pure socialism can't work).

But it's all just opinion and assertion, without much behind it. Your assumption of inherent evil in man is driving your conclusions, which you then feed back as evidence to back up your assumption. It's pretty circular logic. You don't 'prove' anything by using a work of fiction as your evidence.

The problem with your working assumption is, frankly, that it would pretty much lead to the conclusion that any system or society is doomed to fail. That was my point on the previous page with the list of other organisations.

Not to mention that nature abhors a vaccuum. Remove the 'government' and something else will take it's place - another institution or set of institutions will have some 'power' over us.

I don't disagree that we need to be vigilant about governments, they can indeed be wasteful and malign. But so can any other human agency, and it's not simply a case of setting arbitrary limits on what government can and cannot do that stops it - it's active engagement.

You don't like name-calling?

I don't like you lying. You say I said Animal Farm was about why "pure socialism can't work." That's not what I said. I cited Orwell's mistrust of people. Period. You twisted that.

I am not an anarchist, which you insinuate.

Stop lying.

The context of you mentioning Animal Farm was just before then you'd said that as a singular example, that pure socialism can't work. You didn't cite anything about Orwell or Animal Farm at that point, other than he being 'right' while Marx was 'wrong'.

Perhaps you meant them as two examples and just wrote it badly, but that would make the two sentences into two total non sequiteurs.

I know you are not an anarchist (and I do not 'insinuate it'), and are fully supportive of some government functions (defence, policing), but the point remains - if government is not involved in certain areas, other organisations will be. They will become powerful and influential in the lives of individuals. Indeed, you suggest that if all churches were like the Mormons in regard to social welfare, the government would be superfluous. Of course, one of the effects would be that such welfare would be for 'members' of churches (and not all people are members), which does give those churches power over people. If you don't act in the way they like, thay can exclude you from the church, your access to welfare is not just dependent on your ability to contribute, but also upon mainatining the 'right' faith.

Alternatively, you could end up with the kind of thing that has plagued the Roman Catholic Church in regards to protection of clerics in a position of trust who committed abuses - the RCC did not protect the vulnerable and was corrupted, but even in places where it was not the established religion such abuse happened. Fixating on 'government' as the problem ignores how your same thesis would predict what happens where government is not involved - that same 'inherent evil' will cause the same issues to arise elsewhere.

Danivon, I wrote:

Just what did the welfare recipient, George Romney, receive? You brought it up, so answer it.

a full page ago. You never responded.

Why not? Do you now admit you were just making stuff up? If he received such a huge boost, surely you can find out what it was.

From now on, I'm fighting on your terms.

danivon wrote:The context of you mentioning Animal Farm was just before then you'd said that as a singular example, that pure socialism can't work. You didn't cite anything about Orwell or Animal Farm at that point, other than he being 'right' while Marx was 'wrong'. .

Um, hmm. Let's go to the tape. Geojanes had postulated:

Man is inherently evil? Flawed, sure, capable of evil of course, but inherently evil? I got to agree with Dan on that one, that's a thoroughly depressing outlook.

I responded:

Doctor Fate wrote:Another example: Why can't pure socialism work? Why is Marx wrong and Orwell right (in Animal Farm)?

Because men are inherently selfish. Pure socialism would only work if everyone were selfless. That is not the nature of man.

In context, am I writing a review of Animal Farm or talking about the nature of man?

Only an idiot or someone behaving dishonestly would characterize it as you have.

Perhaps you meant them as two examples and just wrote it badly, but that would make the two sentences into two total non sequiteurs.

Or, just maybe . . . you're reading too fast and importing whatever meaning you'd like?

Indeed, you suggest that if all churches were like the Mormons in regard to social welfare, the government would be superfluous.

Read it again, bub. I said "government assistance," not "government."

Of course, one of the effects would be that such welfare would be for 'members' of churches (and not all people are members), which does give those churches power over people.

Right, because churches don't help people outside of themselves? Is that what you are saying?

Or, are you saying it's okay for the government to have that kind of power over people's lives, which you say comes with the giving of aid?

So, taking a step back, it seems to me that one has to acknowledge that people are both selfish and altruistic. (I prefer not to use the terms good and evil.) Biologists will tell you that altruism was and is necessary for the group to survive. You take care of your group for mutual benefit. Every day soldiers risk their lives for their group. You take a risk so that the clan can take down a buffalo. You share information so that others can harvest good plants. Sometimes you take care of their kids with no obvious quid pro quo.

However, selfishness is also necessary for genetic survival within the group. If you are only selfless, you may not eat your share of food, or mate. Clearly a gene that told you to stand back when the clan was attacked will survive more than the gene that always goes to the front line. Taking some good food, or having some fun with another's person's mate has it's survival advantages. It's selfish. Whether it's evil is another question.

I think that you have to acknowledge the duality of the human psyche. Certain religions has grappled with these issues and can provide us with some insight.

As it relates to our current political debate, I'm always amazed when conservatives deny that there are some people on food stamps that should be. Similarly I'm equally amazed when liberals deny that there are cheats in government programs. Sometimes there are multi-generational cheats, and sometimes there is a culture of doing so that is firmly rooted in families and neighborhoods.

Although Romney stated it crudely, and exagerated the extent, there is a certain level of truth to it. There are many Americans who just want more, and don't want to work. They are not motivated to vote for anyone who will cut down government spending. This is a serious issue. At the same time, I do think that the payroll and other taxes that poor people pay are real. If you don't include the payroll taxes that they pay in, then you should also exclude the social security and medicare benefits that they take out. However, let's also be cognizant that there are structural imbalances to these programs that need to be fixed.

Regarding Orwell, his intent may have been to call for democratic socialism vis-a-vis non-democratic socialism; however, for me his books resonate as a critic of revolutionary socialism. I appreciate his intelligence and abilty, but I think he doesn't fully understand the selfishness gene the way a police detective does after many years on the job. Human nature is what it is; I posit that revolutions go bad more often than they go well.

Give me capitalism, democracy, a rule of law (including property right) and free trade. Soften it with some social spending. But let's marvel at the brilliance of an economic / political system that can temper human selfishness, nay, channel human selfishness for maximum well being. Let's marvel at an economic / political system that can create checks and balances, both political and economic, that can protect liberty, which by definition means protecting property, and also guard against tyrany.

Okay, I'm on cold medicine right now so I'm not sure whether this is brilliant or crazy talk.