Re: Commercialism: Savior of Happiness and Vitality or Signs of Excessive Consumerism
Is there a difference? There's no practical ceiling on the amount of wealth one can amass, even with the robust social systems in place.
Driving the political will of the citizenry to maximize positive individual outcomes is not exclusive to wealth. There is a vast difference between protecting the interests of the group as opposed to ensuring the rights of the individual. Some would argue from a philosophical perspective that one cannot break the union which is a support of the people hoisted by the protection of the individual. There's some merit to that argument, but pragmatically speaking, there is a very real difference between deciding on political language that can either favor the group or the individual but not necessarily both.
That rhetorical question -- that subjective judgment -- is exactly what the political divide is over. I'm not so sure that our rate of consumption is as exaggerated as you say, but I agree that we're likely to sustain ourselves with new innovations. I think renewable resources are an inevitability. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of the potential risks or not take steps to remediate them. I'd prefer we stop short of force in a free society. That said, I certainly support laws against unnecessary harmful action, such as overt pollution.
I completely agree with that subjective judgement, but neither of us is willing to use force to make others conform to our judgements.
I acknowledge that the motive behind the thread was to poke at the hypocrisy of a generalized ideology. I grew up in a strongly self-identifying liberal (liberal in the American political sense) family. My closest relatives (primarily my professor grandparents) would mention the republican praise for industrialists like Carnegie, Ford, and Edison in the same sentence as a character assault. To my grandfather, the above mentioned names were nothing but anti-semitic and racist bigots. Though I personally despise the business ethics and techniques of Edison, I'd have to admit that these industrialists helped deliver the most essential commodities to the working individual. That huge positive certainly would outweigh any one of their personal discrepancies.
Just like the case of my grandfather and his view of Henry Ford, the general liberal's view of commercialism neglects to even consider the benefits, over the long-term, that can be directly traced back to this idea of commercialism.
Subliminal messages are not consciously perceived, direct emotional appeals are. Wikipedia calls i "phsychological pressure." I'm sure you wouldn't dispute that more than just a product's effectiveness influences a modern consumer's spending decisions.
Yes, but I never said advertising has absolutely on effects on consumer spending habits. I merely reflected on the fact that each study conducted has only produced evidence which is contrary to the subliminal stimuli theory. The effectiveness and affordability of the product is the most defining reasons for consumer purchases. Advertising is a distant third.
Many to the left of me support greater restrictions on some consumerism, such as trans-fat bans. Personally, I think most such restrictions are misguided and unnecessary. Many on the right support the war on drugs. I think that's misguided as well.
I appreciate your diplomatic moderation, but in my view you're picking and choosing which restriction is misguided and which one is necessary. All lives of all citizens must not be dictated by the political and moral preferences of certain interested individuals. The question which is always posed, but which is never fully answered is where do you draw the line?
But I'm not convinced that the mainstream left refuses to see the benefits of commercial enterprise. Socialists don't, sure. But they are vastly outnumbered in the U.S. by mainstream liberals who support capitalism.
That's a nice argument, but bringing up socialism is not going to help in this discussion. I personally find it difficult to distinguish between far-left democrats (who are considered politically "liberal") and socialists. Mainly, I believe liberals in America pick and choose which socialists policies they tend to support, but generally they're not too far off. You take each "liberal" politician, and match him or her up against a typical western European-style democrat socialist, and you'd be hard-pressed to find political differences. Again, it's all a matter of picking and choosing which governing regulations should stand and which ones should cease. The logic underscoring these subjective decisions is extremely inconsistent in my observation.
