Chomsky and Aristotle on the Common Good

[Fishking]

Wow, OK. We may not be that far apart in our positions after all.

But I think you can see how it might irk you if any of those proposals are constantly dismissed and torpedoed by the other side as “slippery slope to communism.”

Part of that slippery slope issue is because there are actually those who will keep pushing for more and more. I'll give you an example of something that goes way over the line, and it's out of the mainstream.

L.A. voters to decide whether hotels must rent vacant rooms to homeless people

A controversial measure that would require hotels in Los Angeles to provide vacant rooms to homeless people will go before voters in 2024.

www.latimes.com

Sorry, but you can't basically take over a business and force them to take in homeless, which would end up with their property damaged and people not renting there because they will not want to be sharing a hotel with druggies and violent mentally ill homeless people. It's things like this is what causes a lack of trust in any sensible measures and it's justified.

 

[Fishking]

Noam Chomsky is an anarchist. Obviously, he would oppose hierarchies and classes.

Where did you get your education on politics and societies?

*points generally at history* There hasn't been a government that existed, ever, that wasn't deeply involved in the establishment of hierarchies.

No, it is not the best option. Capitalism has always proven to be a problem because of the inherent greed and abuses to increase wealth. Depressions and recessions are the results of the predatory abuses of capitalism. The best is mixed or full market socialism where the private workers (private partnerships) along with the consumers (co-ops) in some cases, plus the government (utilities) owns and controls the means of production. Obviously I support unions. They aren't perfect but they are far better than the alternative, which can border and even be slavery.

It most certainly is the best option. It has more than proven itself. Capitalism is responsible for bringing more people out of poverty than any other force to have ever existed in the entire history of human civilization.

Unions had a roll to play in the past, but most of that is either over with or they've become too corrupted to be worth anything. If they could be reasonable then there is still some roll there. Most of what unions were needed for have been taken care of via government regulations and agencies, like OSHA. About the only thing unions accomplish now is killing jobs. The only place they can operate without causing more harm than good are government unions, where the jobs can't go anywhere and the government can always print more money.

 

[Lisa]

*points generally at history* There hasn't been a government that existed, ever, that wasn't deeply involved in the establishment of hierarchies.

Governments aren't perfect.

It most certainly is the best option. It has more than proven itself. Capitalism is responsible for bringing more people out of poverty than any other force to have ever existed in the entire history of human civilization.

No, it isn't the best option. The past 500 years have proven that. Capitalism is the cause of most poverty because capitalists want more money for themselves. Slavery is the ultimate form of labor for capitalists because of the lost cost. A market economy might have helped bring people out of debt but it wasn't capitalist.

Unions had a roll to play in the past, but most of that is either over with or they've become too corrupted to be worth anything. If they could be reasonable then there is still some roll there. Most of what unions were needed for have been taken care of via government regulations and agencies, like OSHA. About the only thing unions accomplish now is killing jobs. The only place they can operate without causing more harm than good are government unions, where the jobs can't go anywhere and the government can always print more money.

Union membership in the US is on a very sharp rise in the past 2 years as people have learned their lesson about trusting the claims of management. Unions create jobs and have created the middle class.

 

[Deuce]

*points generally at history* There hasn't been a government that existed, ever, that wasn't deeply involved in the establishment of hierarchies.

It most certainly is the best option. It has more than proven itself. Capitalism is responsible for bringing more people out of poverty than any other force to have ever existed in the entire history of human civilization.

Unions had a roll to play in the past, but most of that is either over with or they've become too corrupted to be worth anything. If they could be reasonable then there is still some roll there. Most of what unions were needed for have been taken care of via government regulations and agencies, like OSHA. About the only thing unions accomplish now is killing jobs. The only place they can operate without causing more harm than good are government unions, where the jobs can't go anywhere and the government can always print more money.

Strange to claim that unions are no longer needed as their decline coincides with the decline of the middle and working class.

 

[ataraxia]

Part of that slippery slope issue is because there are actually those who will keep pushing for more and more. I'll give you an example of something that goes way over the line, and it's out of the mainstream.

L.A. voters to decide whether hotels must rent vacant rooms to homeless people

A controversial measure that would require hotels in Los Angeles to provide vacant rooms to homeless people will go before voters in 2024.

www.latimes.com

Sorry, but you can't basically take over a business and force them to take in homeless, which would end up with their property damaged and people not renting there because they will not want to be sharing a hotel with druggies and violent mentally ill homeless people. It's things like this is what causes a lack of trust in any sensible measures and it's justified.

It’s an always delicate and dynamic balance between admittedly opposing, but equally legitimate considerations.

What seems over the line to me is for example Trump wanting to gut healthcare with h the refrain “America will never be a socialist nation”. It’s not an “either/or” thing. No developed economy in the world is “either/or”. All modern developed economies are hybrid systems. It’s not because they are all stupid and anti-American.

 

[Fishking]

Strange to claim that unions are no longer needed as their decline coincides with the decline of the middle and working class.

What has caused the decline of our middle and working class is globalism offshoring our production jobs and the rebuilt global economy after the destruction from WWI and WWII.

 

[Fishking]

Governments aren't perfect.

Yeah...that's the point. Governments, and people, aren't perfect. This is why places like China is what you get from Communism, because we live in the real world.

No, it isn't the best option. The past 500 years have proven that. Capitalism is the cause of most poverty because capitalists want more money for themselves. Slavery is the ultimate form of labor for capitalists because of the lost cost. A market economy might have helped bring people out of debt but it wasn't capitalist.

Slavery has been around the entire history of humankind. Also, capitalism has only been around since thr 18th century. You don't get to just point at X bad thing and make up that it was because of capitalism, devoid of facts and reality.

Union membership in the US is on a very sharp rise in the past 2 years as people have learned their lesson about trusting the claims of management. Unions create jobs and have created the middle class.

It's not about a popularity contest.